20041780 Ver 1-_Complete File_20041102

FILE COPY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 27, 2004
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890 r T
s ' -1
1-
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 '
Attention: Mr. Dave Timpy, USACE 041780 D NIO I/ U -;t???4
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject:
Application for Nationwide 23 Permit
DENR - 4"* N(? QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 3 over Little Northeast Creek, in Onslow
County, Division 3, Fed. Project No. BRSTP-1423(3), State Project No.
8.226120 1, WBS Element 33224.1.1, TIP B-3682.
Proposed widening and realignment of SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road) from SR
1411 (Waters Road) to SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop), in Onslow County,
Division 3, Fed. Project No. STP-1423(2), State Project No. 8.7326024, WBS
Element 35052.1.1, TIP W-3413.
Please find the enclosed copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE), permit drawings, Restoration
Plan, EEP mitigation acceptance letter, half size plans, and the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality Stormwater Management Permit.
The proposed bridge replacement project, TIP B-3682, calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 3
on SR 1423. Bridge No. 3 crosses Little Northeast Creek, located in the New River and
Tributaries Subbasin 03-05-02. The current bridge is 70 feet long, with a 24 foot roadway width.
Built in 1964, it consists of four spans and has a reinforced concrete floor and timber joists on
timber caps and piles. The deck is 12 feet above the streambed of Little Northeast Creek.
According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance records, the bridge's sufficiency rating is 19.9 out of
a possible 100.0. Part of the roadway will be realigned, and a new bridge will be built on a new
location to replace the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the existing alignment
during the construction period. The existing bridge will be removed upon completion of the new
bridge.
Roadway improvement project W-3413 is located adjacent to the proposed bridge replacement
project and will be included with B-3682 for permitting purposes. This 2.0 mile project
proposes to improve the horizontal curvature of SR 1423 from SR 1427 to SR 1413 in Onslow
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1596 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1596
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
PLB SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27604
2
County. Bridge No. 3 will be removed and replaced at a new location in conjunction with this
proposed alignment. Currently SR 1423 is a two-lane paved facility, with pavement width
varying from 18 feet to 21 feet. The existing roadway is characterized by tangent sections with
abrupt transitions to sharp curvature. The existing horizontal alignments are substandard for the
posted speed limit. The realigned roadway will be upgraded to AASHTO standards. The
realigned roadway will have a 24 foot travelway, with 4 foot paved shoulders and 4 foot grassed
shoulders along each side. Where guardrail is required, shoulders will be increased by a
minimum of 3 feet on each side. The new roadway will be at approximately the same elevation
as the existing structure. This proposed project (W-3413) crosses three intermittent unnamed
tributaries (UT) and one perennial UT of Horse Swamp.
An on-site field meeting was held on September 27, 2004. Attendees of this meeting include:
Mr. Bill Arrington (NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM)), Mr. Dave Timpy (Army
Corps of Engineers (USACOE)), Mr. Mason Herndon (Division 3 Environmental Officer) and
Ms. Cheryl Knepp (NCDOT Office of Natural Environment (ONE)). This meeting addressed
the following issues:
1) Summarize any discrepancies between the permit drawing impacts and impacts addressed in
the CE.
Discrepancies are minor between impacts accrued in the CE and in the permit drawings. The
CE offers a guideline on proposed work, where the permit drawings are the actual designed
impacts. When the CE is signed, the design plan is preliminary; and, therefore, impacts are
estimates. Wetlands A, B, and L were avoided with only temporary impacts being associated
with them as stated in the CE (Table 3, CE B-3682). The impacts shown in the permit
drawings for wetlands D, K, Q and P differed slightly from those shown in the CE (see also
Table 13, CE W-3413). Channel impacts weren't calculated in the CE; channel impacts
were associated with adjacent wetlands. The main difference between the CE and the permit
drawings is the impact to UT 2 and wetlands M and N; the CE shows impacts totaling
0.0135 acre. The proposed permit drawings avoid impacts to that area altogether by
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median width,
ROW widths, fill slopes and /or road shoulder width.
2) Describe the bridge construction methods to be used.
After review of the structure plans, Mr. Mason Herndon determined the bridge will be cored
slab concrete; therefore, top down construction will be used with pile driving installation
methods.
3) Each TIP has a separate Categorical Exclusion document associated with it. For efficiency
purposes, Mr. Timpy agreed to allow the projects to be permitted together.
4) The designation of Little Northeast Creek as a "public trust area" is questionable. The
stream is marginally navigable by canoe. It seems the area directly under the bridge may
have been dredged years ago to allow for greater clearance underneath. This dredging was
done to allow safe passage of materials under the bridge during flood events. There is a
navigational difference about 50 feet up and downstream of the bridge where the stream
returns to its natural meander. It is questionable if a canoe could navigate that area. Mr.
Arrington wanted to review the determination made in 2001. Upon conference with Mr.
Arrington's supervisor, Ms. Cathy Brittingham, he came to the conclusion on 10/6/04, that
the project does not fall within an AEC therefore not requiring a CAMA permit.
5) Create a restoration plan for the causeway and bridge removal.
The removal of Bridge No. 3 should include extracting (or cutting to streambed elevation)
the pilings, including those from previous bridge replacements. This will allow boat traffic
to better maneuver Little Northeast Creek. The causeway will be graded down to normal
elevation and replanted with indigenous wetland vegetation. The wetlands surrounding the
B-3682/W-3413
3
causeway will be reconnected after the extirpation of the roadway. This on-site mitigation
will allow other impacts within the project area to counterbalance, therefore eliminating the
off site mitigation request to the EEP. The complete Restoration Plan is attached.
All streams and tributaries that are to be impacted by roadway fill and pipe extensions were
reviewed. This included UT #: 0, 1, 5, & 6. After examination, Mr. Timpy decided all would
be considered intermittent, not requiring mitigation.
Also, at the time of the site visit, all linear impacts were calculated from easement to
easement. However, upon review, impacts will not extend that far. The following changes
have been made:
For "Fill in Surface Water", the impacts are shown from the end of the existing pipe out to
the end of the new pipe on the upstream end and out to the end of the rip rap pad on the
downstream end.
For "Existing Channel Impacted," the channel length was measured from the end of the
existing pipe to the end of the new pipe on the upstream end. For the downstream end,
measurements were taken from the end of the existing pipe to the downstream end of the rip
rap pad.
PROPOSED IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: Horse Swamp and Little Northeast Creek are located in the White Oak
River Basin (Hydrological Cataloging Unit 03030001) and are both classified by the Division of
Water Quality as C NSW. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II), nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the
project area.
The structure targeted for replacement spans the open water stream associated with Little
Northeast Creek. This section of Little Northeast Creek has been assigned Stream Index
Number 19-16-2 by the NC DWQ. Little Northeast Creek flows into Northeast Creek
approximately 3.8 miles downstream (south) of Bridge No. 3. Field investigations indicate that
floodplain wetlands (WL: A, B, D, L) occur along both sides of Little Northeast Creek north and
south of SR 1423. Little Northeast Creek is classified as a 303(d) Biologically Impaired Water
from its source to Northeast Creek. According to the North Carolina 2003 Impaired Waters List,
the cause of impairment is due to its low dissolved oxygen levels. Potential sources of this
impairment are urban runoff or storm sewers. Table 1 explains the Cowardin Classification and
NC DWQ rating for each impacted wetland. Additional streams or tributaries impacted by the
widening roadway improvements are associated with Horse Swamp, which has been assigned
Stream Index Number 19-16-2-1 by the NC DWQ. Horse Swamp flows into Little Northeast
Creek. There are 3 wetlands (WL: K, Q, P) that will be associated with the impacts of the
roadway widening project (see Table 2).
Table 1. Classification of Wet lands within the Project Area
PERMIT DRAWING
STATION CE SITE ID COWARDIN CLASS NC DWQ RATING
L 27+70 Lt/Rt WL A PFO 1 EM 1 59
L 28+60 LT/RT WL B PFOIEMI 29
L 29+50 RT WL D PFO 1 EM I 33
L 25+50 RT WL K PFO1 EM2B 42
L 27+20 LT/RT WL L PFO 1 EM 1 B 59
L 102+10 LT WL PFO1 E 40
L 116+15 RT WL P PEMI 13
B-3682/W-3413
4
Wetland Impacts: The permanent wetland impacts, summarized in Table 2, total 0.15 acre of
7)alustrine: forested broad-leaved deciduous wetlands. These impacts are associated with
mechanized clearing, roadway fill and the installation of 24"and 48" Reinforced Concrete Pipes
;RCP). These impacts are related to widening SR 1423. The temporary wetland impacts
associated with this project are due to hand clearing inside the wetlands for placement of the
iew bridge. These temporary impacts total 0.16 acre (see permit drawing sheets 5-10 for further
ietails).
Stream Impacts: The stream impacts, summarized in Table 2, include four intermittent
UTs of Horse Swamp (DEM Index No. 19-16-2-1, 8/1/91). Permanent impacts associated
with fill in surface water total 0.05 acre and 208 feet of impacts. These impacts are due to
installation of 24", 36", 42" and 48" RCPs (see permit drawing sheets 5-10 for further
details). ACOE had determined these streams to be intermittent requiring no mitigation (see
field meeting summary above).
Table 2: Summary of Jurisdictional Imnacts
Permit Drawing
Station CE
Site Permanent
Wetlands ac Temporary
Wetlands ac Surface Waters (SW)
ID R NR R NR Fill in SW
ac Channel
Im acts (ft)
L 19+00 Rt UT 0 0.02 47
L 27+70 Lt/Rt WL A 0.07
L 28+60 Lt/Rt WL B 0.03
L 29+50 Rt WL D 0.05 0.02
L 25+50 Rt WL K 0.03
L 27+20 Lt/Rt WL L 0.05
L 51 +00 Lt/Rt UT 1 0.01 60
L 102+10 Lt WL 0.05
L 102+30 Rt UT 5 0.01 35
L 108+50 Lt/Rt UT 6 0.01 66
L 116+15 Rt WL P 0.02

TOTAL 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.05 208
R = Riverine NR = Non-Riverine
Utility Impacts: There will be no permanent utility impacts associated with this site. Any
necessary clearing of wetlands for utility installation will utilize mats and non-mechanized
means, no grubbing methods will be used. All areas where new buried cable or aerial electric
utility lines cross the creeks will be installed by the directional bore method. A detailed
description of utility work to be performed follows:
Sta. 19+00 -L-
UT # 0 (UT= Unnamed Tributary) Permit Drawing says:
- Fill in surface water and Existing Channel Impacted
* proposed waterline on the north end of the proposed drainage pipe
* proposed water line does not impact the wetland permit drawing site and is outside (beyond)
proposed drainage pipe on north side
B-3682/W-3413
5
Jote: Sta. 28+00 -L- Northeast Little Creek
* utilize existing water line crossing under creek
* wetland on northside of bridge might be impacted slightly (if any) due to proposed water line
elocation/construction
>ta. 51+00 -L-
UT #1 Permit Drawing says:
- Fill in surface water and Existing channel impacted
* proposed water line on the north end of the proposed pipe
* proposed water line is within toe of cut slope and under proposed drainage pipe
Sta. 102+50 -L-
Wetland Q Permit Drawing says:
- Excavation in wetland and Mechanized clearing
* proposed water line will be under the proposed drainage pipe
* proposed water line is within toe of fill slope
Sta. 108+50 -L-
UT #6 Permit Drawing says:
- Fill in surface water and Existing channel impacted
* proposed water line will be under drainage
Bridge Demolition: When removing the existing bridge, NCDOT shall not allow debris to fall
into the water. The contractor shall remove the bridge and submit plans for demolition in
accordance with Article 402-2 of the Standard Specifications. Possible methods for bridge
removal involve the contractor lifting out each span with a crane, or saw cutting the bridge in
sections, and then lifting these sections out. The piles would either be pulled, or cut off at the
mud line.
Removal of Bridge No. 3 should not cause any impacts to Little Northeast Creek or its adjacent
wetlands, however, installation of a turbidity curtain is recommended for pile removal and
installation.
Due to the possibility of anadramous fish in Little Northeast Creek, bridge demolition is
classified as a Case 2, which allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods
associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas. This
moratorium period begins February 15 and lasts until September 30.
Schedule for Construction: It is assumed that the Contractor will begin construction of the
proposed bridge work shortly after the date of availability for the project. The let date is March
15, 2005 with a date of availability of April 26, 2005.
B-3682/W-3413
6
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION
voidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to "Waters
f the United States". The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable
esign features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory
litigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional stages; minimization measures were
icorporated as part of the project design.
Practical means to minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands impacted by the proposed
project include:
¦ Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median width,
ROW widths, fill slopes and /or road shoulder widths.
¦ Installation of temporary silt fences, turbidity curtains, earth berms, and temporary ground
cover during construction.
¦ Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the protection of surface
waters and wetlands.
¦ Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies.
The project was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands in the area to the
maximum extent practicable. The project alignment was chosen to cross the narrowest band of
wetlands at the bridge approaches. Additionally, a 200 foot long bridge is proposed which will
span and avoid filling most of the wetlands in the area. As a result, impacts were avoided to
wetlands A, B, E, F, H, and L. NCDOT also coordinated with the USACE to avoid filling the
highest quality wetlands A and L. We were not able to avoid all impacts, however. Impacts to
wetlands D and K were unavoidable due to the bridge approach fill. Impacts to wetlands D and
K were minimized by decreasing the project footprint in wetlands by the use of 3:1 side slopes
and crossing wetlands perpendicularly. Additionally, measures to control erosion during
construction will be incorporated as well as strict enforcement of BMPs. The Ecosystem
Enhancement Program has confirmed that they will provide mitigation for all impacts. If the
proposed restoration plan (see attached) is approved for on-site mitigation then EEP will be
promptly notified. Project Development & Environmental Analysis Natural Environment
Engineering Unit shall be notified before any construction begins with the onsite mitigation
proposal.
INDIRECT AND CUMMULATIVE IMPACTS
Based on the forecast in the Onslow County, North Carolina 1997 Land Use Plan, during the
next seven to ten year period, Onslow County anticipates no substantial development in the
study area. However, Onslow County has no formal zoning requirements; therefore, unplanned
development may occur. The proposed improvements, while enhancing safety, are not expected
to make the study area more attractive to developers. In addition, the lack of sewer services
within the study area is expected to deter development. Furthermore, the proposed
improvements will improve vehicle and driver safety along the roadway but will not increase
capacity along the roadway. No public or private actions have taken place in the study area that
would adversely affect its residents. Therefore, it is concluded that no past or present actions
combine to result in a cumulative impact that would either adversely or beneficially affect the
study area. Presently, a more thorough ICI report is being compiled and will be distributed upon
its completion.
B-3682/W-3413
7
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of' Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of' Section 7 of
he Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
As of January 29, 2003 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) now lists twelve federally
protected species for Onslow County (Table 3). Since the completion of the referenced CE, the
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leueocephalus) has been added to this list. A species habitat
determination is provided below along with a biological conclusion.
Table 3. Federally-Protected Species for Pender Countv
Scientific Name Common Naine Status Habitat Biological
Determination Conclusion
Dernochelys coriacea Leatherback sea E No No Effect
turtle
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded E No No Effect
woodpecker
Charardrius melodus Piping plover T No No Effect
Alligator American T(S/A) No Not
mississi iensis Alligator Required
Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea T No No Effect
turtle
Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle T No No Effect
Amaranthus pumilus Seabeach T No No Effect
amaranth
Carex lutea Golden sedge PE No No Effect
Lysimachia Rough leaved E No No Effect
as erulae olia loosestrife
Felis concolor cougar Eastern cougar E* No No Effect
Thalictrum cooleyi Cooley's E No No Effect
meadowrue
Haliaeetus Bald Eagle T (proposed No No Effect
leucoce halus for delistin
Essential Fish Habitat: The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management
and Conservation Act (MSFCMA) set forth a new mandate for the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), regional fishery management councils (FMC) and other Federal agencies to
identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. The FMCs, with the
assistance from NMFS, have delineated "essential fish habitat" (EFH) for managed species.
Onslow County is listed as a county that contains waterbodies in which EFH species are found.
None of the waterbodies listed are located immediately within the project study area or vicinity,
however, Little Northeast Creek flows into Northeast Creek which converges with the New
River, a listed waterbody. The New River is approximately 8.9 miles downstream from the
project site. Ron Sechler, of NMF, commented that an Essential Fish Habitat study "would not
be necessary because the (project study) area was far enough away from the waters of primary
concern." He also agreed that, due to the presence of freshwater mussels in Little Northeast
Creek, it is not likely that EFH species would be found in the project study area. EFH species
are usually found in waters of higher salinity content than freshwater mussels can live in.
B-3682/W-3413
8
REGULATORY APPROVALS
ection 404 Permit: This 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
iticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide 23 as
?thorized by a Nationwide Permit (67 FR 2020; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3403 will apply to this
oject. The NCDOT will adhere to all general conditions of the Water Quality Certification.
Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(x) we are providing two copies of
this application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, (or their review.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/natui-,tlunit/Pennit.htmi.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Cheryl Knepp at
cknepp(codot.state. nc.us or [phone].
Sincerely,
_ Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc:
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Ms. Cathy Brittingham, NCDCM
Mr. Bill Arrington, NCDCM
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. H. Allen Pope, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Mason Herndon, DEO
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. David Franklin, USAGE, Wilmington
PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
133692/W-3413
On-site Mitigation Plan
Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 3 on SR 1423 over Little Northeast Creek and SR
1423 from SR 1411 to SR 1413 in Onslow County, North Carolina.
TIP No. B-3682/W-3413
October 22, 2004
9verview
Roadway improvement project W-3413 is located adjacent to the proposed bridge
replacement project and will be included with B-3682 for permitting purposes. This 2.0
mile project proposes to improve the horizontal curvature of SR 1423 from SR 1427 to
SR 1413 in Onslow County. Bridge No. 3 will be removed and replaced at a new location
in conjunction with this proposed alignment. The NCDOT will replace the existing 70-
foot long bridge over Little Northeast Creek with a new bridge approximately 200 feet in
length, therefore, spanning a large portion of the existing wetlands. Moving the bridge to
a new location approximately 80 feet downstream will allow for the removal of
approximately 300 linear feet of causeway in previously filled wetlands beginning left of
station 26+95-L- to left of station 30+50-L-, not including the bridge over Little
Northeast Creek. The existing causeway will be removed and returned to an elevation
resembling that of the adjacent wetlands.
Existing Conditions
Bridge No. 3 is currently a causeway, which fills wetland habitat adjacent to Little
Northeast Creek. The adjacent community consists of green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), river birch (Betula nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos) and water oak
(Quercus nigra).
'roposed Mitigation Activity: Causeway Removal
,he removal of the old causeway will mean that approximately 0.28 acres of fill will be
emoved from wetlands associated with Little Northeast Creek. Approximately 300 feet
f existing causeway will be lifted, restoring the palustrine broad leaved wetland
nderneath. It is anticipated that after the causeway is removed, existing wetlands will
again be connected, allowing the natural wetland hydrology to return. Therefore, NCDOT
proposes 0.28 acre of riverine wetland restoration credit.
The causeway should be removed to an elevation representative of the adjacent wetlands,
not to the wetland delineation line. The elevation at the delineation line is the uppermost
point of the wetland, consequently acting as the boundary between wetland conditions
and upland dry conditions. Excavating the causeway to a representative elevation
prevents a levee effect around the existing wetlands. The wetlands must be connected for
hydrology to return. If the uncovered causeway soils are slightly lower than the adjacent
wetlands, it is anticipated that organic materials carried by the wind, rain and/or brought
in and out by the flushing of the adjacent wetlands will settle into the restored area. This
will create the desired upper layer of natural material. It will also create small areas of
micro-habitat for fish, amphibians, and small mammals.
Proposed Vegetation:
The NCDOT proposes to replant with indigenous vegetation. The area to be restored will
be planted with green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), river birch (Betula nigra), willow
oak (Quercus phellos) and water oak (Quercus nigra). The NCDOT also expects natural
colonization of native flora to occur around the removed causeway.
The proposed restoration area is currently a standing palustrine: forested broad-leaved
deciduous wetland community. The canopy of this area is dominated by willow oak, water
B-36821W--3413 2
oak, American beech (Fagus grandifolia), green ash, red maple (Ater rubrum), and
American elm (Ulmus americana).
Proposed Hydrology:
The proximity of the restoration areas to Little Northeast Creek ensures that area will be
saturated and/or inundated for extended periods of time. It is anticipated that after the
causeway is removed, existing wetlands will again be connected, allowing the natural
wetland hydrology to return.
Monitoring
As requested by the Army Corps of Engineers, the NCDOT will perform 3 years of photo
monitoring with a site visit to determine if jurisdictional status has been met.
B-36821W--3413
3
P,
Eq
E Lot W
IL
.? ?#or
g iESE t
R;
F P,
0
Ce q q
ae
? O
s ? y
Q z
Z G G G G ?' ? n
? 50 ?O 50 ?O ?
?F

ONSLOV
C O U N1L u
VICINITY
MAP
(WETLANDS
SURFACE WATERS)
,TSLOW
)uzvTY
PROJECT
SITE
NCD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ONSLOW COUNTY
PROJECTS: 33224.1.1 (B-3682)
& 3505211 (W-3413)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO.3
ON SR 1423 OVER LITTLE NE CREEK
OF iZ
J. 8 JUL 04

NORTH C44R OUAM

• .f
1
?: i \ '? 7 r r ? i 1
r an ?
4 1 t ,?
t J ? 1??1

5
SITE
MAP
H

W
U
O
z

NCD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ONSLOW COUNTY
PROJECTS: 33224.1.1 (B-3682)
& 35052.11 (W-3113)
(WETLANDS
SURFACE WATERS)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO.3
ON SR 1123 OVER LITTLE NE CREEK
SHEET I OF 1--,L 8 JUL 04

-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
WETLAND
L PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
® WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
® SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
DENOTES FILL IN
® SURFACE WATER
(POND) SINGLE TREE
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND WOODS LINE
DENOTES EXCAVATION
® IN WETLAND DRAINAGE INLET
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER ROOTWAD
• •
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
¦
•• • • ¦ CLEARING
WETLAND LEGEND
r
FLOW DIRECTION
- TB tom TOP OF BANK
- WE- - EDGE OF WATER
c- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT

RIP RAP
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- - L - - PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB -- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - - - - - - WATER SURFACE
X XX LIVE STAKES
X X X X
O BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
® PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
-IN- -]D- -al- GRASS SWALE
BASE GRASS SWALE
1V CD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ONSLOW COUNTY
PROJECTS: 33221.1.1 (B-3682)
& 350521.1 (W-3113)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO.3
ON SR 1423 OVER LITTLE NE CREEK
SHEET 3 OF 11 8 JUL 04
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
1075 Lullwater Circle
5
l` John W, Banks, et. ux. McDonough, GA 30253
Thomas J. Marshall and 207 Brentwood Ave.
6 Kathleen H. Marshall Jacksonville, NC 28540
1009 Country Club Drive
7
?- Mari Jennie B. Warlick Jacksonville, NC 28540
619 Old Thirty Road
II Marjorie Padgett Jacksonville, NC 28546
602 Old Thirty Road
15 Kathleen M. Leone Jacksonville, NC 28546
145 Harbord Drive
16 John S. Martin Midway Park, NC 28544
237 Western Boulevard
22 Charles E. Franklin Jacksonville, NC 28546
170 Croom Lane
23 Donald R. Croom Jacksonville, NC 28546
816 Old Thirty Road
24 Jeffery L. Lambert Jacksonville. NC 28546
828 Old Thirty Road
28 James V. Rose Jacksonville, NC 28546
1601 Pagan Road
36 Joseph H.Henderson Raleigh, NC 27603
1V CD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ONSLOW COUNTY
PROJECT'S: 33224.11 (B-3682)
& 35052.1.1 (W-3413)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO.3
ON SR 1423 OVER LITTLE NE CREEK
SHEET '' OF 12. 8 JUL 04

i?-CCT-_0p 4 09.13
R;Vlydrdul:c-T,` AdAPcrmitoA63682 permit e05.F
?I
?I
?i? II• X11
MA
x •
=n
n=
=n •
•
A=
= n s
•
n= •
A
no n° Z°
Z Zo
v0 a0 N O
H
z z
nT T
n ? = °F
? a
v
,',
r = r p
Nr N m
N M N O
c
OD 03 `y° a M
N
Oi n U1 g
N O
t-4 +
Wrn
1 r A
? p
1
Z r
n N C
c ?
min
r m O
v
a
O JA
s
M
n o

Io ^` ? A
II
1
I
IA
II
IA
II
I
I A
I I
m I
I
I A
I I
g
m
1
1
m 1
I
1
l I
? I
iE 1
1
I+
I
M

n
T
r
r
?
? I
z .mj 1, I+

n v ??` ` ??

r
Z
v ? ? r
n

c

T /
/

O
F
.. L
??f M09/R[ASf CR
0
m
co m
rn?5
25
8/17/9
1111 ?;
I r
f
hhFF
I
NAD ` 83
o `4m
0
z
I
r n
?v
/ ? z ???zwg
E z
Nf K- Z
•? I l i >
P -7
Z
? v v >a ? I
MATCHLINE -L- 31+00.00 SEE SHEET b
30
A .
c rn?
rn
?o
rl
rn ?
n
ti
f
u
Al I
11\11
`\A \,
A\
I\
\
1
11
\ ? '?o?-tol?o
/06 b
co
m
o 11 0
Ib
\? .? 111 °
?\ ?\p>??? Ile
\ ? ? I 11
\ t t ° 1
11,
r xl
I I
1
1 ?
I ?I
?I
1
r ?I
21
r?
?I
w ?

ro
U) (1 Z
0
`` I I 1., 1 1 111 S? I I
fill I IyI \ l
rill \I,I ,-,
'/ IIpI 11 , ??1
- ?', 11111 I , ,?y \ I
111 , I r - - - - - - - - - - - I
21
-OCT-.0 a
N;\Hydro? n
r- m
z
O
O yN
Z
v
?:']8 - ' 1 ( I IIII , _ , ' \ \ I
\l,odd\Permlt,\63682 permit s05.F h VIII / / `?
I T
- --'---- , I 1 ? 1 ? II I 111 I I I ; I C I ? i 1
I I III 1 1 I 1 y 1 I
1 \ \ \, ^+ I I I;I I ;IIII ? ^' '1 `?1
I 1 ,I,I , 1 1 1 \
\ \ 1 , , IIII I I \ , ' \ 1
I / 1 1 ,, I
I • ?, p -_-
r-
I I -_ II I,'I I -
m /
HEE , q , \
-- A, 10 f{?/°'
20
' \\ ?. ,•,,g1;,1 ? 1\ 1 1,1,1 /: fl\-
I-20-
/ ?:' 1 `111 \ 11 0
2n
----
I \A
` , , - Z I I
1 k' 1 \? .1\,I 1
^` \ I ,' , „ 1111' 1\+'\I
1 l 1 ? \\ ?\ I A ? ?\ \?k1\ 1`111, ' \ ?? 12s?? ?5'
1 \ 1 I \ ? I , 11 1111 ?.'? ? 1 ` ? ?5/ l ?ti
,• \ I - "I_ )111\ ,' 11 r 1\, ,? ? , - -
n1 ? I 1? n ?n 1 \' 111 I, \11 ? ? ??? // 1 1 ? ? _ 1
5Z
?\,1 1
/ n
I Y.
II{1\ ` , / // ? ,/ 11 \ .\1 SSSS?,,,v\\\\11 al•~-?1 ?vl
It k
` .\?? \t``\ \`?? \ 1 (' '1'111 ?11 \\\ 11 1 v'
* ' `\ ': 7\ ?\=:` In \\ \\ 1' ?4I1'' ,`, ?lJ 111 ::\1\11 , ' 1 I
.M?;\-?\
I\ \I
+ p 1 \\ I /VII' I.1 '1' I ' V ?? \ `111 1 1 \'/
1 I 1 / 11'' ' / I 1 :111 ? JI 11t 11i1
'
1 \`\1`\111II I \1I I ( ?'?? / 1 ',,\ ` ??'. 1111 /
pa Zv 213
N \ \1\11' I I i? 11,1 , 1 11\5` , 14, \ \\\ \ _ I 1. 1 11 \? It
? 1
N DN ?_ 11 I`\\\ `\`\ ` \\\` _ 114 -,IIII `` II;\ ??1, \ \ , /' I
Cl T T - '
it,
10-
r?i $ / ? \`t\ \S \\\ \11\\\ _ j4 ,' 11;\ \\ , ip;\
c` i / \\\\, ;I `- _ 111 "i1 i \ I, 1'I,\
O I mat ( IE\\;, ?? I1 \ \1 1 1. \ -
M IE K _ M 1 i, ;i11 I 1 -- _ - - _\
n i „ ; 1 \ - .I? ?Nr1 /"r 1111 ,'I'II 1' _-=1?I?2
Z _ \IE
\ F I I '; '\ I1 fill / \ /I - - - S\
/
t(1 (?
X < Y u
{ x?
i <
1
Nf?l is
/ \ I 1'1?/ I? III Ili N 1?- _ ? 11
??yf• 1 S - - - - _ _ -
it,
/it NAD 83
I _°" ? _?;. ' _ ? IIII I` 1• - -- - ?-?,??
I [l / < _ ?/ r _ bp
z it
'E, FIN
Z 27_'
\Q/ 11
I
1 g - p(p! ? I , , , \ , ? rn
?- ,gib *1 p, n iD p N
-40 -1 N Z z
/\ fE , t , q o
rTj
00 C:)
+M + D
,D Ln rn If
o c inn Co D\ .r 17? _ - ' FJ? \ J 1 / i?'' Vm\ I 2
:n C
4 -4
A° '? / _ _ _ _ ? - , \\\51 I ? 41 ? In, ? ? _ \ tel.
SEE StiEET 4 '
31 +,P9
Ng"r' ,,'1 - \I 1I \ - ?, =
I Z` ? '/ / '/ I 111 1 ,,// /' ?- / ` ` I
1111 , I
/ \ \'1/ , 1 I ? 11119 \ \ ILh - ,
8/17/9
r
'p u
$ m sig
Ir. G
oil
a

"NON5
2034 15:38
euliceAC-JdVPermittAb3682 permit e06.F
8/17/99
MATCHLINE -L- 31 +00.00 SEE SHEET 5
I
4 m y?
iE \ I I:
! H K-
0 0 CL
I I m t
is z I' I
N
Dm
? EL K-' ?
it K.
m? CL I I
? ?iti INS I
sin I I I \1 ?
• A I I ? \ Bo
35 p n,
a
??ll I I m \\\\\ sr?'\Y
I I \\?,,\\
b ED
???II I I Irn \\ \\
Q Q EaoQ II
Eso
E
f? I I I ?7 A c
p ? ? ? 4f I . I I I Eb C?
o /
I'
1 I I 40 $
m I NAD 83
? I I
?C
I
° Q a? I I
I
\ ? I I I
A =?-- -- -- ' I I m
W 4Y ?'R DN h l
'r
N ,? QO $ y t R
m ?~
W m\ SVAEET 7 a i
o b 4 k 00,00 SEE a
O N 19

Ili ( \ , 1 _ \ 1 1 ` ` - -
You
+' - ( \I' \' \ ? \ - `?!('/.' '/ I I ,Ili FEVISIONS \
3 -JUL-2004 I`;37 ! Y \ ?I© ` ` • ? , -' - -,
:`.H,droullcs\Cnddl\P.e%^\b$E?2?srm ti: a©6.1 h __ , ,/? I?1,
Ir'll 1 ? , I '
\\
MAtCHU, 00.00 ISHECR,
' 6 ' I "
_ X82 ?'Sy I , I \ I I '1 i I I 1\,\/ / rI
I ? ? ? ? 'rye-'/? ' 11 I, I I' :\ I __ I 1 I 1 11
\ h/ 111 / 1 I 1 1
\
17 c
Zj-n 4 ` i - _2e?? \` - ?\ K'\ Il ?' II I\ IIII '/? mI '\ \ 11\ F6u
' ?. ?' .? E I?,Il III '? •- ` ` ,??
/ \ \ \ 11 I JJ?? "" I
•?-3./~ 11 \ \\\I 1 1 Q, I I,l\ \ / ,,I 1 I\ {?14 JI ?51??` -? "D= \ /-
(nice
I ^^ K
17
35
Ir ? 4 I / -
22 ,
I? ' , ti 11 I J I II 0
Y1 'G ' ' -1 )A''I III I -- A AN"
F-??^ `` , \ ` \ -? ? ?\ \ \?•YY ', 111 n_ , I \ _ \ ? _ `\??` \ f?
n I
/
I ? v A l l
,',?p a p? I' 1 r
-0 All
o o 04 I I
,I I
?• ? a o ,? I? ' I ? , I ? ? I Vii;
I - I
I I 1 , ,
I'
I'' I r I 1 \ ' / r/
40
Ir\ 1 \ ' ` l I I
1\ l ' \\ - I ' I I N 1 I I
I 4/ la+'--?1 '
\t '\ ', ' \ \ ` \` \I \1 I 11 \ ' \I I \ z
) 1
\\ ? \ 1 II 1
` \` '\ \\ ` 1 \ ?? 1 I I ICI I ? / I '/ 1 \
^? @ ' / h I' I I rn ? ' ; ' I I I r
..? ? F 1 I II III I 1 / 1/ I ' 1 1 '
\.? . ? \ 1 ` / /I I I I t (((777 \ \ ; I ? <
9L II I r y \ J\ 2
m I
?' I I 4Y \ I ?? III _ ? ` \ ? ? I ? ?•
r ?({?
W rn \ f'1 I El ?- - - ( z C
-«,
i / T LIME ` IA, '/ ----- n
.pj.= I / l . y ,\ 1 \ \;11 1,11 / I I \ \ \ < \ , / ' ,
p 1 1 _ I / \ I 1 \ 1 \ 1'

0
20CJ 15:07
-1--,\C,,dd\P-its\63682 permit e07
MATCHLINE -L- 44+00.00 SEE SHEET 6
ra
\ °
W
?a
8• - - -
Q Q Q
? Q aQ • f4 ? r" ??
fz?

-T

P Q
a a
zo
m
N Z Q
Q
n?
?? Q
aQ

a
Q

??aQ

?
?
Q Q d
1
?

N
N
S
m
W
-n
a
m
58+00.00
8/17/99
O 9
Q
T
Z
? Z
y2y C
m CDl
3? r rn -?
I ?
r
Ir
3
OQ ? •
Q ?f II o
??
7
m ? Q ? o Q
v
_1 •
D

?N,p `" ?
[TAO
r r xr

IA
`?$ .

y 4:

i Ro
Z3: a ?
4
M 0
.
14
zM 1

0 0 cn 00
NNo
r

O
s ? pp
?
V
? ? si
O
1 1 I I I , \ 1 1 1 /,,// I / ,ll I / / I I l I
,' ' , ,1 \ \ 1 / / /lI 11 II N / / I' I
' 1 1 1 1 Ilr\/'/Il /?{ II / I 1 /
' ' '\ 11 ' 1 I I / l 1J II l ,l ' , I , , I
, I \ \ 1 / 1 I \
' ?? v. 1 ../ 1 ' ' I ' \ FA7+70N / 1
F;ANydr o?LcoA?oddAPermltS?b?68? perrraCo©ZF ?h ? ,'' 1' Il?, r', /?1?1v I? ` vv V ` v v, \ I ; `'?
-FVfATCHLINE L'
/ rl,; 44?0,9.00L I O ?- 11 I / / 1
?\ / , 1 , 11 \ 1,I III I , / , X
p I 111. I \ I( ?1
/ ? I? I _- W Y'/ I ? 1\I1I \ 11 ICI , \\\ \X \? ' ,' „
11\ 11 'j ' ,I \ \ ?? \ \
1 11 1 1' I \ \ \' \
11 a 1` Myl / \ \ \ _
I I / , 1 1 ? I, \\\ 1 / \ I \ \\ `
\ I 1 1 \ ,\,\ \\ 1 \ \ `\
I I 1 1 \ I \ \ \\ 11 ? , - _ ? 1 1
i
+' F' I I 1 \ \ 1 1 \ \
I
\ ./ I Q ' Tye /'' \\\ v 1 '. \ \ 1
/?? \ \?\ 111-• [?'? ,'- p'\? \ ?,`\ ? I / 'TI / I
Xo\1 11
o-
`id I `?•`v, v v © ? 11 vv• v `v n 1 5
1 .,i-??1?v V / I? w , ?i? IC a 1
' \ ` IIII III ,\,\\ , /SF , I I \\ \ \ \ Z ' ? -I
\I \
\\ , 1'x/4]' ?1 , •/??( l p
\ , 1
\\\. ? \. - _ -_.. '' - / ? I III/1 `? ???!\\
\S \Illr ?-I?'"- I L _ rnT ?sa ,'(I Ir I,:1 ?9 ? / ,--
wAA
83
.?j q 1 I l l 1, l '; /?m ? ; 1 ? I ll / I I , I
I (I'; ( ( If I `y
l 1 1 lt7r',,INhI III I J[ ?/? , / / l I , 1 \ I l 1
n/ /'? I 1 1 1 1, l i l ? ?/ / r / /' n?' I I I 1 • t
1 + ` ' v\,61 1i I 1/\ , , f I? ? r I I o `\ l
41
I I, I
y
fj,
N
co
m
N
S
m
co
W
I
T
0
97
m
8/17/99
Y' I r
r 1 \ \I \ \ ? f ? ', i / I \ ' \ I / IIY ? q l11 ? N
it 1 I
/ / 1 / 1 I I ; I\ -\ \S 111 1. - _ 140
=C
ICS/ I I '-r :ylh
+
00
ILA
03
11 U)
i
? V
'9-SEP-0004 15:33
n;\Hydraul??s\C?dd\Perm?ts\b3682 permit s.39.F
OO S?`G ? ? .
P?gbkp0 \ \

3
a Ys \?
• -------- -eyYl
o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
nz Zz cm3 Zz
CA 0 11
?2 T V1 n
n
m
n
Y ? ? t^
O Z ? O ? i? Q
A I
1
1
I
ra 11
Z 1w 2g
ti
ZZZZ - I1? s
? rn
COO ? I I I ? rn t? ?? m
Q p Q 0
X xl a I rr?o
x
i
I N
00 Q
o e 0 00
^ v' c
o'
Tay ? r (c
ZA w P
'tl F v
Z 10
C 0000 ?...
rm- m F SyF - -
10
v
8/17/9'
/
N?l
REYIUONS
-------------
'n;\Hydr aul,c c\Codd\Pr`rmite>ti3682 permy9i©°l-( h - - - \ P \? \ - " `` `?• '
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
NAF) 83
,\ I
\ 1
z z z
I \ l
III 1 rn ffiill
O A O O.' fi?nn,, I " It
Z rl cry 4 I 1\I 1 I 1, 1
\ 1 I / 1 I 1
I? ' It -21 n
, 1 , \ '\ 1 III I ;I, 1 1 \ \ M m ? \ 1 1 i ?
I \ 1 \ I! / - \ / v ? \ 1 1 1 ?\ 1 /
II? \??` `\? `a? 35-- \,?\ `tl 'I ' `?I Y4j'_ I .. ..1 ..
D- - Ix l' 0+9
r rn C7T?- I II f I
\ 1
{[} I
°?/ ? 0 1 ? I I ?A m 1 ? 7?n i I I ?
I 4 ? ' ,? • Iro \
- T; /05
I ? \ \
N ?' - n ,•co
(D
© , ' II??• \ ' l? 111 ,\ I - b _
CA CU.)
8/17/99
I
K N
? I Z
A O
W
REVISIONS
-2004 i5•Si
-o?lics\?e
\b3682 permit 510.plh

109 ? 00.00 SEE SNE? 9
??Ct1l1NE `t' SSA•
s^
a
/
!C
1 © f
Q
,m W
p , ? P
I 1/0
I I I 1
r 1
II 1 rn
1
II /
? Ir rn?dtio otipp
3
g v?
1 X30 ,- . 14,
P I I Jam, ?.
r1 a?rQi ' rnOVOI i '
?? + 1 I
?r
zz
zo
z
v
V1
CD
CD
S
(D
w
i
r
-a
0
47
0
r
ICU r
_- f ` \ p ??_ a Ir 1
0 Q
I r"
_®
..__ _
p ?3 p p ' I
-, I
N o ' ilia 1
€I
r
I m
pa9
RR m? ?+ I I ?
N 1 I I `` M
?. at ? 00 StiE SN?? 1
MA.??NUN
W
O
120
//5
0
zv
M
IN
v?
D
0
z

z I
a ? L
?

\ 1 \ \ 1 - -REYIHONS ' ' -
I r 1\
roullce\Cadd\Permtt,\63682 permit ?10.p h
, - ?' \ \ 1 \\\; i,r? ; =?? _ ? % /•j) / ESL/
, ?/ - \1 \ 111 js?? - /
t
SSE-? C {y?J /
//, ? ,r / I I I i 1
, _ / ? , I I I , \ I 1
// - /' / y I I' I I I m 1 1 1
_ I
As-
?1`'? rn III
w - \ -_., 1? III I II rn ,
W Y'?? 1?s7 ?T / ? 1 ? I, I 1 O I
r m
1%-? li 341- !
it
Z • /•'SI • ?1
lb
o - - = ro
D?V
rn
I
H 1 1 rn
1 I I I m
O 11 '
N
CD
O
N
T
W
rt
w
r
I
a
=7
0
I 1I \ 1 ,
' ''// I r 1 1 \ 1
f1 IIII, II I ` I
.40--^-- rst• I
?.p0_ ` , I IIII -I ?\ A
' 1 / ? II I 11 •\ a
' `1 ` \ - ? Q I 1 I I ? ? ?
` r
40
V
I '
8/17/99
120
LI
a? All
z
?z
X
^C
ro
Cp N ?

z
0
0
cu F -R
.?
rn
0
0
M '

co
3
x z
?

C C
c: L) Lo ??.,
r

?? fV
O •t
z
"

? o ;
o

C)
a
?
o zHu
ww?
c
?
0 F
¢A O
w
a
Q ?'

U
z

2

a C

.
LL
O O

a
0_
V
O m

0 E
c
a
c
?p C
U-(D ? O O W O
r
{- `
? N
d A
C `
N

= m C
3: :2 'S (D 3 = 'S = }i =

2 N

?

m

m

N

R

m

m

co

N

V

N

V

ca N
19
L m
W c
O -
m
Q r`o

LD
LO
C14
ri
o r- (D a) LO CN CN C)

J
r-
N
co
N
J
J
N
J
?
J
?
(n 0

J a

ILL

?
? r o
Y
Z
U

V7
M
t4 N
? w E
U
W

Q
W

? N O
C m 0 O O O O
O O O O O

m
? .C U h (') N LO
(D
?
N
0 O O
O
O
= O O O O O

a Nm
a
_O U O O O
? ? :?
L O O O
? c
i

?- H
U

V a

a ?- o ?
_ vi
d ? i0 (D V a.
N
N
? M ?
? v O
O
? Z % ? U O o
W c m
? W
N D

Z E W

? a
w O
?
- m 0 O O a O

O

m LL ? LL ? LL U LL o LL U
O F
T X
C m
Q1 m
Q1 W m 01 N c N CC T C?
/
0 m

N
?
O
O
O
?
O
O
O V
N

? 4S o? 0 ? 0 O O oj?
O
o J J O
o J
o J ?
J

O E
Ot
O
O
+

t

O

O+

O

t

+ o

W F
N U)
N + t N N t f7 t co

J J J J
J Cl)
=

y ? Q in 0 Y J C7 3L d # U Q

0o
o
C)
c
R E r
f0 m
7 N (n O O
Z N ?

1-
U
d

? c c
N (0
O co
O
_ x t O N
W U
W -

Q

W LL
V
U
Q a

E c 0 0
<
? F-

U)
m
p LO
o
c 0
LL
m
a c
o
c ?p u
O O
N O

=

Q U
A
m
C LO
C O U
p
O
V ? :°
u o
M U)
U
?- < Co
`
Q
a a gD
C
Co
N
v
p
> N
O O O
` ?
Z ... p O O
JQ` W c

W
W
? y
a
Z E
3 0 0
.
(U
J F- c
W

y
c c
. m
o ca
0
U- 0 ., o

cu a ii a
c H m ?
N ¢Y
N 0
O N
cd
a
O
O
+

(D W
Lo
LL m

J U
Cn Q
~
0
2
h ~

i H
U
N
C; a u LLI
Z
O

T:'P
4
09/08/99
8VBS: 33224.1.1 717111 MROJJIEC7l:° B-362
th w
0 0
?o w w
A Tr
T' O T O O
m _ s n
?1, o z
m Z° N !q
N
o Q o 0
I
c ? a
z? og
b
in II 11 11 II II II
1? c c?1 cn •o o. w w b
c o w o a
co co
y
aFn og r.
oo
g ?g
D D rn ;<
T
ca C)
N A ? r
J w j N
J W y, A
? w w
II II II II II
0 0 0
VN A ??
V
W CN:1 ?p A
3. 3. 3 3. 3.
V1 C. R9
N? ? oy
N
511 O
•
b ? v
0
in 10
•
'C y
a m
?t3
oil
z
VvlBS: 35052.1.1 7f11P PROJECT: 1Yd'-3413
N
X?
A ? +s In
( -? Om
>1 A L r
p0 Y M ( s COQ ?-.
A
n
+ °z ?..?
1 V7 g ?I
Z A 1=? to
r? ?' ?' ?' r I° y
a
O NZ +p ? ? ??9 t
+w
en 2;1
liot7 ?m N O
N A 8 m w \ O 7
NAI
pa p
Ow. 07 Ow.
888 ?, p ? ?i5
$$8 awa Pz h C?
+++ + O
M m ... 8z 9" m 6949 23 888
s
Z T Z
spa o o ? ? ? ?
?Q O J
Z1 wOO w "?
w ii Q' w ? b? 1 1
gw rn
C)
t2l
N c? ?+
V
O
?0 y
90
z cC
Ui
® z
N O
0 ? C43
0a Z
v?
V V NAU 83
++ ++
w pO pOp
C 8 O
z
o
0
m
A
8 O O N Z
V
'a+ A QO
~ ? N ? 0
Y ~
w
rn r.
z
i
w w w :I
(?
y
o N

?
N ?

" w
w tNi If
W

yF
R -aUG 2049154
.p.o? b n8. tn4.'n ?a
LyN
G
PU
H
O
N
IJ
8
P
o-
to to
p W
Q
p. N
O O
7
r
1 I
-o ?
p O
-qj =r
Q W

JIG
rL
r r
1 i
m
T ? T
V
? ? v r
1
r
r I
I
S00'44'08'!

co O
N +
O
O
O
O
m
0
Z
m
m ?
I ?
1 M ri
1 F? r ? I
I)m °? ? ` 1
$ gr
s}} s
m Ng
I ~
I ?
I rn
I
r
?1
MATCHUNE -L- 19+00.00 SEE SHEET 5
I I
I
I
I
k I
I
I 1 ? oo•ztz
'I{""' M60 dt .0 N ;?
Ir
n
r
2 F
11 I Igl ?? ?? t"
kill'
•St'.'CZ ..
i
8/17/99
RNINN r?
v
pi
NAD 83
15
?I
pu.
Js
Ll SRO
V ti?
U
rA
2
1
z
ML14ONS
CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE OWNER NAMES ON PARCELS 3 AVD 5. PARCEL 6 WAS CHANGED TO PARCEL J. THESE R£OVESTS WERE MADE BY DIV ROW (7-28-0+).
PJP 8-26-0
-SEP
o?
x
N
y
p ? ? d ?' S?w ix
o 'M
?2r- rn I
a ? ? gs>, ? a I o
co
r r ST I ? m II
1 1
A ?
V N ? 1A
+? d e l I I i
0 1 I `I
' kA
5 I
ua' y > -? I A
0" 1 4 Z On I
o P i. ti om o -° or/ m
'O_ I f i
r N L ?f Nr y
O_O L$ I A
S ? 9p OLIO > V; ? P1 v V (p?
? ? r
a< p p S ? O 1
9N ? O ?? ? ? NO?I
T F
A o
? a
A
O
x o
x to 3 yS
o y S C 5 c m
y y
o c > Q V
>P o `3 $ o ^ v0
080 ° ?F 01 o2n 1
y y I.. o2r inyr r
I^oo
° ny o ? 447c I i
r > > Y, 1? 4 ? ? N J = 1
N N S >
'p. ? m o b ? 1
ya r 2
o$ ° p O 1 1
r \ t
p 1 la ,
A r? \ I
o r o
rz o n
yyy o .. ? o \
» > 4 ryl 1 ?• ?yy
y 3? Ni a Z? N r •? Ti$ 1 B
?pP H op per
p? Oob c-) NO ?a? ?r? 1
- o l- 'ryl'? 1 if 1 1
0 0 o c F o IA
fpNNNr EQ w air q?l T•.7
Np + N -? 7 y g\ JNI 1
ooo 0 N
`
I ° ° v
o ^ `_ r ryu
r? o oo, - f ??? t•r
ono
' D y X77 r ?? ^t?j
o g ?-(1
o N ? I .3 _
a g
zrr p $ i ?Re
r
a ° on I~. N I o'xi n 1 ii'
C 1''
°?v o I G1
y ? ?^ 1 J
a 6O1
- os•?nr. v ((dam?,
14
Y V1 I Z
O
; oo
N
N ?
> m > =
c
CD a) 0 0
? ? N A
Oc m
c -4 M
,0-4 O r.
:r :U tr C
r + -a
L-4 wm
r
-1 r
1 -I
9t Ro
=f p
L<
AV
A
N 1?1
Q
I ti
I
Mill
?I
v 1
1
I I
mill
1
1t ?
1
I
g r .l I
r? ?1?
m
-
x°
?tv L
1N N
m
1
r
??...
/
?

1
r
~ a
I I N ? ? ??
o
1a F)
,0
? r

f; /* y
m
n ric
a q? _
? ?
N i
C4
r
1
c
r
r
g$
1 ?
yp. _4
• O

& r
S
e y
m
n
w Y
^
p
m

m?
rrl

1
ON
O m

"c",

m ? ? }Z{S
rti n Na bsum
/I w
u u ?'" \ $ w$ I M A
$$ o
r
:?qq A -44 t4 0
Fm -4
o+
b ( oo 0 $
O A I r
I
-+ of m
V
MATCHUNE -L- 31+00-00 SEE SHEET 6
MATCHLINE -L- 19+00.00 SEE SHEET 4 ti
25

1-hFh ?I
j
NAD 83
m y ° iv
? ? t3
?y
?O
m ?
Irl w
?C
8/17/99
N

pro
o?C
1
r
1
'r
V
I'
1 I
r
I
rL
1 I'
\ N
W y L
y I. I a a ?„

u '?e 6. 1

? A 1 A I co

1
OJT'ICm
f0.? 5
Z
? =g? o
0
0 ,g ' Ifs o
l
\._/*0
$ PCSta.36+18.80 II
n
0
Op
0
QS.
B. s\ tihY
0P O
:Io
MATCHLINE -L- 37+00.00 SEE SHEET 5
l A II
0 ?? ? 0 I
0 ? , I
r ?Q II
? 0 q ?b II
I r
C;D 11 't?6 \....... " p 0
0 p Q0 0 ??
+ 0
? g I 0
?2-0.4nfSnc. ' I
00 0

Q O /I

\ 0 +
O

0
0 ?, +
I
?
'
OOC
.96
? 3 d5 •CC •9 5G
Q J C. .
_ 0 I
? ?
W
s 0 CPO 0 a
\
0 g
PCS/n_ 3/+RlFiq •??F
r
r A
Fio
\ N

L
?S 9T•'9L M a
Cl)

?\ t vC
ytp F
51ut
W
? K r

?s5?n4 $ o °f - .?P

? U? ?
0 2 q°' C
Y
x O Ln
e° O O
in (LI?aNG
iudS--
rn
I \ ? '?, i
1 ? y?j ? ? ? \ ? \ OOH
Q ? Z N
+ N a P
F ,
O O O° Ny in? n? 0? Nis.
O O v i u?i ° rm-1 .j..
m m I 1 000 ° 2E: Q?
G1
z v zo r "> ? gs° a s
r u
p Sri
Oi r O Q• ? y O
y
Lz-
6. P
pVC ° O \ 0 ? ?
i\a
I?
'P,e?
Im
`*I
1 i
I
35 I Di
N
? / o I
0

•xw I I rg
I r '< I I ? ? >c ?j \
r W
va
g °
g
O
r O
r=
0 m
a
w a' Z
CD
w
o+
clo
., U 7p
X
a
°
Tv w m
2 ? ? O
? I N
N
W
40
gl
I
$tr
gv
r
I
+ + g
A ? ? t!
r
I
W p ? v
CU.) $?g ggg
•p$EE
C?uNe -44+00 0
MAT
ti

p 0
o
?y
O mm
n

_
p m
{ .
W
(h
W N N
s i
vL
ti
? p
m .wn
A

o CA
R o
'-
K r
A ?
O
r O ?q?
Ts
m a-Ir?oD
II II U II II M (tit
y

NAD 83
?I? g g

r
I

NIN
glw
A
A
2
A
m
m
m
g
h
n
y
2
N
H
x?
S
r
9
m ???oD
u????lly-1
V$i I
8 (sj
a?
?ro
r
y
8/17/99

I?
4 -auG-
r?Fr ?
r N ? \
Soy a,l ? ^ gccN 1
s ???JS• \ w Z\
so 4 \
m
8? ? ? ti? Q M o?w
P r•1 N.LSA 967, Qp ?l / 1 ? \
MATCHLINE -L- "+00.00 SEE SHEET 6
- - ? I r
J ? ?m t I II N °
? \\? g? t I I uu
t? W ?P ? M yul
o ?
1` $ r
Q : 1 1 0 $
$$ m 1 $r
\ 1
1
A
s
N ? a8+t>8 / iu ? $ ? $
r
?n s b k I? t
+o :a s0 ?J
+rtn Sf ? y \?
o l
'o -fi \ C13 i s
y? fi o o Z ?? ? g r S ? ? II?
O py
O ? s N Z I 1°
Nor= o >m '?a n0 ?} r O
r H 3_ r
'r ro $ F m s ?1
R3? ` 0
+1 r ti oSlp N.ZV' n.LLH .. d3r{
o
o ggr' p? '? ! /?/ r$ r I
s N + ? _? o Q I
N N S y N
o m o o ° d ? N ?, * I
m L" a ? K N UAi $ ?^' I
o o ss. $ 0 jS2m N$ I I
- °° Fyn T,•?t2 I
N
ti
D
m
r
? y ga ? • d 628/ ?" + i
s Q
?n N b i
8 c ?.
1 \ ? I
1 \
d

p-?
W
0
I
r
.9
O
0
? al
\
?I1
A- 58+00.00
45
x
I Fi x
I a I
X 1x1
L_x??kJ
O A
r g
I
$ I .4
r
I
1
r
N
s
\ $ 1
' r
1 0

y

\\
?
\
\
?
7
{ l7?
? 9
i
ra]

V
1, 1 ?$
? I
II o"'? r
I 1
1
I _I R
A 1 v
$ r
I
1 1
1 r
1
C-D
N 1 ? ? ? QQ a a •
?.' 4 r ??'? a Q
m / ? I o
?z Q
1 \
1
tl tQ
1
0
u 1j 11 4 II 1 N
u 11 4 1 1
N N N4 N Y'l
y
?Yqp 83
55
/ A I

r
1
r^?r?
m ? C

_4
s

• ?7
H

? P m
oV'+ rA- oU+

rn a 4 ? o
ioZ
a N • -4
r co
1-? a
v N l r O
m
/17/99
50
i

az Z
?
w
?
a? ? C .
V
Z
i
-aY v-2C a ?9• 5

A
i
?
?
M O
:DO
I r
y IY?
O on>
O yr
n

o
r(
o " -?... S]-
8 r
?
? ~ " 1

A A
00
ZZ Z (N
N N N
P P >
N
7?
m b m
+ N + ? ? g
V
000 _ al_ r? 1
y y y r O (? j?
C
000 yr
O y O
P>s -.
mbm
ow. S x
L
. a ,
r
y
y
y
.
.
.

O
= qq
y
N
N S rrR
D ?
o a, m
s
o ? o ,mn

o }?s?
r
r

o

r ?
O 4
y
l"1

O .S
Q 8°+?
N
y
>
b
O
N
O
r=
y
N
N N ?
b ?
.n aO
?O
O O y
? O
r r
Ib
D A U
? O
r
r
co
co
N
S y
Ic e
y, m
i N
IJ ?
w O
Y? O
r
?r
ru
0
1
I 7
A g¢+00.00
N
CUD
?m
Pill
? ga
I t7rT•
V
?g
Z g l
r 0
rn x N ? ? ?O
H
3A
I
O
0
0.08' IR/Y t0
VIr
I
a' i
Ab
F
3--Sl g 0
8/ 17/99
m:0 -+rOD-
k II 11411 IIC_n
f???$lN+ I
b

-i r- f,,:) E> -0
? ca
Q
I
95

t•1.l 9zj (QQQ?N

?z w
? U
•C

8/17/99
N N
-1 -t
i0 10
O O
? tl
0
N
ti
a y
8
°
N
° O
O
A
H
o0
__
N N
.-1 -1
a P
8 O
Op N
gN -
O -?
O
o? o
a°
D A
A A ~ p
O =ar
U N a U
a?pa
Nr ?
i ? an
80r'O
H ,1
O O p
? N ~
a
r O

N
N
S
W
U1
O
i
0
-n
0
Ail
xcp-
-irt..w?.?^^n'vr'?Mti ? V
0
o ? Q
PTSta. l00+76 02
?r
1 f
-41 ) I 1
F
IP
6 r!
fw?? 1
PCSfa. f03+13J1
O 0.5 '
6g O o
pp RRN? kS?" Roma
r y
fro f.??P .? f_ o
"ter es.7, ? ? Q
4 5 B•11•JyM ""
_ /?? / 751.67' h
X Q ? (R)»
/X
O
® \ \ -
EDO a -?~
14
109 Z
"U 10
NAD 83

•i y y N
a
a?$ ?flm
r
X88 - ?2a
K2t

Z Z5
g8g
r.rr c
r : ?`l???Cp?
rn?b?(n?CO r

+oa.?e
1 $
INI<
-1-r o, T
a 0
:? 1 I '^ r N y
f -1 u r
N
N
fll• H
1
r 3$
1 E9 '_i ?N?n
-i N O
s co
S$
co
n
to
O u
J
lD
to
r
1 M
??7Y E•CE - -
? 17.7-
1

ro ??

5
N N y
P s s
N
a O Q
o ?
r ?
r A
N
ti H
P
N N
0°
1 ~
O °
1 0
H ?
aP
a?m
O N
o°
PA
N N
P P
m .?
08
r r
??TA
pAp O
it
Z=
N N N y
H ?•1P
PP?
?gJa
??88
Y
O ° O O
N
N N N
s sss
*om?
080$
zApp
N N
ti H
? P
wo
pr^
-1 y
N
? s
W
0
N
S ?
0
r
O
0
} 00 00 SEE SHEE 9
-?GH1.1NE ?. 'r[A. X09 p a eto
MA
saFg' .
A If
t1 N y
? P N ??rn
G ?
? ?? 8 2?
? o g
s
p.
I ?
r I
r 110 p o
$
a?' E
3/ M/ W?8ti 69?
1 /
gl=
I Y,
y r 9
19
TAY" ? / (?6?T
/ I
/
w?
u b
I

ct
?1 f O het ff
b
_ O
sl
y
1 ,
v ?. 1
,cLc? ?, ? t a caa-ct
Sag
a I ` J
AMY \ ?.?? 1 +
bGa4 [
r ? 1 i 1
? ? ??? 1 ? Ir I .• 1? r
I 1 ? ? SNE? ?1
All k 00.00 SE
?A-
" 1 u u'I a Itn
a ?
N
?D'1"OD
II 1 ? ? 1 1 tl ?
?$L;
s?
?r
r
?z
7/99
I
t3 ? o ?
E?auG-200' po9:56
ro i'b3682111.0!h 8/17/99
N
ti
D N
z
0 0 `"ter'
I
p ova
4 Y
o
H
r
O
p v ^rn
N v?y n
D 4
u = C
? o g
r p N?
H
°z e
N ?Q
ti
s
N
N
o R I` °m
o N p I ??n9
00 xIl
in
s o,
.= o
o „
s
ti
?rcyvHF
i. Op
+ ? Il l oo SFF
?bG9+ /-mar / a to
A'O
b ?
I
8w
r
I
N
W
r
I
n?
1
N M ? ? ? gRi
cZ c? a ? t I "' . ?II
a
.
-AP
A A F ,
D. SSQ .
ro,?s N' ,'• 08 ?Pm
00 I on> ?..-?
„ter
si g?W
O o ? 47
H ti /
Q
x
V _ ? 3,vao,
? O
I?
I ^' k
I v
I y
m JrJ Jn
r
> a
v ?
Iz n ? ? ?
I ?
I ? g y ? ? /25
N
I
H . 1 ? r
N 2 (+? r 1 1 Q ? I I
?y 11
N rm ? N
o L
goy ?? Oga? $ I ? I ? ? ?
1 1 p. ? ? I I
0 0 1 1 ? I I I• ?,
O 9
11 I I
,\ I
\\ l I
s
1 V
1 ?
\ u
f \ \ 1
? \\ r.r 1 Iq
N Pm °J' \ \ \ I'. 1 1
f0 ?$ \\ 1
\\ 1
O Ym a \ \/ 1 1
I \ '\
I "
s ` ` ?•?' 1 I
s
4 co
a, 4J,. r\\ ,?? a i II I
W

NAD 83
?a
? N
vs
bu
n
W V
O
0
0
0
m
z
v
0
m
A
N
W
N
D
N
V
t
0
0
0
0
1-
m
z
v
O
m
Q
CA)
w
a
Us
r

tp I

?z Z

y ?
?
i
>
rn

Z' N

L -A lt

TI T IT T I - ]

W

r
A
It, M
+ f jjjj? •+• }j?f Rte.. } ? -
+ •: is :t: 11 ?i t ?l? ?? t
Go
o
N
0
N
r
N in
N [D
W:
N
s
co
0
.?
A
w
N
W O
s.
S
N
A

T

? g s

I
j
g

i
Q rn rn
t rn a
bNbbIt 21bIA,b
TTI
-------------
---------- --
N
------------
------------
---------- --
rnAI^?;,rn
------------
ro ??
0
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Michael F. Easley, Governor
October 1, 2004
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
Natural Resources
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
B-3682, Bridge 3 over Little Northeast Creek, Onslow County
W-3413, Widening and Realignment of SR 1423 from SR 1411 to SR 1427,
Onslow County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will
provide wetland and stream mitigation compensation for the subject project. Based on the information
supplied by you in a letter dated September 13, 2004, the impacts are located in CU 3030001 of the White
Oak River Basin in the Southern Outer Coastal Plain Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riverine Wetland: 0.05 acre; Non-Riverine: 0.09 acre; Stream: 270 feet
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
dated July 22, 2003. The ecosystem enhancement for the subject project will be provided in accordance
with Section IX, EEP Transition Period, of this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Dave Timpy, USACE-Wilmington
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3682/W-3413
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program One
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652 NO hCarolina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/ Awmally
A ?
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Ecosystem Enhancement
Michael F. Easley, Governor
October 1, 2004
Mr. Dave Timpy
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Dear Mr. Timpy:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
B-3682, Bridge 3 over Little Northeast Creek, Onslow County
W-3413, Widening and Realignment of SR 1423 from SR 1411 to SR 1427,
Onslow County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
proposes to provide preservation to compensate for the unavoidable 0.05 acre of riverine wetland, 0.09
acre of non-riverine wetland, and 270 feet of stream impacts of the subject project in the following
manner:
Wetland Preservation (10:1) in same eco-region (0.5 acre riverine and 0.9 acre non-
riverine - 1.40 acres total)
Wallace Deer Club, Tracts 1-2, Pender County
Stream Preservation (10:1) in same eco-region (2,700 feet)
Wallace Deer Club, Tracts 3-5, Pender County
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The
compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance with Section IX, EEP Transition
Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
[phone].
Sincerely,
,Olel - 1Y4a 'A-
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3682/W-3413
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer
t\ ,N ATF' p Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
uJ G? North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r
? Alan W. Klimek, P.E.,Director
© .? Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
April 27, 2004
Mr. M. Randall Turner, Environment Unit Head
NCDOT-PD&EA
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Subject: Permit No. SW8 030815
B-3682 & W-3413
Other Stormwater Permit
Linear Public Road / Bridge Project
Onslow County
Dear Mr. Turner:
The Wilmington Regional Office received a complete Stormwater Management Permit
Application for B-3682 & W-3413 widening SR 1423 and replacing Bridge No. 3 over the
Little Northeast Creek on April 26, 2004. Staff review of the plans and specifications
has determined that the project, as proposed, will comply with the Stormwater
Regulations set forth in Title 15A NCAC 2H .1000. We are forwarding Permit No. SW8
030815 dated April 27 2004, for the construction of the subject project.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until rescinded and shall be
subject to the conditions and limitations as specified therein.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable, you
have the right to request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30)
days following receipt of this permit. This request must be in the form of a written
petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, and filed
with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Drawer 27447, Raleigh, NC 27611-
7447. Unless such demands are made this permit shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions, or need additional information concerning this matter, please
contact either Linda Lewis or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Rick Shiver
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
RSS/ad: S:\WQS\STORMWAT\PERMIT\030815.apr04
cc: Max Price, P.E., NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Onslow County Building Inspections
Linda Lewis
Wilmington Regional Office
Central Files

N. C. Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension [phone] Customer Service
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405 [phone] Fax [phone]
State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 030815
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
OTHER PERMIT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of
North Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
NCDOT PD&EA
B-3682 & W-3413
Onslow County
FOR THE
construction of a public road / bridge in compliance with the provisions of 15A NCAC 2H
.1000 (hereafter referred to as the 'stormwater rules') and the approved stormwater
management plans and specifications, and other supporting data as attached and on
file with and approved by the Division of Water Quality and considered a part of this
permit.
The Permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until rescinded and shall be
subject to the following specific conditions and limitations:
1. DESIGN STANDARDS
1. The runoff from the impervious surfaces has been directed away from surface
waters as much as possible.
2. The amount of built-upon area has been minimized as much as possible.
3. Best Management Practices are employed which minimize water quality impacts.
4. Approved plans and specifications for projects covered by this permit are
incorporated by reference and are enforceable parts of the permit.
5. Vegetated roadside ditches are 3:1 slopes or flatter.
11. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The permittee shall at all times provide adequate erosion control measures in
conformance with the approved Erosion Control Plan.
2. The Director may notify the permittee when the permitted site does not meet one
or more of the minimum requirements of the permit. Within the time frame
specified in the notice, the permittee shall submit a written time schedule to the
Director for modifying the site to meet minimum requirements. The permittee
shall provide copies of revised plans and certification in writing to the Director
that the changes have been made.
3. The permittee shall submit all information requested by the Director or his
representative within the time frame specified in the written information request.
Page 2 of 3
State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 030815
4. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for
revised plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction for the
following items:
a. Major revisions to the approved plans, such as road realignment, deletion
of any proposed BMP, changes to the drainage area or scope of the
pproject, etc.
b. Project name change.
C. Redesign of, addition to, or deletion of the approved amount of built-upon
area, regardless of size.
d. Alteration of the proposed drainage.
5. The Director may determine that other revisions to the project should require a
modification to the permit.
III. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit may
subject the Permittee to an enforcement action by the Division of Water Quality,
in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.
2. The permit issued shall continue in force and effect until revoked or terminated.
3. The permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for cause. The
filing of a request for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or
termination does not stay any permit condition.
4. The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the Director from reopening and
modifying the permit, revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit
as allowed by the laws, rules, and regulations contained in Title 15A of the North
Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2H.1000; and North Carolina General
Statute 143-215.1 et. al.
5. The permit is not transferable to any person except after notice to and approval
by the Director. The Director may require modification or revocation and
reissuance of the permit to change the name and incorporate such other
requirements as may be necessary. A formal permit request must be submitted
to the Division of Water Quality accompanied by the appropriate fee,
documentation from both parties involved, and other supporting materials as may
be appropriate. The approval of this request will be considered on its merits, and
may or may not be approved. The permittee is responsible for compliance with
the terms and conditions of this permit until such time as the Director approves
the transfer.
6. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with
any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances which may be imposed by
other government agencies (local, state and federal) which have jurisdiction.
7. The permittee shall notify the Division of any name, ownership or mailing address
changes within 30 days.
Permit issued this, the 27th day of April, 2004
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
---=.iC.._----- /?-? ",___!b --- ----------
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 3 of 3
State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 030815
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STATE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
OTHER PERMIT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of
North Carolina as amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
NCDOT PD&EA
B-3682 & W-3413
Onslow County
FOR THE
construction of a public road / bridge in compliance with the provisions of 15A NCAC 2H
.1000 (hereafter referred to as the "stormwater rules') and the approved stormwater
management plans and specifications, and other supporting data as attached and on
file with and approved by the Division of Water Quality and considered a part of this
permit.
The Permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until rescinded and shall be
subject to the following specific conditions and limitations:
1. DESIGN STANDARDS
The runoff from the impervious surfaces has been directed away from surface
waters as much as possible.
2. The amount of built-upon area has been minimized as much as possible.
3. Best Management Practices are employed which minimize water quality impacts.
4. Approved plans and specifications for projects covered by this permit are
incorporated by reference and are enforceable parts of the permit.
5. Vegetated roadside ditches are 3:1 slopes or flatter.
II. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
The permittee shall at all times provide adequate erosion control measures in
conformance with the approved Erosion Control Plan.
2. The Director may notify the permittee when the permitted site does not meet one
or more of the minimum requirements of the permit. Within the time frame
specified in the notice, the permittee shall submit a written time schedule to the
Director for modifying the site to meet minimum requirements. The permittee
shall provide copies of revised plans and certification in writing to the Director
that the changes have been made.
3. The permittee shall submit all information requested by the Director or his
representative within the time frame specified in the written information request.
Page 2 of 3
State Stormwater Management Systems
Permit No. SW8 030815
4. The permittee shall submit to the Director and shall have received approval for
revised plans, specifications, and calculations prior to construction for the
following items:
a. Major revisions to the approved plans, such as road realignment, deletion
of any proposed BMP, changes to the drainage area or scope of the
pproject, etc.
b. Project name change.
C. Redesign of, addition to, or deletion of the approved amount of built-upon
area, regardless of size.
d. Alteration of the proposed drainage.
5. The Director may determine that other revisions to the project should require a
modification to the permit.
111. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit mayy
subject the Permittee to an enforcement action by the Division of Water Qualityy,
in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.
2. The permit issued shall continue in force and effect until revoked or terminated.
3. The permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or terminated for cause. The
filing of a request for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or
termination does not stay any permit condition.
4. The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the Director from reopening and
modifying the permit, revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit
as allowed by the laws, rules, and regulations contained in Title 15A of the North
Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2H.1000; and North Carolina General
Statute 143-215.1 et. al.
5. The permit is not transferable to any person except after notice to and approval
by the Director. The Director may require modification or revocation and
reissuance of the permit to change the name and incorporate such other
requirements as may be necessary. A formal permit request must be submitted
to the Division of Water Quality accompanied by the appropriate fee,
documentation from both parties involved, and other supporting materials as may
be appropriate. The approval of this request will be considered on its merits, and
may or may not be approved. The permittee is responsible for compliance with
the terms and conditions of this permit until such time as the Director approves
the transfer.
6. The issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with
any and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances which may be imposed by
other government agencies (local, state and federal) which have jurisdiction.
7. The permittee shall notify the Division of any name, ownership or mailing address
changes within 30 days.
Permit issued this, the 27th day of April, 2004
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Page 3 of 3
'r •Y; t .rna J ) t V iLuv 1'
OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Received Fee Paid Permit Number

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LINEAR ROADWAY PROJECT
This form mar be photocopied for use as an original.
DWO Stormwater Management Plan Review:
A complete stormwater management plan submittal includes this application form, a supplement form for each BMP
proposed (see Section V), design calculations, and plats and specifications showing all road and BMP details.
1. PROJECT INFORMATION
NCDOT Project Number: R Z2-4, f -Z Q I County: GIJSi OIA -1
Proj ect
Project
_
Contact Person: Phone: Fax:
urr?? 10410,4k-
Proposed Stream Name: JItG??-?f},ST'L'P?? lC.. River Basin: Proposed linear feet of project: 0.4qZ- m/
4Z3
Class: C/ /VSiV AAJ,+D9!# M1'Vf
"F 5#
Proposed Structural BMP and Road Station (attach a list of station and BMP type if more room is needed):
Type of proposed project: (check all that apply):
? New VWidening 96 lane*
?Other (Describe)
?4 lane* ?Curb and Gutter 2Bridge Replacement
*2 lane and 4 lane imply that roadside ditches are used unless Curb and Gutter is also checked.
II. REQUIRED ITEMS CHECKLIST
Initial in the space provided below to indicate the following design requirements have been met and supporting
documentation is attached. Supporting documentation shall, at a minimum, consist of a brief narrative description
including (1) the scope of the project, (2) how the items below are met, (3) how the proposed best management practices
minimize water quality impacts, and (4) any significant constraints and/or justification for not meeting a, b, c and d to the
maximum extent practicable.
Designer's Initials
a. The amount of impervious surface has been minimized as much as possible.
_b. The runoff from the impervious areas has been diverted away from surface waters as much as possible.
c. Best Management Practices are employed which minimize water quality impacts.
_ d. Vegetated roadside ditches are 3:1 slope or flatter.
Form SWU-112 Rev 04.00 Page I of 2

Ill. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
I acknowledge and agree by my initials below that the North Carolina Department of Transportation is responsible for the
implementation of the four maintenance items listed. I agree to notify DWQ of any operational problems with the BMP's
that would.impact water quality or prior to making any changes to the system or responsible party.
Maintenance Engineer's Initials
a. BMP's shall be inspected and maintained in good working order.
b. Eroded areas shall be repaired and reseeded as needed.
c. Stormwater collection systems, including piping, inlets, and outlets, shall be maintained to insure proper
functioning.
Maintenance Engineer's Name:
Title: Z?11Z U1/_ Ah%MA/AV1A1- 90&A&Z -
IV. APPLICATION CERTIFICATION
I, (print or type name) &Z -??r of ?? ?01--2 Branch,
certify that the information included on this permit-application form is, to the best of my knowledge, correct and that the
project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the proposed project complies with the
requirements of 15A NCAC 2H .1000.
( f
Title:-<'-?UVJJ
Address: ??¢-?' - Sel-v,t? Ce4To,, NL 27C?y?1- /
Date: 7 /? "OS?l
V. SUPPLEMENT FORMS
The applicable state stormwater management permit supplement form(s) listed below must be submitted for each BMP
specified for this project. Contact the Stormwater and General Permits Unit at [phone] for the status and
availability of these forms.
Form SWU-102
Form SWU-103
Form SWU-104
Form SWU-105
Form SWU-106
Form SWU-107
Form SWU-108
Form SWU-109
Form SWU-110
Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Infiltration Basin Supplement
Low Density Supplement
Curb Outlet System Supplement
Off-Site System Supplement
Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Neuse River Basin Supplement
Innovative Best Management Practice Supplement
Extended Dry Detention Basin Supplement
Form SWU-112 Rev 04.00 Page 2 of 2

Of
Department ofE State North Carolina
nvironment and of e t and Natural
Reso
STORMWATER MANAGEM Quality urces
NORTA CgROLINq D ENT PERMIT APPLICATION
EPAR T FORM
DW ThiIf,,,, ROADWAY PRO J RANSPpRT
o StOt'nwater A4, Ina may bePhotoc ECT
Pro ATIpN
A P ed ete stormwater manaent Plan Review. °Piedfor use us 8inut.
an on
(see Section V Bement Plan subL design calculations, mittal includes this app.
NC PROJECT INFORMATION and plans and spec f alt ati shoot' a supplement
DOT Project Nu wing all road and BMfOrrn
P for details eac.h BMP
Pr° tuber: '
ject Name: _ 13
Z O?Q`
Project Location: C,_>, o w ` County: G ESL
Contact Person: 1 O
Recei vin
g Stream N
mine: Phone: 11"iti ?
Proposed linear feet
t T
Of Project: Ste_,_
?C River B
Proposed 1 . asin: (,? Fax:
Structural
BMP and ?d t <
lef" a? .4-T Road Station (attach a Class: C ?s
proposed ?H list ))station and ft
Type of E#..? B
Project: (check furore s
New de a1lthat apply): rOpm is nee
QOther ded: --u,?
Wing ?ane*
(lescribe) Q4 lane* C
*2 lane ?
and 4 lane imply that r°ad urb and Gutter QBridge Replacement
side ditches are used unless
II, ent
REQUIRED ITEMS CHECXLIS cur
b and Gutter is also checke
n?tial in the T d.
°CUmentthe space provided
?s attach below
to indicate the
cluding (1) the scope ed. Su foil
o
Pe of the pPorting doc owing design
nimize water quality imp project umentatio requirements have be
ximum extent acts, and (4) the items below at a minimum
practicable. any sign v' are met, consist °f a brief
if°f a brief
ifcant constraints and/or hjustiow the prpe natrratiive deo ring
finer s Initials ficatio d best management r
i n n for not meeting a, b, c and d to the
tea. amount of impervio
-b. The runoff fro us surface has
been
Vic. Best m the imPervio min1mized
a Management us areas has as much as possible.
mod. Practices are been diverted
Vegetated roadside ditches away ho
employed which minimize water m surface waters as much
are 3:1 slope or flatter. Pacts. quality im. as Possible.
Rev 04.00
Page t of 2
III. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
I acknowledge and agree by my initials below that the North Carolina Department of Transportation is responsible for the
implementation of the four maintenance items listed. I agree to notify DWQ of any operational problems with the BMP's
that would impact water quality or prior to making any changes to the system or responsible party.
Maintenance Engineer's Initials
a. BMP's shall be inspected and maintained in good working order.
?b. Eroded areas shall be repaired and reseeded as needed.
_,-c. Stormwater collection systems, including piping, inlets, and outlets, shall be maintained to insure proper
functioning.
Maintenance Engineer's Name:_
Title:
IV. APPLICATION CERTIFICATION
I, (print or type name) M &i (( dof Branch
certify that the information included on this permit application form is, to the best of my knowledge, correct and that the
project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the proposed project complies with the
requirements of 15A NCAC 2,H.1000.
Title:
-?'???
Address:
Signature:
V. SUPPLEMENT FORMS
Date:_? / ^ d
The applicable state stormwater management permit supplement form(s) listed below must be submitted for each BMP
specified for this project. Contact the Stormwater and General Permits Unit at [phone] for the status and
availability of these forms.
Form SWU-102
Form SWU-103
Form SWU-104
Form SWU-105
Form SWU-106
Form SWU-107
Form SWU-108
Form SWU-109
Form SWU-110
Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Infiltration Basin Supplement
Low Density Supplement
Curb Outlet System Supplement
Off-Site System Supplement
Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Neuse River Basin Supplement
Innovative Best Management Practice Supplement
Extended Dry Detention Basin Supplement
Form SWU-112 Rev 04.00 Page 2 of 2

lop

Replace Bridge No. 3
Over Little Northeast Creek.
SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road)
Onslow County,
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1423(3)
State Project 8.2261201
TIP No. B-3682
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
APPROVED:
2-19- OZ
Date
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
-7-11-62, l
Date -cholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
0
Replace Bridge No. 3
Over Little Northeast Creek,
SR 142' )(Old Thirty Road)
Onslow County,
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1423(3)
State Project 8.2261201
.-J TIP No. B-3682
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
February 2002
Document Prepared in Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch By:
ckie Obediente
Project Development Engineer ,,?.•??"""???,,,
r`?•0??? CARpt,N
?N•N???
.rte Z?4?OEMIR% ,
SE AL >
19791
Eric Midkiff, P.E. i
'••,? f,HCI pEE•???
Project Development Unit Head
F,pIC M\V
•••anuua?`•
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... I
1. Description of Action ............................................................................................................ I
l 2. Summary of Environmental Impacts .................................................................................... 1
3. Summary of Environmental Commitments .......................................................................... 2
4. Coordination ......................................................................................................................... 3
5. Additional Information ......................................................................................................... 3
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................ 4
II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT ..................................................................................................... 5
A. Need for the Improvements ................................................................................................... 5
1. Accident Analysis .............................................................................................................. 5
2. Bridge Sufficiency Rating ................................................................................................. 5
B. Existing Conditions ..................................................................................:............................. 5
1. Length of Project ............................................................................................................... 5
2. Route Classification ........................................................................................................... 5
3. Existing Cross Section ....................................................................................................... 5
a. Roadway .........................................................................................................................5
b. Bridge ............................................................................................................................. 6
4. Existing Right of Way ....................................................................................................... 6
5. Utilities .............................................................................................................................. 6
6. Access Control ................................................................................................................... 6
7. Speed Limits ...................................................................................................................... 6
8. Bridges and Drainage Structures ....................................................................................... 6
9. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature .................................................................................... 6
10. Intersecting Roads .......................................................................................................... 7
11. Project Terminals ........................................................................................................... 7
12. Degree of Roadside Interference .................................................................................... 7
13. Schools / School Bus Data ............................................................................................. 7
14. Railroads .........................................................................................................................7
15. Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations ...................................................................... 7
16. Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................. 7
C. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Project Area ................................................ 8
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................................... 8
A. Length of Project ................................................................................................................... 8
B. Bridge Replacement .............................................................................................................. 8
f .
C. Roadway Realignment .......................................................................................................... 8
D. Cross Section ........................................................................................................................ 8
1. Bridge ................................................................................................................................ 8
2. Roadway ............................................................................................................................ 8
E. Design Speed ........................................................................................................................ 9
F. Right of Way ...............................................
G. Access Control ...................................................................................................................... 9
H. Intersection Treatment .......................................................................................................... 9
1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations ............................................................................. 9
J. Estimated Costs ..................................................................................................................... 9
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................ 9
A. No Build ................................................................................................................................ 9
V. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .................................... 10
A. Land Use Planning ...............................................
. 10
.
.............................................................
B. Relocation Impacts .............................................................................................................. 10
C. Historic and Cultural Resources .............................................
.. 10
1 .
.........................................
Historic Archit
t
.
ec
ure ....................................................................................................... 10
2 . Archaeology ..................................................................................................................... 10
D. Natural Systems ............................................................... 10
...................................................
a. Qualifications of Investigators ..................................................................................... 11
1 . Physical Characteristics .................................................
. 12
.
................................................
a. Soils .............................................................................................................................. 12
b. Water Resources ........................................................................................................... 12
1. Characteristics of Water Resources .......................................................................... 13
2. Best Usage Classification ......................................................................................... 13
3. Water Quality ............................................................................................................ 13
4. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ............................................. 15
2. Biotic Resources .............................................

a. Terrestrial Communities ............................................................................................... 16
_ 1. Disturbed Community ............................................................................................... 16
2. Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest ................................................................................... 17
b. Faunal Component ..................................................... 17
Z ..................................................
c. Aquatic Communities ................................................................. ........................... 18
d. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources ..................................................................... 19
1. Terrestrial Impacts .................................................................................................... 19
2. Aquatic and Wetland Impacts ................................................................................... 20
3. Jurisdictional Issues ..................................................

a. Waters of the United States ............................
1. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ...................................................... 21

a. Jurisdictional Streams ............................................................................................ 21
b. Jurisdictional Wetlands .......................................................................................... 21
2. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................................................................. 23
3. Permits ...................................................................................................................... 25
a. Bridge Removal Techniques ................................................................................. 27
4. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ....................................................................... 27
b. Protected and Rare Species .......................................................................................... 28
1. Federally-protected Species ...................................................................................... 28
2. Federal Species of Concern ...................................................................................... 36
c. Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................................................... 38
E. Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation ................................................................... 38
F. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Air Quality Analysis ............................................... 39
Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns ..................................................................... 39
H. Section 4(f) Resources ........................................................................................................ 39
VI. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................ 39
TABLES
Table 1 Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ................................................... 19
Table 2 Classification of Wetlands Within the Project Study Area .................................... 24
Table 3 Jurisdictional Impacts Within the Proposed Corridor and Proposed ROW........... 25
Table 4 Federally Protected Species of Onslow County .................................................... 29
Table 5 Federal Candidate/NC Protected Species in Onslow County ................................ 37
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Mapping of Recommended Alignment
Figure 3 Bridge Inspection Report
Figure 4 2000 / 2025 Traffic Volumes
Figure 5 Proposed Typical Section
Figure 6 Flood Insurance Rate Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Appendix B Relocation Report
Appendix C Citizens Informational Workshop Notice and Handout
iii

Replace Bridge No. 3
Over Little Northeast Creek,
SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road)
Onslow County,
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1423(3)
State Project 8.2261201
TIP No. B-3682
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways proposes to replace
Bridge No. 3 over Little Northeast Creek, along with the widening and realignment of SR 1423
(Old Thirty Road) from SR 1411 (Waters Road) to SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop) in Onslow
County.
The 0.47 mile (0.76km) project is included in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled for August 2002 and construction
scheduled for January 2004.
The estimated cost is $1,375,000 including $25,000 for right of way acquisition and
$1,350,000 for construction. The estimated cost projected by the 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program is $1,460,000. including $25,000 for right of way, $1,350,000 for
construction, and $85,000 spent in prior years.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Widening and realigning SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road), and replacing Bridge No. 3 will have a
positive impact on the Jacksonville area by increasing the level of safety associated with the
facility. Based on preliminary designs, no relocations of businesses or residents are anticipated
as a result of this project. No recreational facilities or sites listed on the National Register of
Historic Places will be involved. No publicly owned parks, recreational facilities or wildlife or
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance are in the vicinity of the project. The
proposed project will impact 0.09 acres (0.036 hectares) of wetlands.
3. Summary of Environmental Commitments
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replace Bridge No. 3
Over Little Northeast Creek,
SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road)
Onslow County,
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1423(3)
State Project 8.2261201
TIP No. 13-3682
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Due to the possibility of anadramous fish in Little Northeast Creek, bridge demolition is
classified as Case 2, which allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods
associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas. This
moratorium period will last from February 15 to September 30.
Construction Unit
In accordance with any CAMA permit, NCDOT is aware that removal of the existing bridge
shall be performed so as not to allow debris to fall into the water. The contractor shall remove
the bridge and submit plans for demolition in accordance with Article 402-2 of the Standard
Specifications.
TIP Project 13-3682
Categorical Exclusion
February 2002
4. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local officials were consulted regarding this project:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
U.S. Federal Highway Administration
National Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
State Historic Preservation Office
A citizen's informational workshop was held on November 30, 1999 to obtain public
comment on the project (See Appendix C). Comments on the project that were received
from the agencies are noted by an asterisk (*). Those comments are included in Appendix A.
Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by
contacting the following:
W.D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. NC 27699-1548
[phone]
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601-1442
[phone]

Replace Bridge No. 3
Over Little Northeast Creek,
SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road)
Onslow County,
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1423(3)
State Project 82261201
TIP No. B-3682
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Highways,
proposes to replace Bridge Number 3, in Onslow County. Bridge Number 3 carries Highway SR
142:! (Old Thirty Road) over Little Northeast Creek. NCDOT and FHWA classify this action as
a Categorical Exclusion, due to the fact that no adverse environmental impacts are likely to occur
as a result of project construction.
The project involves horizontal alignment improvements of SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road)
from SR 1411 (Waters Road) to the intersection of SR 1423 and SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop).
Bridge No. 3 over Little Northeast Creek will be removed and replaced at a new location in
conjunction with the proposed alignment.
The estimated cost is $1,375,000 including $25,000 for right of way acquisition and
$1,350,000 for construction. The estimated cost projected by the 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program is $1,460,000, including $25,000 for right of way, $1,350,000 for
construction, and $85,000 spent in prior years.
The proposed project is included in the 2002-2008 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program, and is in the Federal-Aid
Bridge Replacement Program. The project location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion".
H. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
A. Need for the Improvements
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the overall safety of the facility and to
address the structural inadequacies.
1. Accident Analysis
There were 20 total accidents reported along the project section between July 1, 1995 and
June 30, 1998. The overall accident rate during this period was 1,769.9 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles (acc/100MVM) compared to the statewide average of
262.9lacc/] OOMVM for urban two-lane secondary routes. Further review of the accident
data reveals that 65% of the total accidents were ran-off-the-road accidents. Also, 55% of
the total accidents occurred at night. Because the accident rates along this facility are high,
the proposed improvements will straighten these curves, therefore reducing the accident
potential.
2. Bridge Sufficiency Rating
According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance records, the bridge's sufficiency rating is 19.9
out of a possible 100.0. This sufficiency rating classifies Bridge No. 3 as a structurally
deficient bridge. Because of this low sufficiency rating, and because of the bridge's location
between reverse curves, it is proposed to replace Bridge No. 3 and relocate it approximately
80ft (24.4m) south of the existing bridge.
B. Existing Conditions
1. Length of Project
The length of the studied section is approximately 0.47 miles (0.76km).
2. Route Classification
NCDOT classifies SR 1423 as a Rural Minor Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
3. Existing Cross Section
a. Roadway
Near Bridge No. 3, SR 1423 is a two-lane paved facility, with pavement width
varying from 18ft (5.5m) to 21 ft (6.4m). The existing roadway is characterized by tangent
sections with abrupt transitions to sharp curvature and "broken back" type curves. The
existing horizontal and vertical alignments are poor.
{
b. Bridge
Bridge No. 3 is 70ft (21.3m) long, with a 24ft (7.3m) roadway width. Two lanes of
traffic are carried, and the load limit is posted at 17 tons for single vehicles (SV) and 25
tons for Truck-tractor Semi-trailers (TTST) (See Figure 3 for details on Bridge No. 3).
4. Existing Right of Way
The existing right-of-way (ROW) is approximately 60ft (I 8.3m).
5. Utilities
Overhead and underground utilities are present along both sides of SR 1423 throughout
the project limits. There is an overhead power line on the north side (upstream) of the
existing bridge. There is also an overhead telephone line on the south side (downstream) of
the existing bridge. Both of these overhead utilities are in close proximity of the existing
bridge. There are no utilities attached to the bridge.
There is a 1 Din (1.5m) C.I. county water line located on the north side of SR 1423
throughout the project length. It also turns and goes up SR 1427 on the west side.
6. Access Control
There is no control of access along SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road).
7. Speed Limits
The posted speed limit is 45mph (72.4km/hr) for the first 0.3 miles (0.48km) and thence
becomes 55mph (88.5km/hr).
8. Bridges and Drainage Structures
Bridge No. 3 was built in 1964. The bridge consists of four spans, and has a reinforced
concrete floor and timber joists on timber caps and piles. The deck of Bridge No. 3 is 12ft
(3.7m) above the streambed of Little Northeast Creek. The creek is approximately 5ft (1.5m)
deep at the bridge vicinity. According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance. records, the bridge's
sufficiency rating is 19.9 out of a possible 100.0.
9. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature
A slight downgrade exists at the approach of the bridge over Little Northeast Creek from
the west side, and a slight upgrade exists leaving the bridge on the east side. The bridge is
located between reverse curves with a 7 degree +/- on the west side and an 11 degree +/- on
the east side.
6
10. Intersecting Roads
All intersections along SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road) are at grade. There are two stop-
signed controlled intersections along the project, located at the intersections of SR 1411
(Waters Road) / SR 1423, and SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop) / SR 1423.
11. Project Terminals
The western project terminal is located at the intersection of SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road)
and SR 1411 (Waters Road). This intersection is stop-signed controlled. The eastern project
terminal is located at the intersection of SR 1423 and SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop). This
intersection is stop-signed controlled.
12. Degree of Roadside Interference
The degree of roadside interference is low along SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road). The
roadway is located in a rural area just north of the Jacksonville City Limits, and the
development primarily consists of single family residential properties, widely spaced apart,
with one school, Morton Elementary School, located approximately 800ft (243.8m) west of
Bridge No. 3
13. Schools / School Bus Data
Morton Elementary School is located at the western end of the project limits, on the north
side of SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road) approximately 800ft (243.8m) west of Bridge No. 3. The
Transportation Director of the Onslow County School Bus Garage estimates that 40 buses
per day travel on SR 1423.
14. Railroads
No railroads exist near or along this project.
15. Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations
Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations do not exist along the roadway section.
However, the project section of SR 1423 is a designated bicycle route in Onslow County, the
"Jacksonville City to the Sea" bicycle route.
16. Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes for the section from SR 1411 to SR 1427 in the year 2000 are estimated
to be 3,200 vehicles per day. The projected traffic volumes for the same section in the year
2025 are estimated to be 6,200 vehicles per day. Projected traffic volumes, major turning
movements, truck data and design hour data are shown in Figure 4.

C. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Project Area
One roadway improvement project, included in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program, is located adjacent to the proposed project (see Figure l ). A brief description of this
project, along with its current schedule, is listed below:
TIP Project 64'-3413 -
This project proposes to improve the horizontal curvature of SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road)
from SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop) to SR 1413 (Rocky Run Road) in Onslow County.
The 2.0 mile (33 km) project is included in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled for December 2002 and
construction scheduled for December 2003.
111. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Length of Project
The length of the proposed project is approximately 0.47 miles (0.76km).
B. Bridge Replacement
The proposed bridge will be replaced on new location approximately 80ft (24.4m) south of
the existing bridge, and the roadway will be realigned to eliminate the reverse curves and poor
horizontal alignment. The existing bridge will be used to maintain traffic during construction,
therefore no temporary bridge will be needed.
C. Roadway Realignment
The alignment for the project will be designed to improve the overall safety of the facility,
and minimize impacts to wetlands, streams, and adjoining properties.
D. Cross Section
1. Bridge
The proposed bridge will be 200ft (61m) long and 34ft (10.4m) wide with 24ft (7.3m) of
travelway, and will carry 2 lanes of traffic.
Roadway
The realigned roadway will be upgraded to AASHTO standards. The realigned roadway
typical section will have a 24ft (7.3m) travelway, with 4ft (1.2m) paved shoulders and 4ft
(1.2m) grassed shoulders along each side. Where guardrail is required, shoulders will be
increased by a minimum of 3ft (0.9m) on each side. The new roadway will be at
approximately the same elevation as the existing structure.
E. Design Speed
The recommended design speed is 50mph (80.5km/hr). The posted speed limit is expected to
be 45mph (72.4km/hr).
F. Right of Way
The proposed right of way is approximately 80ft (24.4m) symmetrically along the roadway,
and approximately 100ft (30.5m) to the south in the vicinity of the bridge.
G. Access Control
No control of access is proposed.
H. Intersection Treatment
The intersections of SR 1423 at SR 1411 and SR 1427 are currently stop sign controlled.
They will remain stop sign controlled after the project's construction.
1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations
The project section of SR 1423 is a designated bicycle route in Onslow County,
"Jacksonville City to the Sea" bicycle route. Therefore, 4ft (1.2m) paved shoulders have been
implemented into the design. These paved shoulders will extend along both sides of the road.
J. Estimated Costs
The estimated cost is $1,375,000 including $25,000 for right of way acquisition and
$1,350,000 for construction. The estimated cost projected by the 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program is $1,460,000, including $25,000 for right of way, $1,350,000 for
construction, and $85,000 spent in prior years.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION
A. No Build
This alternative would avoid the environmental impacts that are anticipated as a result of the
project; however, this alternative does not meet the purpose of the project, which is to improve
the level of safety associated with the facility, and-lo address the structural deficiency of Bridge,
No. 3. Therefore, Bridge No. 3 would ultimately fail, and there would be no positive effect on
the safety of the highway. This alternative is not recommended, however, it does serve as a basis
for comparison of other alternatives.
Because the no-build alternative would provide no positive effect on the safety of the
highway, it was eliminated from further study.
9
V. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Land Use Planning
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project. No adverse effect on
families or communities is anticipated.
B. Relocation Impacts
No relocatees are anticipated as a result of this project (see Relocation Report in Appendix
B).
C. Historic and Cultural Resources
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 the opportunity to comment.
1. Historic Architecture
Maps and files were reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to locate
any potential structures within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). In a concurrence form
dated 11/21/99, 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 within the APE. A copy of the concurrence form is included in Appendix
A.
2. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in a memorandum dated April 19, 1999,
recommended that "no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this
project." A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in Appendix A.
D. Natural Systems
` Research of the project study area was conducted prior to field investigations. Information
r sources used in the pre-field investigation include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle
map (Kellum, NC), NCDOT aerial photomosaics of the project study area (1:200) and Soil
Survey of Onslow County (USDA, 1992). Water resource information was obtained from
publications of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the
study area was gathered from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of Endangered,
Threatened, and Candidate Species, and Federal Species of Concern in North Carolina (16 June
10
2000), and from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of Rare Species
and Unique Habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the bridge site by NCDOT biologists Chris
Murray, Matt Haney and Jill Holmes, on 15 June 2000, 6 and 28 July 2000, and 16 August 2000;
by Chris Murray, Jared Gray, and Jill Holmes on 17 July 2000; by Jared Gray. Matt Haney, and
Jill Holmes on 22 August 2000, and 12 September 2000; and by Shannon Simpson, Matt Haney,
and Jill Holmes on 7 September 2000. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the following
observational techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars),
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional
wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory. 1987).
a. Qualifications of Investigators
Investigator: Christopher A. Murray
Education: M.S. Coastal Ecology, Univ. North Carolina at Wilmington, North
Carolina
B.S. Zoology, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota
Certification: Professional Wetland Scientist No. 1130
Experience: N.C. Dept. of Transportation, 1995 - present
Environmental Investigations, P.A., 1992-1994
Environmental Services, Inc., 1991-1992
Expertise: Wetland Delineation, NEPA Investigations, and Protected Species
Surveys
Investigator: Matthew M. Haney
Education: B.S. Natural Resources-Ecosystem Assessment, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina
Experience: N.C. Dept. of Transportation, Oct. 1999 - present
N.C. Forest Service, May 1998-Aug. 1998
U.S. Forest Service, Center for Forested Wetlands Research, May 1997-
Aug. 1997
Investigator: Jill J. Holmes
Education: B.S. Wildlife Management, Minor in Biology, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, Texas
Experience: N.C. Dept. of Transportation, Mar. 2000 - present
Noble Foundation Agriculture Div. Ardmore, OK, May 1998- Aug. 1998
Virginia Tech Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, May 1997- Aug.
1997
1. Phvsical Characteristics
Soil and water resources, which occur in the project study area, are discussed below. Soil
types and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
Onslow County lies in the Lower Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. Land in the
project study area is characterized as relatively flat. The project is located outside
Jacksonville surrounded by agricultural fields, woods, a school, and residential property. The
project study area is located approximately between 1 Oft (3.8m) and 25ft (7.6m) above mean
sea level.
a. Soils
The project study area is located within the Norfolk-Goldsboro-Onslow Association
and the Muckalee-Dorovan Association. The Norfolk-Goldsboro-Onslow Association is
characterized by gently sloping upland soils that are moderately-well to somewhat-poorly
drained, and have a loamy subsoil. The Muckalee-Dorovan Association is characterized
as nearly level floodplain soils that are poorly drained and are loamy throughout.
The project study area is located along three different soil series and four mapped soil
units. Two series occur in upland areas and include the Norfolk series and the Marvyn
Series. The Muckalee series is located in the floodplain.
The Norfolk series includes two mapped soil units: Norfolk loamy fine sand, 0-2%
slopes; and Norfolk loamy fine sand 2-6% slopes. These soils are moderately-well to
well drained, brownish, and have moderate infiltration and slow to medium surface
runoff: increasing as slope increases.
The Marvyn series includes the mapped soil unit: Marvyn loamy fine sand, 6-15%
slopes. These soils are moderately-well to well drained, brownish, and have moderate
infiltration and slow to medium surface runoff, increasing as slope increases. Marvyn
loamy fine sand is a non-hydric soil that may have hydric inclusions of Muckalee soil.
The Muckalee series includes the mapped soil unit: Muckalee loam. This soil is
coarsely textured, poorly drained, grayish brown, has moderate infiltration and very slow
surface runoff. This soil is hydric and is frequently flooded for brief periods from
November to April and in wider flood plain areas water may pond for long periods during
winter.
b. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses the resources'
relationship to major water systems, its physical aspects, best usage classification, and
water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed,
as are means to minimize impacts.
12
1. Characteristics of Water Resources
Water resources located within the project study area lie in the White Oak
River Basin. The proposed project crosses Little Northeast Creek, located in the
New River and Tributaries Subbasin 03-05-02 and the United States Department
of the Interior Hydrologic Unit 03030001. Little Northeast Creek is listed as an
Anadramous Fish Spawning Area 1.5mi (2.43km) downstream from Bridge No.
3. Anadramous fish are those which spend most of their life in the ocean but
return to their natal freshwater streams to spawn. Little Northeast Creek
converges into Northeast Creek 3.8mi (6.2 km) south and downstream from the
bridge. Approximately 1.2mi (1.9km) downstream from this point, Northeast
Creek becomes a Fish Nursery Area.
Water resources include Little Northeast Creek and a non jurisdictional
upland cut ditch. Roadside ditches are prevalent throughout the project study
area.
Little Northeast Creek's headwaters are approximately 2.9mi (4.6km)
northeast from Bridge No. 3. Approximately 0.14mi (0.23km) south of the SR
1423, Horse Swamp converges with Little Northeast Creek. From where SR 1423
crosses Little Northeast Creek, it continues southwest for approximately 3.7mi
(5.9km). Little Northeast Creek at the project site is approximately 8ft (2.4m)
wide and 1 ft (0.3m) deep. The flow rate was low during the site visit. The
substrate is comprised of cobble, gravel, sand, and silt.
The upland cut ditch is located west of Bridge No.3 across the street from
Morton Elementary School. Water flowing in roadside ditches parallel with SR
1423 is piped under the road forming the upland cut ditch perpendicular to SR
1423. The ditch was dry with water pooled in isolated spots. There were no signs
of aquatic fauna observed during the site visit.
2. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ). According to the DWQ, the best usage classification of
Little Northeast Creek (DWQ Index No. 19-162, 8/1/91) is C NSW. Class C
waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,. fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. The supplemental classification NSW
(Nutrient Sensitive Water) are waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
No water resources classified as High Quality Waters (HQW's), Water Supplies
(WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW's) are located within
1.Omi (1.6km) of the project study area.
3. Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality management
for the 17 river basins within the state. This was accomplished with the Ambient
,L
13
Monitoring System (AMS) which is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine
water quality monitoring stations. The program assesses water quality by
collecting physical and chemical water quality data at fixed monitoring sites every
five years. AMS station P-3100000 (0209317585) is located on Little Northeast
Creek at SR 1406 near Jacksonville, NC below its confluence with Horse Swamp.
The station is approximately 2.3mi (3.7km) downstream from the proposed bridge
in the project study area and was last sampled in 1994. The station at Little
Northeast Creek was the only station in subbasin 03-05-02 at that time to exceed
the water quality criterion for three specific water quality parameters. The pH and
dissolved oxygen fell below the criterion and the results for the fecal coliforms
was above the criterion. The swamp-like conditions along the shore of Little
Northeast Creek may account for its inability to meet certain water quality
standards (NCDEHNR 1997).
Likewise, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by the DWQ and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring
program which addresses long term trends in water quality. The program assesses
water quality by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in
water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these organisms
are reflections of water quality. There are no BMAN sampling stations within the
project study vicinity.
Point source pollution refers to discharges that enter surface water through a
pipe, ditch, or other defined points of discharge. 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. Morton Elementary School (Permit No. NC 0043711, Date 3/22/93) is a
permitted point source discharger to Little Northeast Creek, located
approximately 0.16mi (0.25km) north and upstream from the bridge site in the
project study area. Horse Creek Farms Utilities Corporation (Permit No. NC
0062359, Date 10/22/92 is also a permitted point source discharger to Little
Northeast Creek, located approximately 0.13mi (0.21 km) south of the bridge site
in the project study area.
Non-point source pollution refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater flow or a non-defined point of discharge. There are many types of
land use activities that can serve as sources of non-point source pollution in the
White Oak River Basin including land development, construction, crop
production, landfills, roads, and parking lots. Water quality may be influenced by
agricultural runoff. Land clearing can cause soil erosion, which leads to stream
sedimentation, and animal waste can cause nutrient loading in streams. Oxygen-
consuming waste is also likely to be a primary source of water quality degradation
in the project vicinity.
14
4. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Potential impacts to water resources in the project study area are dependent
upon final construction limits. Roadway construction in and adjacent to Little
Northeast Creek may result in water quality impacts. Clearing and grubbing
activities near the creek will result in soil erosion leading to increased
sedimentation and turbidity. These effects may extend downstream for
considerable distance with decreasing intensity.
Removal of streamside vegetation will have a negative effect on water quality.
The vegetation typically shades the water's surface from sunlight, thus
moderating water temperature. The removal of streamside canopy during
construction will result in more extreme fluctuating water temperatures. During
warmer portions of the year, the water temperature will increase, resulting in a
decrease in dissolved oxygen because warmer water holds less oxygen.
Streambank vegetation also stabilizes streambanks and reduces sedimentation by
trapping soil particles.
Construction activities adjacent to water resources increase the potential for
toxic compounds (gas, oil, and highway spills) to be carried into nearby water
resources via precipitation, sheet flow, and subsurface drainage. Increased
amounts of toxic materials can adversely alter the water quality of any water
resource, thus impacting its biological and chemical functions. Indirect impacts
to surface waters may extend both upstream and downstream of the project study
area. Indirect impacts may include changes in flooding regime, discharge, erosion
and sedimentation patterns.
Removal of Bridge No. 3 should not cause any impacts to Little Northeast
Creek or its adjacent wetlands, however, a worst-case scenario analysis was
performed in the event that the deck over the water were to contribute to the
temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition. The maximum amount of
temporary fill that could impact water resources is approximately 14 cubic yards.
Because of this possibility, conditions in the stream will raise sediment concern,
and therefore a turbidity curtain is recommended.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the entire impact area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface
Waters should be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project. The
NCDOT, in cooperation with the DWQ, has developed a sedimentation control t
program for highway projects which adopts formal BMPs for the protection of "
surface waters. Because Bridge No. 3 is being removed, NCDOT's BMPs for
Bridge Demolition and Removal shall be used as well. These practices were
developed in coordination with the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(COE), Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC), and the National Marine
Fisheries Service in order to establish a consistent, environmentally sound
15
approach to the demolition and removal of bridges on North Carolina's public
road system.
Erosion and sedimentation will be most pronounced as a result of disturbance
of the stream banks and substrate. Sedimentation from these activities may be
high during construction, but should diminish rapidly following project
completion if exposed soils are revegetated and streambanks stabilized.
2. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include terrestrial, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. This section
describes those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships
between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences
and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the
context of plant community classifications.
Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described and discussed.
Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*). Scientific
nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and plant
species described. Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common
name only.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate,
community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant
names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) when possible. Habitats used by.
terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were
determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive
documentation (Martof et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Rohde et al. 1994; Potter et al.
1980).
a. Terrestrial Communities
Two terrestrial communities are identifiable in the project study area: disturbed
community and mixed pine hardwood forest.
1. Disturbed Community
This community encompasses several types of habitats that have recently been or
are currently impacted by human disturbance: roadside shoulder, maintained yard,
and agricultural fields. These irregularly maintained habitats are kept in a low-
growing, early successional state. Herbs, grasses and vines located in the roadside
shoulder and maintained yard include fescue (Festuca sp.), beadgrass (Paspallum
sp.), broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), common plantain (Plantago major),
English plantain (P. lanceolata), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), geranium (Geranium sp.),
16
pennywort (Hydrocotyle sp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), crabgrass
(Digitaria sp.), white clover (Trfolium repens), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans),
dandelion (Taraxicum offrcinale), daisy fleabane (Erigeron annuus), bushclover
(Lespedeza sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), saw greenbrier (Smilax bona-
nox), vervain (Verbena sp.), and bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). Plants located
in the roadside ditches include Carex crinita, Cyperus sp., Rhynchospora sp, and a
rush (Juncus sp.).
2. Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest
There are varying degrees of succession in this community. Dominant species
located in the canopy and subcanopy include green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red
maple (Ater rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidarnbar styraciflua), black gum (Nyssa
sylvatica), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum),
flowering dogwood (Cornus.florida), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), horse
sugar (Symplocus tinctoria), American elm (Ulmus americana), blackjack oak
(Quercus marilandica), southern red oak (Q. falcata), post oak (Q. stellata), water
oak (Q. nigra), white oak (Q. alba), privet (Ligustrum sinense), pepperbush (Clethra
sp.). red chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), American beautybush (Callicarpa
americana), bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra), titi (Cyrilla racemillora), American holly
(Ilex opaca), sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), red bay (Persea bobonia),
and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Species located in the herb and vine layer include
trumpet creeper, winged sumac (Rhus. copallina), poison ivy, strawberry (Fragaria
sp.), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia),
common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), blackberry (Rubus argutus), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia),
partridge berry (Mitchella repens), and a heart leaf (Hexastylis sp.).
Portions of the mixed pine hardwood forest are located in the floodplain of Little
Northeast Creek. These lower areas may be flooded during heavy rain events due to
overbank flooding of Little Northeast Creek.
Nine wetland communities were identified within the mixed pine hardwood forest
of the project study area. The wetlands are thoroughly described on page 22 under
section b. Jurisdictional Wetlands.
b. Faunal Component
Many species prefer open, disturbed habitat to feed and nest in. The least shrew
(Cryptotis parva) inhabits relatively open areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation.
The Eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis) and the hispid cotton rat
(Sigmodon hispidus) prefer old fields and roadsides where they feed on seeds, shoots, and
leaves. In disturbed areas that are exposed to sunlight near edge habitat, the Carolina
anole (Anolis carolinensis) is found. Birds such as the mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura)*, the fish crow (Corvus ossifragus)* and the brown headed cowbird
(Molothrus ater)* forage for seeds and insects in open, disturbed areas. Soaring over
open areas searching for carrion, the turkey vulture (Catharses aura)* can be observed.
17
Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and
clearings. The Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagusfloridanus) prefers a mix of herbaceous
and woody vegetation in disturbed open areas such as old fields and edges of forests.
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianu.s)* will utilize the forested areas as well as
the open agricultural areas. The gray squirrel (Scittrus carolinensis)* can be seen in
residential yards as well as wooded areas. The black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta)*
will come out of forested habitat to forage in open areas. The northern mockingbird
(Mimus polyglottos)* can be observed perched in edge habitat, singing.

Many species prefer to forage and nest primarily in forested communities. The
opossum (Didelphis viginiana)* prefers woodlands but can be found in open areas as
well and is observed as roadkill in the area. The marsh rabbit (S. palustris) may be
found in wet wooded and floodplains near the wetlands located in the project study
area. The spring peeper (Hyla crucifer) can be found under forest litter and in the
undergrowth and will breed in wetter areas such as roadside ditches and wetlands.
The Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) is a terrestrial turtle but will be found
near water in hot, dry weather. The five-lined skink (Eumeces fascialus) and the
copperhead (Agkistrodon conlortrix) may also be found in forested communities.
Birds such as the Northern cardinal (Thryothorus ludovicianus)*, tufted titmouse
(Parus bicolor)*, Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), red bellied woodpecker
(Melanerpes erythrocephalus)*, red eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus)*, and the wood
thrush (Hylocichla mustelina)* will forage and nest within the forested community.
c. Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, coastal plain perennial stream, is located in the project
study area. Perennial streams support an assemblage of fauna that require a constant
source of flowing water, as compared to intermittent or standing water. Physical
characteristics of the water body and condition of the water influence floral and faunal
composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly affect aquatic communities.
Beaver (Castor canadensis)* activity was observed along the banks of Little
Northeast Creek. A double crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo)* was observed
diving in the water searching for fish. There are many amphibians and reptiles that may
be observed in and adjacent to moderately sized, slow flowing, perennial streams such as
Little Northeast Creek. The marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum) and the southern
dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus) can be found under logs, rocks, and leaf
litter in moist areas along streams. The little grass frog (Limnaodus ocularis) frequents
forests streams with swampy conditions in the coastal plain. The green frog (Rana
clamitans) and the snapping turtle (Chelydra seroentina) are also found along streams.
According to Fish (1968), Little Northeast Creek has an ecological classification of
Redfin Pickerel-Warmouth. Fish species that may be located here include the swamp
darter (Etheostoma fusiforme), the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirusi), the creek chubsucker
(Erimyzon oblongus), the eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), the pirate perch
(Aphredoderus sayanus), the eastern silvery minnow (Hybognathus regius),the flier
18
(Centrarchus macropterus), the redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), the warmouth
(Lepomis gulosus), and various sunfishes (Lepomis spp.). Possible anadramous fish
include the alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and the blueback herring (A. aestivalis).
Invertebrates observed in Little Northeast Creek include freshwater mussels (Eliptio
sp.)*. whirlygig beetles (Family Gyrinidae)*, water striders (Family Gerridae)*,
dragonflies (Order Odonata)*, and damselflies (Order Odonata)*.
d. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to
the natural resources in terms of the ecosystems affected.
1. Terrestrial Impacts
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of
each community (Table 1). Project construction will result in the clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived using
the corridor limits of the project study area. Usually, project construction will not
require the entire corridor width; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities.
Area
Disturbed Community 4.10ac/1.66ha
Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest 6.09ac/2.47ha
Total 1019ac/4.13ha
The biotic communities found within the project area will be altered as a result of
project construction. Terrestrial communities serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter
habitat for fauna. During construction, species that. utilize the open disturbed habitat
will temporarily be displaced. Eventually, altered areas will revegetate and a
disturbed community will be re-established. Because the species that inhabit
disturbed communities are adapted to living in highly altered habitats, the area should
be repopulated by species for which suitable habitat is provided following project
completion.
The forested habitats located in the project study area in unfragmented.
Following construction completion and revegetation, edge species will still have
adequate habitat and the impacts from the loss of habitat should be minimal. The
forested habitat loss can potentially impact fauna not located in the project study area
as well. Interior species may be impacted from the reduced forested habitat available.
If forested tracts become too small in area, interior species will not repopulate.
19
2. Aquatic and Wetland Impacts
Construction activities will impact the water resources located in the project area
as well as those downstream. Impacts to the aquatic community of Little Northeast
Creek will result from the removal of Bridge No. 3 and the building of the new bridge
on a new alignment. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of
aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate and water quality). Disturbance of aquatic habitats has
a detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity
and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can
result in the following impacts to aquatic communities:
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Algae blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from an
increased sediment load.
Road construction impacts can affect the functions that wetlands perform in an
ecosystem as well. Wetlands influence regional water flow regimes by intercepting
and storing storm runoff which ultimately reduces the danger of flooding in
surrounding and downstream areas. Loss of wetland communities will result in loss
of this water storage area. Wetlands have been documented to remove organic and
inorganic nutrients, and toxic materials from water that flows across them as well as
decrease the sediment load. In this respect, impacting wetlands can directly affect the
water quality, and therefore the aquatic organisms, of Little Northeast Creek.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to BMPs for
Protection of Surface Waters and BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal. Strict
erosion and sedimentation controls will be maintained during the entire life of the
project. Anadramous Fish Guidelines should be adhered to avoid potential impacts to
these fish.
Jurisdictional Issues
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two
important issues--Waters of the United States and Protected and Rare Species.
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the'broad category of "waters of
the United States," as defined under 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) §328.3 (a).
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR §328.3 (b), are those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
saturated conditions. Surface waters are waters used in interstate or foreign commerce,
waters subject to ebb and flow of tides, all interstate waters including interstate wetlands,
and all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams. Any action that proposes
20
to place fill material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the COE under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (3.7 U.S.C. 1344).
1. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
a. Jurisdictional Streams
Little Northeast Creek is considered a jurisdictional water located in the
project study area. This water resource is described thoroughly on page 14 under
section 1. Characteristics of Water Resources.
b. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Potentia etland communities were evaluated using criteria specified in the
1987 "Cori 'Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". For an area to be
considered 'wetland". the following specifications must be met; 1) presence of
hydric soils (low soil chroma values), 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and
3) evidence of hydrology, including; saturated soils, stained leaf litter, oxidized
rhizospheres, matted vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases,
and surface roots.
The Cowardin classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) is a uniform
approach in describing concepts and terms used in classifying ecological taxa
located in a wetland system. The DWQ rating scale gauges wetland quality using
a numerical rating system (1-100 with 100 being the highest value). See Table 2.
Nine wetland communities identified within the mixed pine hardwood forest
natural community are considered jurisdictional wetlands.
Wetland A
Wetland A is located adjacent to the east side Little Northeast Creek at Bridge
No. 3 on SR 1423. Wetland A is located on a freshwater perennial stream and is a
bottomland hardwood forest wetland that is seasonally flooded or inundated.
Vegetation located in wetland A includes red maple, green ash, a smartweed
(Polygonum sp.), an aster (Aster sp.), saw greenbrier, false nettle (Boehmeria
cylindrica), sweetgum, a sedge (Carex sp.), muscadine grape, and jewelweed
(Impatiens sp.) Drift lines, sediment deposits, and low chroma soil colors were
observed. The Cowardin classification for wetland A is PFO1 EM 1 (Palustrine:
Forested- broad-leaved deciduous, Emergent- persistent), and the DWQ rating is
59. This wetland is a riverine system.
Wetland B
Wetland B is located approximately 50ft (15m) south of SR 1423, 80ft (24m) east
of Little Northeast Creek. It is an isolated, ephemeral wetland that is seasonally
21
flooded or inundated. Vegetation located in wetland B includes common
greenbrier, giant cane, water oak, a sedge, an aster, Japanese honeysuckle,
blackberry, trumpet creeper, sweetgum, saw greenbrier, soft rush (Juncus effusus),
Virginia creeper, and St. Johnswort (Triadenuni sp.). Oxidized root channels and
low chroma soil colors were observed. The Cowardin classification for wetland B
is PFOI EMI (Palustrine: Forested Forested- broad-leaved deciduous, Emergent-
persistent), and the DWQ rating is 29. This wetland is a non-riverine system.
Wetland D
Wetland D is located southeast of Bridge No. 3, approximately 30ft (9m) south of
SR 1423 and 130ft (40m) east of Little Northeast Creek. It is an isolated,
ephemeral wetland that is seasonally flooded or inundated. Vegetation located in
wetland D includes common greenbrier, a sedge, green ash, red maple, giant cane,
trumpet creeper, and woolgrass bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus). This wetland was
inundated at the time of the site visit. Water marks, sediment deposits, water-
stained leaves, and low chroma soilk colors were observed. The Cowardin
classification for wetland D is PFOIEMI (Palustrine: Forested-broad-leaved
deciduous, Emergent- persistent), and the DWQ rating is 33. This wetland is a
non-riverine system.
Wetland E
Wetland E is located southeast of Bridge No. 3, approximately 65ft (20m) south
of SR 1423 and 150ft (45m) east of Little Northeast Creek. It is an isolated,
ephemeral wetland that will temporarily have surface water. Vegetation located
in wetland E includes netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata), ironwood,
common greenbrier, pawpaw (Asimina sp.), willow oak (Quercus phellos),
swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), Japanese honeysuckle, royal fern (Osmunda
regalis), cinnamon fern (O. cinnamomea), trumpet creeper, soft rush, blueberry
(Vaccinium sp.), tulip poplar, and Virginia creeper. The soil was saturated in the
upper 12 inches, and oxidized root channels and low chroma soil colors were
observed. The Cowardin classification for wetland E is PFOI EM2E (Palustrine:
Forested- broad-leaved deciduous, Emergent- nonpersistent, Seasonally
saturated), and the DWQ rating is 33. This wetland is a non-riverine system.
Wetland F
Wetland F is located southeast of Bridge No. 3, south of wetland D. It is
approximately 130ft (40m) south of SR 1423 and adjacent to Little Northeast
Creek. Wetland F is a bottomland hardwood forest wetland located on a
freshwater perennial stream. It is seasonally flooded or inundated. Vegetation
located in wetland F includes netted chain fern, soft rush, red maple, giant cane,
ironwood, a sedge, Japanese honeysuckle, and blackberry. Drainage patterns and
low chroma colors were observed in this wetland. The Cowardin classification is
22
I'-M2E (Palustrine: Emergent- nonpersistent, Seasonally saturated), and the
I- WQ rating is 24. This wetland is a riverine system.
Wetland H
Wetland H is located approximately 190ft (58m) south of SR 1423 at the
intersection of SR 1427. Wetland H is a headwater forest wetland located on an
intermittent freshwater stream and is seasonally flooded or inundated. Vegetation
located in wetland H includes royal fern, blackberry, loblolly pine, tulip poplar,
cinnamon fern, and red maple. Oxidized root channels and low chroma soil
colors were observed. The Cowardin classification is PFO 1 EM2B (Palustrine:
Forested- broad-leaved deciduous, Emergent- non persistent, Saturated), and the
DWQ rating is 42. This wetland is a non-riverine system.
Wetland K
Wetland K is located approximately 150ft (45m) south of SR 1423 and 200ft
(60m) west of Little Northeast Creek. Wetland K is a headwater forest wetland
located on an intermittent stream and is seasonally flooded or inundated.
Vegetation located in wetland K includes netted chain fern, cinnamon fern, a
sedge, redbay, red maple, ironwood, and blackberry. The soil was saturated in the
upper 12 inches, and drainage patterns and low chroma soil colors were observed.
The Cowardin classification is PFO1 EM2B (Palustrine: Forested- broad-leaved,
Emergent- non persistent, Saturated), and the DWQ rating is 42. This wetland is
a non-riverine system.
Wetland L
Wetland L is located adjacent to the west side of Little Northeast Creek at Bridge
No. 3 on SR 1423. Wetland L is located on a freshwater perennial stream and is a
bottomland hardwood forest wetland that is seasonally flooded or inundated.
Vegetation located in wetland L includes tear-thumb (Polygonum sagittatum), an
aster, a sedge, red maple, green ash, American elm, a violet (Viola sp.), and
trumpet creeper. Drift lines, sediment deposits, drainage patterns, water-stained
leaves, oxidized root channels, saturation in the upper 12 inches of soil, and low
chroma soil colors were observed. There is also beaver activity at this wetland
site. The Cowardin classification is PFO 1 EM 1 B (Palustrine: Forested- broad- _
leaved, Emergent- persistent, Saturated), and the DWQ rating is 59. This wetland
is a riverine system.
2. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Eight separate wetland systems are located within the corridor limits of the
project. The wetlands are individually described on page 21 under b. Jurisdictional
Wetlands, and Table 2.
23
Table 2. Classification of Wetlands Within the Project Study Area
Water Resource Cowardin Class DWQ rating
Wetland A PFO 1 EM 1 59
Wetland B PFO 1 EM 1 29
Wetland D PFO I EM I 33
Wetland E PFO 1 EM2 33
Wetland F PEM2E 24
Wetland H PFO 1 EM213 42
Wetland K PFO1 EM213 42
Wetland L PFOI EM 1 B 59
Total
'Cowardin classifications for each wetland are defined on page 22 under section b. Jurisdictional
Wetlands.
'The DWQ rating scale gauges wetland quality using a numerical rating system (1-100 with 100
being the highest value).
Approximately 431 ft (131 m) of Little Northeast Creek are located within the
corridor limits of the project study area, of which approximately 67ft (20m) are
located within the 60ft (18.3m) proposed ROW limits where the proposed bridge and
realignment of SR 1423 will be placed. Five of the eight wetlands within the corridor
are fully or partially located within the proposed ROW. The approximate impacts to
wetlands within the proposed ROW is 0.1325ac (0.054ha). The approximate impacts
to wetlands located under the proposed bridge is 0.0586ac (0.0237ha). Placement of
the proposed ROW is approximate. Actual impacts to the surface waters and
wetlands may be less than reported because the entire ROW width and easements are
often not impacted by construction projects. The amount of surface water impacts
may be modified by any changes in roadway design.
24
Table 3. Jurisdictional Impacts Within the Proposed Corridor and Proposed ROW

Water Resource Study Corridor'
(Potential Impacts) Actual Impacts from
Proposed ROW Limits2 Impacts Under Bridge
from Proposed ROW
Limits
UT 0 ------------------- 25ft (7.6m) None
Little Northeast Creek 431 ft (131m) None None
Wetland A 0.09ac (0.04ha) None 0.034 ac (0.014 ha)
Wetland B 0.03ac (0.01 ha) None 0.01 ac (0.004 ha)
Wetland D 0.08ac (0.03ha) 0.06ac (0.024ha) None
Wetland E 0.02ac (0.01 ha) None None
Wetland F 0.05ac (0.02ha) None None
Wetland H 0.1 lac (0.04ha) None None
Wetland K 0.1 Oac (0.04ha) 0.03ac (0.012ha) None
Wetland L 0.09ac (0.04ha) None 0.0146ac(0.006ha)
Total Stream Impacts 431ft (131m) 25ft (7.6m)
Total Wetland
Impacts
0.57ac (0.23La)
0.09ac (0.036ha)
0.0586ac (0.0237ha)
Based on the 230 ft corridor limits of the entire project study area
Based on a 60 ft ROW limit where the proposed bridge and realignment of SR 1423 will be placed. Those
wetlands with no impacts fall outside the proposed ROW limits.
Removal of Bridge No. 3 should not cause any impacts to Little Northeast Creek
or its adjacent wetlands, however, a worst-case scenario analysis was performed in
the event that the deck over the water were to contribute to the temporary fill
resulting from bridge demolition. The maximum amount of temporary fill that could
impact water resources is approximately 14 cubic yards. Because of this possibility,
conditions in the stream will raise sediment concern, and therefore a turbidity curtain
is recommended. Possible bridge removal techniques are described on page 27 under
a. Bridge Removal Techniques.
Due to the possibility of anadramous fish in Little Northeast Creek, bridge
demolition is classified as a Case 2, which allows no work at all in the water during
moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment
into nursery areas. This moratorium period begins February 15 and lasts until
September 30.
3. Permits
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated from project construction. In
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit will be
required from the COE for discharge of dredge or fill material into "waters of the
United States." Due to surface water impacts, a Section 404 Nationwide 14 Permit
(NWP 14) will likely be necessary for this project. Due to removal and construction
25
of Bridge No. 3, a Section 404 General Permit 31 will likely be necessary for this
project as well. Final decision concerning applicable permits rests with the COE.
A NYVP 14 authorizes activities required for the construction, expansion,
modification, or improvement of linear transportation crossings (e.g., highways,
railways, trails, and airport runways and taxiways) in waters of the United States,
including wetlands. A NGYP 14 mat, he used Ji)r public linear transportation projects
in non-tidal waters, excluding non-tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters, provided
the discharge does not cause the loss of greater than 112 acre of waters of the United
States. This permit requires that the District Engineer be noticed if: the discharge
causes a loss of greater than 1/10 acrd of waters of the United Slates; and if there is a
discharge in a spacial aquatic site, including wetlands.
A Section 404 General Permit 31 authorizes the discharge of dredged or fill
material in waters if the United States, including wetlands, associated with the
construction, maintenance and repair of bridges spanning navigable waters and waters
of the United States, including cofferdams, abutements, foundational seals, piers,
approach fulls, detour fills, box culverts installation and temporary construction and
access fills. as part of work conducted by the NCDOT or other state, federal or local
governmental entity, in the state of North Carolina. This permit requires written
confirmation from the District Engineer prior to the commencement of any work.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to
the issuance of the Nationwide/General Permits. Section 401 of the CWA requires
that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. The issuance of
a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
The subject project is located within a county that is under the jurisdiction of
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). CAMA is administered by the N. C.
Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM). The NCDCM 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 (AEC) in which uncontrolled develop
might cause irreversible damage to property, public health and natural environment.
A CAMA permit from the NCDCM is required if the project meets all of the
following conditions:
a) Located in one of the twenty counties covered by CAMA;
b) Located in or affects an AEC designated by the CRC;
c) Considered to be "development" under CAMA; and,
d) Not qualify for an exemption as identified by CAMA or the CRC.
An NCDCM representative determined that this project necessitates a CAMA
permit. Because a CAMA permit is required, a CAMA Major Development permit
will also be required.
26
The CAMA Major Development permit application will also serve as an
application for other state permits and for permits from the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) as required by Section 10 the Rivers and Harbors Act and
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. It is likely that the USACE would authorize the
project under a Section 404 General Permit 291. The state permits include:
a) Authorization to excavate and/or fill;
b) Authorization into lands covered by water; and, Authorization under
401 Water Quality Certification.
a. Bridge Removal Techniques
In accordance with any CAMA permit, NCDOT is aware that removal of the
existing bridge shall be performed so as not to allow debris to fall into the water.
The contractor shall remove the bridge and submit plans for demolition in
accordance with Article 402-2 of the Standard Specifications. Possible methods
for bridge removal involve the contractor lifting out each span with a crane, or
saw cutting the bridge in sections, and then lifting these sections out. The piles
would either be pulled, or cut off at the mud line.
4. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands"
and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological, and physical integrity of waters of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetlands has been defined by the CEQ to include: Avoiding impacts (to
wetlands), minimizing impacts, and rectifying impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practical possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
COE, in determining "appropriate and practical" measures to offset unavoidable
impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those
impacts and practical in terms of costs, existing technology and logistics in light of
overall project purposes. Wetlands were located with GPS and it is anticipated that
some wetlands may be avoided during design where practicable.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practical steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these
steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions.
Practical means to minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands impacted by
the proposed project include:
27
• Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of
median width, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
• Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover
during construction.
• Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the
protection of surface waters and wetlands.
• Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies.
The project was designed to avoid impacts to wetlands in the area. The project
alignment was chosen to cross the narrowest band of wetlands at the bridge
approaches. Additionally. a 200ft (60.96m) long bridge is proposed which will span
and avoid filling most of the wetlands in the area. As a result, impacts were avoided
to wetlands A. B. E. F. H and L. Impacts to wetlands D and K were unavoidable due
to the bridge approach fill. NCDOT also coordinated with the USACE to avoid
filling the highest quality wetlands A and L. Impacts to wetlands D and K were
minimized by decreasing the project footprint in wetlands by the use of 3:1 side
slopes and crossing wetlands perpendicularly. Additionally, measures to control
erosion during construction will be incorporated as well as strict enforcement of Best
Management Practices.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not
be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable
compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain
after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory
actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of waters of the United
States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site.
b. Protected and Rare Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-
protected, be subject to review by the USFWS. Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
1. Federally-protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA. As of 16 June 2000, there are 11 federally
protected species listed for Onslow County (Table 4). Following are brief
28
descriptions of the characteristics and habitat requirements for each listed species.
The biological conclusion for each species will resolve the potential impacts due to
the proposed project.
Table 4. Federally Protected Species of Onslow County.
ci t e Name ommon ame a us
1KC1 ar n ISSIS yynenst.c American alligator
C arelta caretla
C'huradrhis melodus
C'helonta nn•das
Uerntocheh:c cortacea
Felis concolor cougar
Picoides borealis
lmarawhus ptanihis
Carey hitea
Lrstmachia aspernlaefolia
Thalictrum coole-W
Loggerhead sea turtle
Piping plover
Green sea turtle ? 1'
Leatherback sea turtle ' E
Eastern cougar E*
Red-cockaded woodpecker E
Seabeach amaranth T
Golden sedge ; PE
Rough-leaved loosestrife E
Cooley's meadowrue - E
Endangered (E) species are a taxon which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
Threatened (T) species are a taxon likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
Threatened by Similarity of Appearance T(S/A) species are a taxon which is threatened by similarity of
appearance with other species and is listed for its protection.
Proposed Endangered (PE) species are a taxon proposed for official listing as endangered.
* indicates an obscure and incidental record.
Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) T(S/A)
Animal Family: Alligatoridae
Date Listed: 4 June 1987
The alligator is a large aquatic reptile, measuring 1.8-5.8 meters in length, with a broadly
rounded snout, heavy body, laterally compressed tail, and a dark gray or blackish color.
Young are black with conspicuous yellow crossbands; the banding may occasionally
persist on adults, although very faintly. Unlike the American crocodile, the fourth tooth
on the lower jaw of the alligator fits in a notch in the upper jaw and is not exposed when
the jaws are closed.
The alligator is found in rivers, streams, canals, lakes, swamps, bayous, and coastal
marshes. Adult animals are highly tolerant of salt water, but the young are apparently
more sensitive, with salinities greater than 5 parts per thousand considered harmful. The
diet consists of anything of suitable size, including mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds,
fish, and crustaceans.
29
Nesting takes place in late spring and early summer, with the female building a mound of
grass and other vegetation that may be two.feet high and six feet across. The nest is
usually, constructed near the water, in a shaded location. The clutch of 30-60 (average
35) eggs is laid in a cavity near the top of the mound, and is incubated by the heat from
the decaying vegetation. The female usually remains near the nest until the eggs hatch.
Hatching takes place in about nine weeks, at which time the young begin calling to alert
the female to excavate- the nest.
This species is listed as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance, and is therefore not
protected under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. However, in order to control the
illegal trade of other protected crocodilians such as the American crocodile, federal
regulations (such as hide tagging) are maintained on the commercial trade of alligators.
No survey is required for this species
Caretta caretta (Loggerhead turtle) Threatened
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 28 July 1978
The loggerhead sea turtle is a large marine reptile, weighing 170-500 kg. The loggerhead
has a large head and blunt, powerful jaws. The carapace and flippers are reddish-brown
and the plastron is yellow. There are five pairs of pleural scutes on the carapace, with the
first touching the nuchal scute. Three scutes on each side connect the carapace and the
plastron.
The loggerhead sea turtle is found in a wide variety of habitats, including the open
ocean, bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and large river mouths.
Hatchlings are often seen in association with floating sargassum seaweed. The diet
includes sponges, jellyfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and fish. Loggerheads often forage in
coral reefs, rocky areas, and shipwrecks.
On the east coast of the U.S., the nesting season begins in about May and lasts until
November. Females crawl onto the beach at night and excavate a chamber in the sand,
using their hind flippers. They lay 64-341 eggs, the average being about 115. These
hatch in about two months, usually emerging at night. The hatchlings crawl toward the
ocean, possibly using illumination off the water and slope of the beach as cues to find the
water. Little is known about where the young go once they enter the ocean, but evidence
suggests that 12-30 years are required to reach sexual maturity. Females only nest every
2-3 years, but may lay 2-6 clutches during a reproductive year.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle is not located within the
project study area. A review of the North Carolina NHP database of Rare Species and
Unique Habitats revealed no known occurrences of the loggerhead sea turtle within 1.6 km
(1.0 mi) of the project study area. Therefore it can be concluded that construction of this
project will not impact this species.
30
Charadrius melodus (Piping plover) Threatened
Animal Family: Charadriidae
Date Listed: 1 l December 1985
The piping plover is a small shorebird resembling a sandpiper, weighing 42-56 g, with a
length of 15-20 cm. Their plumage is white below and brownish gray above, with a
black band across the forehead and a black ring around the neck. The black marking may
be indistinct during the winter. The legs are yellow, and the bill is yellow in summer and
dark in the winter. Chicks are precocial and covered with a sandy-colored down. This
plover's call is a clear "peep-lo". This bird's movement pattern during foraging is like
that of most plovers, running in short starts and stops.
Piping plovers prefer habitat that consists of large sandflats or mudflats. for foraging in
close proximity to a sandy beach for roosting and nesting. They nest on sandy or gravelly
beaches in sparsely vegetated areas that are slightly higher in elevation than the
surrounding beach. The nest is a shallow scrape in the sand, often with shell fragments in
it, and a clutch usually consists offour eggs. The eggs hatch in May and the young
fledge about a month later. Parents will often try to distract predators from the nest by
feigning a broken wing. Migration to the wintering grounds occurs in early September.
Piping plovers eat a wide variety of worms, fly larvae, beetles, crustaceans, molluscs, and
other invertebrates (Bent 1928). The foraging behavior consists of quick darting
movement across the sand or mudflat, with sudden stops to probe the sand for food items.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the piping plover is not located within the project
study area. A review of the North Carolina NHP database of Rare Species and Unique
Habitats revealed no known occurrences of the piping plover within 1.0mi (1.6km) of the
project study area. Therefore it can be concluded that construction of this project will not
impact this species.
Che%nia mydas (Green sea turtle) Threatened
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 28 July 1978
The green sea turtle is a large marine reptile, weighing 100-295 kg. The smooth, keelless
carapace is light to dark brown with darker mottling and the plastron is light yellow. The
head is fairly small with a serrated lower jaw, and there is a single claw on each front
flipper. There are four pairs of pleural scutes on the carapace, with none touching the
nuchal scute, and a single pair of elongated scales between the eyes. Hatchlings
generally have a black carapace, white plastron, and white markings on the edge of the
carapace and flippers.
Adult green sea turtles are generally found in shallow water, especially in lagoons and
shoals inside reefs, bays, and inlets where marine grasses and algae are abundant.
Hatchlings are often seen offshore, in association with floating sargassum seaweed. The
31
diet consists mainly, of marine grasses and algae, although mollusks, sponges,
crustaceans, and jellyfish may also be taken.
On the east coast of the U.S., the nesting season begins in about June and lasts until
September. Females crawl onto the beach at night and excavate a chamber in the sand,
using their hind flippers, in which a clutch of 75-200 eggs is deposited. Incubation takes
48-70 days, and the hatchlings usually emerge at night. The hatchlings crawl toward the
ocean, possibly using illumination off the water and slope of the beach as cues to find the
water. Little is known about where the young go once they enter the ocean, but evidence
suggests that 25-50 years are required to reach sexual maturity. Females only nest every 2-
4 years, but may lay seven clutches during a reproductive year, with 9-13 days between
clutches.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the green sea turtle is not located within the
project study area. A review of the North Carolina NHP database of Rare Species and
Unique Habitats revealed no known occurrences of the green sea turtle within 1.6 km (1.0
mi) of the project study area. Therefore it can be concluded that construction of this
project will not impact this species.
Dermochelys coriacea (Leatherback sea turtle) Endangered
Animal Family: Dermochelydae
Date Listed: 2 June 1972
The Leatherback sea turtle is the largest of the turtles, weighing 295-680 kg with a length
of 1.2-1.8 m. This turtle is unique in that its carapace is not composed of hard scutes, but
is rubbery with small bones embedded in it. The carapace has seven longitudinal keels,
and is dark brown or black. The plastron has five longitudinal keels. There is not a well-
defined angle between the carapace and plastron, making the animal somewhat barrel-
shaped. The head and flippers are brown or black with whitish spots, and the flippers
have no claws. The beak is somewhat hooked, with a tooth-like cusp on either side of the
upper jaw. Hatchlings are dark brown or black, with white or yellowish carapace keels,
and their skin has small scales that are lost as the animal grows.
The Leatherback sea turtle is a strong swimmer and mainly pelagic, often seen near the
edge of the continental shelf. Preferred nesting beaches are usually isolated, with close
proximity to deep water, bordered by vegetation, and steep enough so that dry sand is not
too far from the water. The diet consists mainly of jellyfish, along with some sea urchins,
crustaceans, squid, tunicates, fish, and seaweed.
Nesting in North Carolina takes place in June through September. Clutch size is
approximately 80-100 eggs, of which a third may be yolkless. Females may nest several
times in a single season, but probably do not nest every year. Incubation takes 55-74
days, and the hatchlings emerge at night. They immediately head for the ocean, possibly
using light cues to find the water.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
32
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the leatherback sea turtle is not located within the
project study area. A review of the North Carolina NHP database of Rare Species and
Unique Habitats revealed no 1 sown occurrences of the leatherback sea turtle within 1.0mi
(1.6km) of the project study area. Therefore it can be concluded that construction of this
project will not impact this species.
Felis concolor cougar (Eastern cougar) Endangered*
Animal Family: Felidae
Date Listed: 4 June 1973
The eastern cougar is a large, unspotted, long-tailed cat weighing between 68 and 91 kg.
Males are 30-40 percent larger than females. The cougar's body and legs are a uniform
tawny color, although the belly is a pale reddish color, and the backs of the ears, tip of the
tail, and sides of the muzzle are black. Kittens are spotted with black and have ringed tails
until they are about 6 months old.
Historically. the eastern cougar occurred from eastern Canada south to Tennessee and
South Carolina. Its distribution has contracted to a few scattered locations in Minnesota,
Michigan, and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Additional sightings have also
been reported in several counties of western and southeastern North Carolina. No
populations of this species are well documented. Habitat requirements consist primarily
of large tracts of wilderness and adequate prey, and this species can live in coastal
swamps as well as mountainous regions. Cougars feed mainly on white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), although they may also eat small mammals, wild turkeys, and
occasionally domestic livestock. It is estimated that a female cougar can have a range of
5-20 square miles, and a male can have a range upwards of 25 square miles.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the Eastern cougar is not located within the project study area. The
project vicinity is relatively fragmented by cultivated land, residential areas, and a school,
not allowing for the large tracts of wilderness required by the Eastern cougar. A review of
the North Carolina NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats revealed no known
occurrences of the eastern cougar within l .Omi (1.6km) of the project study area.
Therefore it can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this species.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black and white
except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is
black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker are
white with.streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the
black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50%
pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat
for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are > 60 years old and are
33
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up
to 500 acres (200.0 hectares). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are
infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 12-100 ft (3.6-30.3 m) above the ground and average 30-50 ft (9.1- 15.7 m) high.
They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The
RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: *** NO EFFECT***
***Note: A survey for red-cockaded woodpeckers in the potential habitat areas at the
project site was conducted on December 13, 2000 by NCDOT Biologists Hal Bain, Jared
Gray, Jill Holmes, and Matt Haney. No red-cockaded woodpeckers were observed, nor
were nesting cavities, or any other evidence that they may be using the project study area.
A review of the North Carolina Heritage Program Database of Rare Species and Unique
Habitats revealed no known occurrences of the red-cockaded wookpecker within 1.6 miles
of the project study area. Therefore it can be concluded that the construction of this project
will not impact this species.
Amaranthus pumilus (seabeach amaranth) Threatened
Plant Family: Amaranthaceae
Flowers Present: June to frost
Seabeach amaranth is an annual legume that grows in clumps containing 5 to 20 branches
and are often over a foot across. The trailing stems are fleshy and reddish-pink or reddish
in color. Seabeach amaranth has thick, fleshy leaves that are small, ovate-spatulate,
emarginate and rounded. The leaves are usually spinach green in color, cluster towards the
end of a stem, and have winged petioles. Flowers grow in axillary fascicles and the
legume has smooth, indehsicent fruits. Seeds are glossy black. Both fruits and flowers are
relatively inconspicuous and born along the stem.
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to the Atlantic Coastal Plain beaches. Habitat for seabeach
amaranth is found on barrier island beaches functioning in a relatively dynamic and natural
manner. Seabeach amaranth grows well in overwash flats at the accreting ends of islands
and the lower foredunes and upper strands of noneroding beaches. Temporary populations
often form in blowouts, sound-side beaches, dredge spoil, and beach replenishment. This
species is very intolerant to competition and is not usually found in association with other
species. Threats to seabeach amaranth include beach stabilization projects, all terrain
vehicles (ATVs), herbivory by insects and animals, beach grooming, and beach erosion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for seabeach amaranth does not occur within the project study area. A
review of the North Carolina NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats revealed
no known occurrences of the seabeach amaranth within 1.0mi (1.6km) of the project study
area. Therefore it can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this
species.
Carex Lutea (Golden Sedge) Proposed Endangered
Plant Family: Cyperaceae
Flowers Present: mid April to mid June
34
Golden sedge is a perennial sedge whose culm (stem) may reach three feet (1 m) or more
in height. The yellowish green leaves are grasslike, with those of the culm mostly basal
and up to loin (28cm) long, while those of the vegetative shoots reach a length of 25in
(65cm). The inflated perigynia (sac which encloses the ovary) are bright yellow at
flowering and about.] 6 to .20 in (4 to 5 mm) long, and the perigynia beaks are out-
curved and spreading. Golden sedge is most readily identified from mid-April to mid-
June during flowering and fruiting. It is distinguished from other Carex species that
occur in the same habitat by its bright yellow color, by its height and slenderness, and
especially by the out-curved beaks of the crowded perigynia (LeBlond et al. 1994).
Carex lutea grows in sandy soils overlying coquina limestone deposits, where the soil pH
is unusually high for this region, typically between 5.5 and 7.2 (Glover 1994). Soils
supporting the species are very wet to periodically shallowly inundated. The species
prefers the ecotone between the pine savanna and adjacent wet hardwood or
hardwood/conifer forest (LeBlond 1996; Schafale and Weakley 1990). Most plants occur
in the partially shaded savanna/swamp where occasional to frequent fires favor an
herbaceous ground layer and suppress shrub dominance. The species appears to be a
very rare, narrowly restricted endemic to an area within a 2-mile radius of the
Onslow/Pender County line in southeastern North Carolina (LeBlond 1996).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for golden sedge is not located within the project study area. There are no
pine savanna areas in the project study area and all wetland areas are dominated by shrubs
and trees and therefore do not favor an open herbaceous ground layer. A review of the
North Carolina NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats revealed no known
occurrences of golden sedge within 1.Omi (1.6km) of the project study area. Therefore it
can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this species.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) Endangered
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: 12 June 1987
Flowers Present: June
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb having slender stems and whorled leaves.
This herb has showy yellow flowers which usually occur in threes or fours. Fruits are
present from July through October.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of North and South
Carolina. This species occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and
pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on a wet, peat, poorly
drained soil), on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils
overlaying sand. It has also been found to occur on deep peat in the low shrub community
of large Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly drained depressions of unknown origins).
The areas it occurs in are fire maintained. Rough-leaved loosestrife rarely occurs in
association with hardwood stands and prefers acidic soils.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
35
Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife is not located within the project study area. A
review of the North Carolina NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats revealed
no known occurrences of rough-leaved loosestrife within 1.Omi (1.6km) of the project
study area. Therefore it can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact
this species.
Thalictrum coon vi (Cooley's meadowrue) Endangered
Plant Family: Ranunculaceae
Federally Listed: 7 February 1989
Flowers Present: late June-July (best mid July)
Cooley's meadowrue is a tall herb growing to 1 m or more when in flower. Its slender
stems are erect in sunny locations and lax or sprawling when shaded. The leaves are
ternately divided and the leaflets are about 2 cm long, narrow with entire margins or
rarely with two or three lobes near the tip. The entire plant is glabrous with no hairs or
glands. Male and female flowers occur on separate plants in loose few-flower clusters at
the top of the plant. The flowers lack petals and the sepals fall off early. The male
flowers have numerous pale lavender stamens. The female flowers have several separate
spindle-shaped carpels which develop into narrowly ellipsoid, ribbed, one-seeded fruits 6
mm long, each tipped with a persistent linear style.
Cooley's meadowrue occurs in wet pine savannas, grass-sedge bogs and savanna like
areas. often at the border of intermittent drainages or swamp forests. This species is
usually found in areas that contain some type of disturbance such as clearings, burned
savanna edges, maintained roadsides and power line rights-of-ways. It is found on fine
sandy loam, circumneutral soils that are seasonally (winter) moist or saturated and only
slightly acidic (pH 5.8-6.6).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for Cooley's meadowrue is not located within the project study area. There
are no wet boggy areas in the disturbed and open habitat found in the project study area. A
review of the North Carolina NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats revealed
no known occurrences of Cooley's meadowrue within 1.Omi (1.6km) of the project study
area. Therefore it can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this
species.
2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species which may
or may not be listed in the future. There are 22 FSC listed for Onslow County as of 16
June 2000. FSC are not afforded federal protection 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 or Endangered. Organisms which are listed
as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern by the NHP list of Rare Plant and
Animal Species 1993 are afforded state protection or are monitored under the State
Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
However, the level of protection given to the state listed species does not apply to
36
NCDOT activities. Table 5 provides the FSC listed in Onslow County and indicates
the species state status, and whether or not there is adequate habitat for each species
in the project area.
Table 5. Federal Candidate/NC Protected Species in Onslow County.
Scientific Name Common Name State Status Habitat
Aimophila aestivlis Bachman's Sparrow SC No
Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's sparrow SR No
Heterodon sinus Southern hognose snake SR No
Laterallus jamaicensis Black rail SR No
Ophisaurtts mimicus Mimic glass lizard SC No
Passerina ciris ciris Eastern painted bunting SR No
Rana capito capito Carolina gopher frog SC No
Procambartts plumumantrs Croatan crayfish W3 Yes
Asplenitmi heteroresi/iens Carolina spleenwort E No
Carex chapmanii Chapman's sedge w l Yes
Dionea muscipula Venus flytrap C/SC No
Litsea aestivalis Pondspice C No
Lobelia boykinii Boykin's lobelia C No
Myriophyllum laxum Loose watermilfoil T No
OYypolis ternata Savanna Cowbane W1 No
Panicum hirstii Hirsts panic grass E No
Parnassia caroliniana Carolina grass-of-pamassus E No
Rhexia aristosa Awned meadowbeauty T No
Rhynchospora thornei Thome's beaksedge C/PE No
Solidago pulchra Carolina goldenrod E No
Solidago verna Spring-flowering E/PT No
goldenrod
Tofteldia glabra Carolina asphodel C No
'Endangered (E) species are a taxon whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's t?oranauna is
determined to be in jeopardy.
Threatened (T) species are a taxon which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Special Concern (SC) species are a taxon in North Carolina which requires monitoring.
Significantly Rare (SR) species are a taxon not listed by the NC WRC but which exists in small numbers and has
been determined by the NHP to need monitoring.
Candidate (C) species are a taxon that is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state.
Watch List (W) species are any other species believed to be rare and of conservation concern in the state but not
warranting active monitoring at this time (Wt: rare but relatively secure, W3: rare but uncertain documentation).
Proposed Threatened/Endangered (PT/PE) species are a taxon which has been formally proposed for listing as
Threatened/Endangered, but has not yet completed the legally mandated listing process.
A review of the NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats on 12 April
2000 revealed findings of Peltandra saggittifolia, Hooker's milkwort (Polygala
hookeri), short-bristled beaksedge (Rhynchospora breviseta), and graceful goldenrod
37
(Solidago gracillima) within 1.0mi (1.6km) of the project area. Surveys for these
species and the FSC were not conducted during the site visit, nor were the species
observed during the site visit.
c. Essential Fish Habitat
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) assessments, required by the National Marine Fisheries
(NMF), ask that impacts from NCDOT construction to listed managed aquatic species be
evaluated. Assessments should be made both on a spatial and temporal scale, evaluating
the immediate impact area and downstream, and the effects of the construction over time.
Onslow County is listed as a county that contains waterbodies in which EFH species
are found. None of the waterbodies listed are located immediately within the project
study area or vicinity, however Little Northeast Creek flows into Northeast Creek which
converges with the New River, a listed waterbody. The New River is approximately
8.9mi (5.5km) downstream from the project site. Ron Sechler, of NMF, commented that
an Essential Fish Habitat study "would not be necessary because the (project study) area
was far enough away from the waters of primary concern." He also agreed that due to the
presence of freshwater mussels in Little Northeast Creek, it is not likely that EFH species
would be found in the project study area. EFH species are usually found in waters of
higher salinity content than freshwater mussels can live in.

E. Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted in the vicinity of the project. In addition to a
field survey, a file search of appropriate environmental agencies was conducted to identify any
known problem sites along the proposed project alignment. Based on the field reconnaissance
and records search, two potential UST sites were found within the project area. Both of these
former gas stations are located at the SR 1423 (Old 30 Road) and SR 1411 (Waters Road)
intersection. The first is located in the northwest quadrant, while the second is located in the
northeast quadrant. NCDOT has indicated that construction for the current design will begin
west of this intersection and will not impact these sites. If this changes and improvements are to
be made to this specific intersection, the NCDOT Geotechnical Unit shall be contacted to re-
evaluate these sites. No regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites occur within the project
limits. No potential RCRA or CERCLA sites were identified within the project limits.
However, unregulated UST's and unregulated landfills may be encountered by right of way
during their initial contacts with the impacted properties. The NCDOT Geotechnical Unit should
be notified of their presence prior to acquisition so that the actual condition of the site can be
examined. If a site with unregulated UST's, dumpsites, or landfill is identified by Right of Way,
a further investigation should be performed prior to right of way. This assessment will also be
used by the Department to estimate the associated clean up cost and make right-of-way
recommendations.
38
F. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Air Quality Analysis
This project is located in Onslow County, which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 and 93 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
traffic volumes; therefore, the project's impact on noise and air quality will not be significant.
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
NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise if Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772, and for air quality of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
G. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns
The drainage area of Little Northeast Creek at the proposed crossing is 9.3 square miles (24.1
square kilometers). Onslow County is currently participating in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. This crossing of Little Northeast Creek is located in a designated flood hazard
zone. No detailed flood studies have been done at the subject crossing. The crossing of Little
Northeast Creek is located below headwaters. It is not anticipated that the proposed project
should have any adverse impacts on the existing floodplain. Figure 6 is a copy of the Flood
Insurance Rate Map for Onslow County on which the 100-year flood fringes are shown. There
are no buildings located on the upstream or downstream floodplain, which is primarily wooded.
H. Section 4(f) Resources
No Section 4(f) properties will be involved with this project.
VI. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On November 30, 1999, a citizen's informational workshop was held in Onlsow County
at Morton Elementary School (see Appendix C for a copy of the Notice of a Citizens
Informational Workshop and the Workshop Handout). This workshop was held in order to
obtain comments and suggestions about the project from the public. Additionally, the proposed
improvements were presented to the resource agencies on November 8, 2001 in order to address
agency concerns and to determine if any changes were recommended. Agencies in attendance
included the US Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Resources
Commission, Federal Highway Administration, Division of Coastal Management, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
Minutes of the meeting are included in Appendix A.
39
FIGURES

v
ProMc*
?i B 'd N l
gn0 koint
ri ge o.3 ?? 30
eP?, •? ?? ? Odd q
1411 0227 1423
?__ k.0 $d 30 1423
1423
W / '?_• ,
d
/. ?•.
?.
eo
`it' •l
¦

•
?r
i?
•I•
I•I
040
I
• to*
I•
•
I•I
VON NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
Replace Bridge No. 3
Over Little Northeast Crook
SR 1423 (Old Thirty Rood)
Onslow County, State Project 8.2261201
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1423(3)
TIP Project No. "682
?? JC
1413
FIGURE

lol?
r
NJR7n . tih-L alt 1'I:.QNtiI'[l;t I ATIf,S
?` -- _
D;'v7i:UNlJ: lil:ilfwgt'j
HI:;1)i;F \L?1LY:=?iAVlf 1.'1'f:
13JUDC E INSPECTION
h.EPQRT
TYTyF 0=1NSl'E:Crl0N
cot-NT) C) M5 __ ARIDGE NLNIBER tVSPtC IOS C'YC'LE
?:? (E - S-iZ 14 2L.';__ ACROSS LIIII s_ It,l???l f ?? - ?' a w w k M P
LOCH710\ I,n ??. 1n r_ S"C? - I is
DESC RII' IO` J4 M,_
PR:'SE\T ( 0\7):T1Q` INVENTORY RATING ?S lD
IRSPEr7io? D -?7!: • C? - OPERATING RATING ?a5 ?S
PRESI N"T ??yy?,yiICC,,
POST:tiG ?tiJ- 1'i M ST- PROPOSED POSTING ?[Co,n- 5. V. 17 76n5
T?ST 25 Tw
C0161P TER LPDA; F ANALYSIS DATE ?Gi 48
K)ST[NG L-F-TFR DA"E OTHER SIGNS PRESENT
SICN NOTICE NVM- 8FR
ISSIJED FOR REQUIRED
WEIGHT LM-7
SPECIAL PERMIT
DELINEATORS
NARROW BRIDGE.
ONE LADE BRIDGE
LOW CLEARANCE
Retnscd
Figure 3
W-3413
Onslow County
SR -1411 SR-1423 from SR 1411 to SR 1413 j
? 0 2000 Estimated Average Daily Traffic ?
I
?SR -1421 SR-1423
o0
3,200 600) x'_00 3? 000
P, FM s sao
a.n a.n
ry,
SR -1423
SR -1413
r U
s - wrre.. ne ?
X
- rr
w. - w. er
i
y MOI A esw
i
Figure 4

SR -1411
J
t p
9\
'o
6,200 1.90 A 1,100
?-
,` QQQ i x.700 9.5% R , - 55%
SR -1423
5,400.-.. '•7001
?M 3,700
9.5% 55%
a,n i
hVSR -1413
o SR-1423
3?0/

WIND

•-4 - .diver TlR?M
- w h r
w. - it wr

• Iql A KM?

W-3413
Onslow County
SR-1423 from SR 1411 to SR 1413
2025 Estimated Average Daily Traffic
o° SR -1427
N
W
a
c?
z
0
H
U
W
a
W
A
O
x
W
z
1
O
3
E-?
A
W
O
a
O
a
a
E
tn
>, p
c
3 ?
`+- p
O p
Op
E
0 .?
ri 00
L.
00
> o
a?
N

N
N

00
APPENDIX A
,1 o. cgr4'
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
?e +.'f NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
`',*ff Habitat Conservation Division
Beaufort Facility
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 285 16
November 16, 2001
Mr. Bill Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Attention: Jackie Obediente
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
This responds to your October 23, 2001, request for National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
comments on Project number B-3683/W-3413, Improvement of SR 1423 from SR 1411 to SR 1413,
including replacement of Bridge No.3 on new location, in Onslow County, North Carolina. The
purpose of the project is to increase safety levels and to replace Bridge No. 3 over Little Northeast
Creek. The new bridge would be located approximately 80 feet south of the existing bridge location
and the old bridge would be removed once work on the new bridge is completed.
Our initial review of the project indicates that reasonable efforts have been made to avoid and
minimize impacts to wetlands and aquatic resources. We note that unavoidable wetland losses and
adverse impacts are anticipated in connection with relocation of 322 linear feet of stream and
planned filling of 0.12 acre of wetlands. These impacts need to be offset and we recommend that
this occur in advance of, the Department of the Army (DA) permit application process. Ideally, the
DA public notice for the project should describe the mitigation to be provided, and we should be able
to concur without providing further comments and recommendations. You may wish to consult
further with us in connection wit these mitigation needs.
Little Northeast Creek, is a tributary of the New River and it provides habitat for anadromous fishery
resources for which the NMFS has stewardship and management responsibilities. Plans, as stated
in your letter, to adhere to the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT)
Anadromous Fish Guidelines are commendable and should be strictly adhered to. This would
seasonally restrict or limit work in waters and wetlands during periods of anadromous fish spawning.
Planned incorporation of the NCDOT's Guidelines and Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition is also desirable and.alleviates the need for detailed comments and recommendations
concerning this aspect of the project.
® Printed on Recycled Paper
A-1
?. a
?L1411aC P
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have questions or additional needs,
please contact me at the letterhead address, or at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ronald S. Sechler
Fishery Biologist
r
Tela to
u? STA)r u?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
April 19, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager --?
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch ?;-?-
Division of Highways
Department of Trans tion
FROM: David Brook
/1?
t = .. - 1 K
Deputy State His ric re rvation O f
SUBJECT: SR 1423 from SR 1411 to SR 1413, Onslow ?,;...?.
County, Federal Aid Project STP-1423(2) and o.?
. ;x
BRSTP-1423(3) State Project 8.73260'24 and ?E?+
?
S105
8.2261201, TIP W-3413 and B-3682, ER 99-
8343
Thank you for your memorandum of February 18, 1999, concerning the above project.
We have checked our maps and files and have located the following historic structures
within the project area:
ON 267, House
ON 386, Erasmus Morton House
Both are located on the north side of the road and shown on the attached map. A North
Carolina Department of Transportation architectural historian should evaluate these
properties.
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.
A-2
?r.STP- 1423 )
Federal Aid #STP-1423(2) TIP #W-3413 County: Onslow
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Improvements to SR 1423 from SR 1411 to SR 1413, including replacement of
Bridge No. 3
' Oa October 21, 1999, representatives of the
}
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
photograph review session/consultation
other
All parties present agreed
n there are no properties over fifty years old within the projects area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterior.
Consideration G within the project's area of potential eff=L
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as Properties 1-7 are considered not eligible for the National Register and no further
evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
lb•21. q
Representati
State Historic Preservation
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
Liate
?Py
A-3
FHWA<%6r- the Division Administrator, dr other Federal Agency Date
d w ST e
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
December 14, 2001
TO: Meeting Attendees
FROM: Jackie Obediente
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: B-3682/W-3413 Agency Meeting Minutes
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
An agency meeting was held on November 8, 2001 at 1:00 p.m., in the Photogrammetry
Conference Room in the Century Center. The following were in attendance:
Jackie Obediente
Eric Midkiff
Jill Holmes
Ron Lucas
Bill Arrington
Cathy Brittingham
David Cox
Beth Barnes
Cynthia Perry
Tim Goins
Tom McCartney
Chris Militshcer
Mason Herndon
Joe Blair
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch (PD&EA)
PD&EA
PD&EA
Federal Highway Administration
Division of Coastal Management
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Water Quality
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
USEPA - Raleigh
Division 3 - DEO
Division 3 - DICE

This project is not going through the merger process, however, the purpose of this
agency meeting was to present and review the preliminary designs to determine whether
: any changes need to be made, or whether any permitting problems are anticipated.
Below is a summary of the topics that were discussed:
The current project schedules are as follows -
B-3682: Categorical Exclusion - December 2001
RW - August 2002
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE.- WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
A-4
LET - January 2004
W-3413: Categorical Exclusion - January 2002
RW - January 2003
LET - January 2004
CAMA - This project will require a CAMA Major Permit. This permit must be
applied for-3-4 months before LET date. Utility relocations will be addressed and
included in the CAMA permit. Conditions of the permit will be coordinated during
the permitting process.
Anadramous Fish Moratorium and T&E Species- Because this project lies within
an anadramous fish spawning area, Anadramous Fish Guidelines will be followed.
There is a possibility that this moratorium period may be the longest period; which
lasts from February 15 to September 30. We will look into coordinating the LET date
around this moratorium period. T&E Species survey report will be included in the
Categorical Exclusion (CE).
Bridge Demolition and Construction - For purposes of the environmental
document, PD&EA is required to calculate a worst-case scenario concerning amounts
of bridge demolition debris that have the potential to fall into the water. It is assumed
that the worst-case scenario would involve the entire concrete deck falling into the
water during removal. In accordance with any CAMA permit, NCDOT is aware that
no debris will be allowed to fall into the water during the removal of the bridge.
Bridge removal methods will be discussed in the CE.
Avoidance and Minimization of Wetlands - descriptions concerning avoidance and
minimization measures taken will be included in the Categorical Exclusion. These
minimization measures include the implementation of 2:1 slopes at the bridge
approaches, and avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands at curves and
along the roadway. Descriptions will include justification of why the curves and the
roadway could not be designed differently to avoid wetland impacts, and how 2:1
slopes at the bridge approaches were implemented into the design.
If you have any questions corfterning the meeting, or the meeting minutes, please call me
at 919-733-7844 extension 228, or email me at [e-mail].
cc: David Timpy, USACE
Allen Pope, Division 3 Engineer
John Hennesy, DWQ
Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries, HCD
Jimmy Gooodnight, Roadway Design
APPENDIX B
RELOCATION REPORT
7 E.I.S. = CORRIDOR = DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PROJECT: 8.2261201 COUNTY Onslow Alternate of Alternate
I. D. NO.: B-3682 F.A. PROJECT BRSTP-1423 3)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 3 over Little Northeast Creek, SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road)

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35.50M
50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0
1 0
1 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M $ 0-150 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 150-250
Yes No Explain all 'YES' answers. 40-70M 250-400 40-70M 250-400
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400-600 70-100M 400-600
2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 up 100 up 600 up
Displacement? TOTAL
3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
Project? This is a negative EIS Study.
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
Indicate size, type, estimated number of
Employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
Families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there Will be adequate DSS housing
Housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
Financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
Source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?

G,?-
Right of Way A ent ate Approved Date

Form 15.4 Revised 10/00 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Division Right of Way
Office
APPENDIX C
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Fax:[phone] Nov 5 '01 14:30 P.02i02
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
ON SR 1423 (OLD THIRTY ROAD)
FROM SR 1411 TO SR 1413
Projects 8.732602418.2261201 W-3413113-3682 Onslow County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold a Citizens
Informational Workshop on November 30, 1999, between the hours of
4:00 PM and 7:00 PM in the Cafeteria of Morton Elementary School, 485 Old 30
Road, Jacksonville.
Project W-3413 will improve SR 1423 from north of SR 1411 to SR 1413, and
Project B-3882 will replace Bridge #3 over Little Northeast Creek. Comments
from the public will be used in the preparation of the environmental document
being developed for this project.
NCDOT representatives will be available at the workshop to answer questions
and receive comments relative to the proposed projects. Information at the
workshop will be general in nature. No detailed designs are available. Interested
individuals may attend at their convenience during the above-stated hours.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact-Mr. Edwin A. Peters, Project
Development Engineer, at P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611, or call
919-733-7844, ext. 228.
In order to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, NCDOT will provide
auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to attend the
workshop. To receive special services, please contact Mr. Peters at the above
address or fax [phone] prior to the date of the workshop.
C-1

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch

Z
?O
E.j

SR 1423 (OLD THIRTY ROAD),
FROM SR 1411 (WATERS ROAD)
TO SR 1413 (ROCKY RUN ROAD),
ONSLOW COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. W-3413 AND B-3682
NOVEMBER 30, 1999
Citizens Informational Workshop
C-2
110 RTM

CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
SR 1423 (OLD THIRTY ROAD), FROM SR 1411 (WATERS ROAD)
TO SR 1413 (ROCKY RUN ROAD), ONSLOW COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. W-3413 AND B-3682
Purpose of the Citizens Informational Workshop
The purpose of the Citizens Informational Workshop is to involve the public in the
project planning process. If you have comments or suggestions about the proposed
improvements described in this handout, please let a representative of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation know. A comment sheet is provided for you to write down
your questions or concerns so that we can keep a record of and fully consider your ideas,
comments, and suggestions.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation realizes individuals living close
to a proposed project want to be informed of the possible effects of the project on their
homes and businesses. However, exact information is not available at this stage of the
planning process. Additional design work is necessary before the actual right of way limits
can be established. More detailed information will be available at a later date.
A comment sheet is included in this handout. Written comments on this project may be
left with North Carolina Department of Transportation representatives at the Citizens
Informational Workshop or submitted through the mail. If additional information is
needed or you would like to submit comments after the Citizens Informational Workshop,
please address your requests and comments to:
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Program Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Description of the Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation's 2000-2006 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) proposes to improve the horizontal curvature of SR 1423(Old
Thirty Road) and replace Bridge No. 3 over Little Northeast Creek.
Project Schedules
The proposed project is scheduled for right of way acquisition in fiscal year (FY)
2001 and for construction in FY 2002. The current cost estimate is $2,240,000, which
includes $2,150,000 for construction and $90,000 (TIP) for right of way acquisition.
• Current Status
Currently, planning and environmental studies are in progress. A Categorical
Exclusion is scheduled to be completed in September 2000. A public hearing will be
scheduled following the completion of the Categorical Exclusion. At this public hearing,
the public will have an opportunity to review a map showing the proposed design. Factors
that may affect the design of this project include engineering criteria and environmental
factors such as relocation of homes or businesses, wetlands, historic sites, etc. A form is
C-3
available from NCDOT representatives if you feel you have or know of a structure which
has historica' significance. The improvements currewly under investigation are described
in the next paragraphs.
Proposed Improvements
The proposed project includes providing additional pavement and improving the
horizontal curvature of the roadway at select locations along SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road)
from SR 1411 (Waters Road) to SR 1413 (Rocky Run Road) where the design speed of
the curves is inconsistent with the design speed of the overall facility. Additionally,
Bridge No. 3 over Little Northeast Creek will be replaced on new location in conjunction
with these horizontal alignment improvements.
Anticipated Right of Way Impacts
The existing right of way on SR 1423 is approximately 60 feet. It is anticipated
that minimal additional right of way will be needed to accommodate the proposed
improvements.
NCDOT will use the result of the environmental and engineering studies within the
study corridor to develop an alignment which is safe and cost effective and which
minimizes impacts to existing development and historic and natural resources.
No final decisions have been made regarding this project. Therefore, the above
information and schedule are preliminary and subject to change. As planning for the
project continues, we will include all comments and suggestions to the extent possible.

COMMENT SHEET
SR 1423 (OLD THIRTY ROAD), FROM SR 1411 (WATERS ROAD)
TO SR 1413 (ROCKY RUN ROAD), ONSLOW COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. W-3413 AND B-3682
(You do not have to answer all the questions on these sheets, but please take the time to
give us your comments and concerns regarding this project. Please continue any responses
on the back of this sheet.)
NAME:
(Please print)
ADDRESS:
(Please print)
COMMENTS, CONCERNS AND/OR QUESTIONS REGARDING PROJECT W-3413
and B-3682:
IV
(If you need additional space, please continue on the back.)
C-4
WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONS.
WAS THE PROJECT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED TO YOU?
REPRESENTATIVES UNDERSTANDABLE AND CLEAR IN THEIR
EXPLANATIONS? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
WERE DISPLAY MAPS EASY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND?
PLEASE EXPLAIN.
WERE NCDOT REPRESENTATIVES COURTEOUS AND HELPFUL? _
PLEASE EXPLAIN.
HOW MIGHT WE BETTER PRESENT PROPOSED PROJECTS AND ADDRESS
CITIZEN'S CONCERNS IN FUTURE INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS?
HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS MEETING TODAY?
1
DO YOU FEEL THE MEETING WAS ADEQUATELY PUBLICIZED?
PLEASE EXPLAIN.
Additional comments can be sent to Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager of the Project
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.
WERE NCDOT
4 ZONE C
,, \ 11
it _'tt it
.' ZONE C 11 `
u n It it
It ?I 111 ii It
.' / % 11 II If 1 It ti
?' II 11 II d1 ll t`
It it If
Ao 11 ii nom`..
If ?' 111 it 11 ?
i,' 11 II It O 11 It
II `
11. ?? \
?i' 11 ?• 11 s t\ it
,'i i, ?`a IJ 11 p it
2 11 It it
O , \ 11 11 II .y
,,'? ?/i ? \\ 11 II
\\ 11 ?1 f
It It
?/ 11 1 11 I
It 11
\\ a 11 It \\ n ?
`\\ Il u p \\ u ,
\\\\ r' 1t1 J 1\t\ 111 ^\ Ifl kx
\\ 1 11 _:' `r \p \ 11 ? ?? ? ' \\ 11 ' ':mss t, lt_ ? ?
it II `.t / sa h ???
I1 .
II , -7 I ii
r
/r
it
wI II
? 11
ii.
O 11
1? .
I Il
V
C
•t
f9
Q\

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE Pip'
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE t-,'
ONSLOW COUNTI
NORTH CAROLINA
(UNINCORPORATED AREA
PANEL 225 OF 556
EFFECTIVE DA
JULY 2, 1?
federal Fm•rgcnc)
f\I:ulaganclll :\c

COMMUNITY-PANEL HUME
310340 022`.
II
/r I I

L 1

N
D D
Z N
o8t ? {?xw ?^o p
C
tali o?24
o r..
so
541?+?g + .? O~
is
14
a a
yA m-o ep Oz
° ° N Q Zo3?+0
?aW 3
2aa?9 z z
N a•-z m ??°Oo
o9z gg z Z?
m
2;
n p ?
Z y 7°
Q tJ N i>A
O '• R' N ? Fn
JQWJN ? W ° f'n
T `^ _O
Nc x
F
m
N
0 0
O O
°o °o
T
m m
0 0
zlz
-n N
'a m
0
mlo
X
IIN
2-N
A P
N N
W O
.t! I
or)
Z:q co
a ,
r-
0
rZ
o? W
IAA
,? I
?W I
CZ) I
W
Q1
N
u I 1
_a
9 - lMJ Y1 .- --* 1
1 x
Prcln
I d$ ?l ? ? Q V
1
I I I I 1 pl
I O
n SEE SHEET 5
19 +D0 00
P/?p,TCHIINE -?
QI
,4 I A
mlra
'I \
I
I I
I
I
I
9
o ).° 1
10
u u II a °cn
N r
?UvW?* I
?QpN
?unu u u II n ucn
91 t -b,Ll
,4.
w
I
C
y
_ I
NAD 83
Is
M anz
$r8
?x it
H H
I . Or

A
00 L 19 +00 SEE SHEET 4
. )
&I CHO

M
N p Z?OOOZ
.e o w S O vi -4y
o > O m QmO?'S
2aa?D Z?ZZ?
o i m m00'O?
r. 2? ? n ?0=00
00 $ o n D3 SOD
? ?o n. r o ? DZO
Z ? n w _? uji D
O f u0 F' N ? -p-1
N f ? O m
w
? a ? e Z
C N ? _
m
N
o :E
EL
II II
CL
WW Vi
Qx
n )
N N
?a
T
I
0
3
n$ f
O II Q
O p
P
Q P O
O
O
N

3

°o 1
c I

o
N

N I
x
'
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ?
I?

om ? /
A
?F
P
v3 ?
v ?
II ? a I
a
p ? r
O? I
A 2
P'Q 1
II

16 b p
?Q p?? 1 J 11 ? m
20
\8 •? 111 f
1
0
1 1b o
? ? ? ?vp? 1110
? era ? ? 111

00
11 `?` I yf'I S mz
X11 ??` 1 I '???
I Z ,?

1
?

. I II
I
I I?

25
N
C

A

m
W

u ° r
N 4 v
b
??R a

.
. m
y
om?
m

z
m O
t W
v
)N
I"
r
Urr/f AQ9fNfA51 CRC["
? ? _ ? I UI
o° 3
.
.
Q
p?.ly LL SX / / xS
) N R _
A
' Li N
I
Il ? a ?

c
i - 4 C, D
r
? I K. "?:33 /
? a O w
Q f?D
V N 4 Z
.Z d m II n°°???

S 8 ,Sy I 3
N ?
m

?n AZz C
?ur?
?? m .rte 1
?_ .
.
_
II C j
O 'a o.
Z
?
s
_
a
O r I W

W
N

P) Q
n s
r
34+00.00 SEE SHEE T 6
Mp,TCHLINE -L-
3
o D
„
a
It rn
O
NAD 83
30
V 6 82
Q
b
r
Vl y ? ? u

r

A
MATCHLINE -L- 31 +00.00 SEE SHEET 5
x.
0 0 0.?
T --Q
o a'°a
n m
m
< o
E 'a
4 r I I
I I I
3 !; N
O ° y ?•I
ya as
c °oh? I c
6w ?
u
p 0.11' ICY Am..
LO.0 S
? I
f ~? ° b ? ?? o oil
I
EZ>
EDO
/
4 / / / pp s
„?? b II
PCsto.36+1860 ELI
m
N '
u x p Q
p a p b ? I
s p
o,6s.E\ b ? ? b Q ? ? I
b p ? 4 ?p?
g?. Qba ? b?
SS AC .S N
E6 0 11
p ED O
I
0
?Q I
? n
Prs?o. 40+58 5
b
?E
A
m I
m
? P
o ° ?I
w e
N T F ,.
io nAi m A00y0 Z [!,.
O W OO b
°• > 'o
a(LEi oz ?ZZn
m
o m 0p?A
?
N A• 1 p W Two a :3.
Z;. it = a
O A DOG1?y
Or O
o m Z
s _ oDo
m
O W N Z N H
N
J^W, N f WO
T W O z
00
G N v Z
A
m
w
eor,?I•
c
\ . to e"' .j Leo

13,

VMLE9
to
ySC?9yN
?a? 9Z.
A om::a to t>
p $? " Il n u ° u 11tH
c a ? N 1
Rm ti ??vmz i,,,m
rn
,p Q)
Jo P1 s
I II
I II
I} ?
I
I?
?I
>? I I
1",tl 1 ??I
$? Q ? I
I
®" c'P 4 I ? I
N
w D
rs Ln
O O
0 0
0
00
1-
w C"
47 _?
Z Z
T
? D
-O m
O z
nm O
-Im
A V
N W
W N
CT
N N
?. A
SHEET 7
44 + 00.00 SEE
Mp,TCI-ILINE -?
R
1
z+ ez ?>
z
Z jr
Z
!Z'3 0
b
z A,
W Q
rA
N
D D
W W
Ul 0
+ +
o a
O O
r I
Z Z
v v
D
oA
m1O
Q `m
03 a
20
N ?
N
A ?
N N
w o
N
4
+5 o/ /0
,o
?jg
rr, \ \\\
2
Z C
A
cA. ?1
?? 12
o ?
n A
0
n
N y
y
\ h?9.0
II II II II II II II ?
??`?twp??lN r
? g
o`
40
MAD 83
SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road)
from SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop)
to SR 1413 (Rocky Run Road),
Onslow County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1423(2),
State Project 8.7326024
TIP No. W-3413
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
APPROVED:
¢-2Z-02 C??L' y•
Date William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
' l 2 Z/c L fir , , ,? 2.
Date Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road)
from SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop)
to SR 1413 (Rocky Run Road),
Onslow County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1423(2),
State Project 8.7326024
TIP No. W-3413
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April 2002
Document Prepared in Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch By:
4122/oZ
J kie Obediente
Project Development Engineer
d
Eric Midkiff, P.E.
Project Development Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E.. Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
CARO -`..
?? GESSlO?,••N'9
SE AL
19791
!84ZG I tit 4.1
01C.?M?Q`?g-
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................1
1. Description of Action ............................................................................................................ l
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts .................................................................................... 1
3. Summary of Environmental Commitments .......................................................................... 2
4. Coordination ........................................................................................................................3
• 5. Additional Information ......................................................................................................... 3
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................ 4
II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT ...................................................................................................... 4
A. Purpose and Need of Proiect ........................................................................
1. Accident Analysis ...................
B. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................... 5
1. Length of Project ............................................................................................................... 5
2. Route Classification ........................................................................................................... 5
3. Roadway Existing Cross Section ....................................................................................... 5
4. Existing Right of Way ....................................................................................................... 5
5. Utilities .............................................................................................................................. 5
6. Access Control ................................................................................................................... 5
7. Speed Limits ...................................................................................................................... 5
8. Bridges and Drainage Structures ....................................................................................... 5
9. Horizontal Curvature ......................................................................................................... 6
10. Intersecting Roads .......................................................................................................... 6
11. Project Terminals ........................................................................................................... 6
12. Degree of Roadside Interference .................................................................................... 6
13. Schools / School Bus Data ............................................................................................. 6
14. Railroads .........................................................................................................................6
15. Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations ...................................................................... 6
16. Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................. 7
C. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Project Area ............................................... 7
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................................... 7
A. Len h of Project ................................................................................................................... 7
B. Roadway Realignment ................. ................... 7
C. Cross Section ........................................................................................................................ 7
D. Bridges and Drainage Structures ...................................... :................................................... 7
E. Design Speed ........................................................................................................................ 8
F. Right of Way ........................................................................................................................ 8
G. Access Control ...................................................................................................................... 8
H. Intersection Treatment .......................................................................................................... 8
1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations ............................................................................. 8
J. Estimated Costs ..................................................................................................................... 8
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................ 8
A. No Build ............................................................................................................................... 8
V. SOCIAL. ECONOMIC. AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ....................................... 9
A. Geographical Location .......................................................................................................... 9
1. Project Study Area ............................................................................................................. 9
B. Community Profile ................................................................................................................ 9
1. Population and Demographic Characteristics .................................................................... 9
a. Population Growth Trends 10
b. Ethnicity and Race ....................................................................................................... 10
c. Age Distribution ........................................................................................................... I 1
d. Income Levels .............................................................................................................. 12
e. Educational Attainment ................................................................................................ 14
f. Employment Status ...................................................................................................... 15
2. Economic and Social Characteristics .............................................................................. 15
a. Economic Base ............................................................................................................. 15
b. Housing Costs .............................................................................................................. 16
c. Business Activities and Employment Centers ............................................................. 18
3. Land Use and Transportation Plans ................................................................................. 18
a. Existing Land Use ........................................................................................................ 18
b. Existing Land Use and Transportation Plans ............................................................... 18
c. Future Land Use and Transportation Plans .................................................................. 19
4. Communitv Facilities ..................................................................................................... 19
5. Farmland Impacts ............................................................................................................ 20
6. Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................................................................................... 20
C. Analyzing Community Impacts ........................................................................................... 20
1. Social and Psychological Aspects ................................................................................... 20
2. Physical Aspects .............................................................................................................. 21
3. Visual Environment ......................................................................................................... 21
4. Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 21
5. Economic Conditions ...................................................................................................... 21
6. Mobility and Access ....................................................................................................... 21
7. Provision of Public Services ............................................................................................ 22
8. Safe ..............................................................................................................................22
9. Displacement ................................................................................................................... 22
10. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 22
11. Title VI and Environmental Justice .............................................................................. 23
D. Findings and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 24
1. Summary of the Effects of the Project ............................................................................ 24
2. Mitigation and Enhancement .......................................................................................... 24
E. Relocation Impacts .............................................................................................................. 24
!. F. Historic and Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 24
1. Historic Architecture ....................................................................................................... 24
2. Archaeology .....................................................................................................................24
G. Natural Systems .................................................................................................................. 25
1. Physical Characteristics ................................................................................................... 25
a. Soils ..............................................................................................................................25
b. Water Resources ........................................................................................................... 26
1. Characteristics of Water Resources .......................................................................... 26
11
2. Best Usage Classification ......................................................................................... 28
3. Water Quality ............................................................................................................ 28
_ 4. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ............................................. 29
2. Biotic Resources .............................................................................................................. 30
a. Terrestrial Communities ............................................................................................... 30
• 1. Disturbed Community ................ ........................... 30
2. Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest ................................................................................... 31
b. Terrestrial Faunal Component ...................................................................................... 31
c. Aquatic Communities ................................................................................................... 32
d. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources 33
1. Terrestrial Impacts .................................................................................................... 33
2. Aquatic and Wetland Impacts ................................................................................... 34
3. Jurisdictional Issues .........................................................................................................34
a. Waters of the United States .......................................................................................... 34
1. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ...................................................... 35
a. Jurisdictional Streams .............................................................................................35
b. Jurisdictional Wetlands ...........................................................................................35
2. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................................................................. 38
3. Permits ...................................................................................................................... 39
4. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ....................................................................... 40
b. Protected and Rare Species .......................................................................................... 42
1. Federally-protected Species ......................................................................................42
2. Federal Species of Concern ...................................................................................... 50
c. Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................................................... 51
H. Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation ................................................................... 51
1. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Air Quality Analysis ............................................... 52
J. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns .............................................................. 52
K. Section 4(f) Resources ........................................................................................................ 52
VI. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................ 52
l
iii
TABLES
Table 1. Ethnicity and Race by State, County, City and Tract for 2000 ..................................... 10
Table 2. Ethnicity and Race by State, County, City and Tract for 1990 ...................................... I 1
Table 3. Age Distribution within North Carolina, Onslow County, the City of Jacksonville and
the Study Area Tracts for 2000 ...................................................................................... 12
Table 4. Income Levels and Poverty Status for Households in the Study Area for 1989 ............ 13
Table 5. Educational Attainment within North Carolina, Onslow County, the City of Jacksonville
and the Study Area Tracts for 1990 ............................................................................... 14
Table 6. Labor Force Status within North Carolina, Onslow County, the City of Jacksonville and
the Study Area Tracts for 1990 ...................................................................................... 15
Table 7. Housing Units for 2000 ................................................................................................... 16
Table 8. Housing Units for 1990 ................................................................................................... 17
Table 9. Housing Values (Owner Occupied) for 1990 ................................................................. 17
Table 10. Water Resource Characteristics in the Project Study Area .......................................... 27
Table 11. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities in the Project Study Area ............... 33
Table 12. Stream Impacts Within the Project Study Area ........................................................... 38
Table 13. Wetland Impacts Within the Project Study Area and Classifications ......................... 39
Table 14. Federally Protected Species of Onslow County ........................................................... 42
Table 15. Federal Candidate/NC Protected Species in Onslow County ....................................... 50
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Preliminary Plans
Figure 3 2000 / 2025 Traffic Volumes
Figure 4 Proposed Two Lane Shoulder Section
Figure 5 Community Impacts Project Study Area
Figure 6 Census Tracts
Figure 7 Flood Insurance Rate Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Appendix B Relocation Report
Appendix C Citizens Informational Workshop Notice and Handout

iv
3. Summary of Environmental Commitments
SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road)
from SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop)
to SR 1413 (Rocky Run Road),
Onslow County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1423(2),
State Project 8.7326024
TIP No. W-3413
`, SUMMARY
1. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways proposes to
improve the horizontal curvature of SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road) and widen that facility at select
locations (see Figure 1), between SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop) and SR 1413 (Rocky Run Road)
in Onslow County.
The 2.0 mile (3.3 km) project is included in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), with right of way acquisition scheduled for FFY 2003, and construction
scheduled for FFY 2004.
The estimated cost is $1,195,000 including $345,000 for right of way acquisition and
$850,000 for construction. The estimated cost projected by the 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program is $941,000, including $48,000 for right of way, $743,000 for
construction, and $150,000 spent in prior years.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Widening and realigning SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road), will have a positive impact on the
project area by increasing the level of safety associated with the facility. Based on preliminary
designs, no relocations of businesses or residents are anticipated as a result of this project. No
recreational facilities or sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places will be involved.
No publicly owned parks, recreational facilities or wildlife or waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance are in the vicinity of the project. The proposed project will impact
0.0425 ac (0.017 ha) of wetlands.
y
3. Summary of Environmental Commitments
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road)
from SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop)
to SR 1413 (Rocky Run Road),
Improve horizontal curvature of roadway,
Onslow County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1423(2),
State Project 8.7326024
TIP No. W-3413
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Little Northeast Creek is listed as an Anadramous Fish Spawning Area 2.43 km (1.5 mi)
downstream from Bridge No. 3 over Little Northeast Creek (Figure 1). The replacement of
Bridge No. 3 over Little Northeast Creek will be done under another TIP project, B-3682.
Environmental commitments associated with this bridge replacement will be documented in the
Categorical Exclusion for B-3682. Anadramous Fish Guidelines should be adhered to avoid
potential impacts to these fish.
TIP Project W-3413
Categorical Exclusion
April 2002
2
4. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local officials were consulted regarding this project:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
U.S. Federal Highway Administration
National Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
State Historic Preservation Office
A citizen's informational workshop was held on November 30, 1999 to obtain public
comment on the project (See Appendix C). Comments on the project that were received
from the agencies are noted by an asterisk (*). Those comments are included in Appendix A.
5. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by
contacting the following:
W.D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone]
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601-1442
[phone]
r
SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road)
from SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop)
to SR 1413 (Rocky Run Road),
Onslow County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1423(2),
State Project 8.7326024
TIP No. W-3413
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Highways,
proposes to improve the horizontal curvature of SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road) and widen that
facility at select locations (see Figure 1), between SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop) and SR 1413
(Rocky Run Road) in Onslow County. NCDOT and FHWA classify this action as a Categorical
Exclusion, due to the fact that no notable environmental impacts are likely to occur as a result of
project construction.
The estimated cost is $1,195,000 including $345,000 for right of way acquisition and
$850,000 for construction. The estimated cost projected by the 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program is $941,000, including $48,000 for right of way, $743,000 for
construction, and $150,000 spent in prior years.
The proposed project is included in the 2002-2008 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program. The project location is shown
in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a
Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
A. Purpose and Need of Project
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the overall safety of the facility.
1. Accident Analysis
There were 20 total accidents reported along the project section between July 1, 1995 and
June 30, 1998. The overall accident rate during this period was 473.9 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles (acc/100MVM), which is substantially higher than the statewide
.? average of 261.86acc/1 OOMVM for rural two-lane secondary routes. Further review of the
accident data reveals that 85% of the total accidents were ran-off-the-road accidents. The
proposed improvements are intended to reduce the accident rate along this facility by
providing more pavement and shoulder width, and by addressing substandard horizontal
curvature.
4
B. Existing Conditions
1. Length of Project
The length of the studied section is approximately 2.0 miles (3.3 km).
2. Route Classification
NCDOT classifies SR 1423 as a Rural Minor Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
3. Roadway Existing Cross Section
SR 1423 is a two-lane paved facility, with pavement width varying from 18ft (5.5m) to
21 ft (6.4m). The existing roadway is characterized by tangent sections with abrupt transitions
to sharp curvature. The existing horizontal alignments are substandard for the posted speed
limit.
4. Existing Right of Way
The existing right-of-way (ROW) is approximately 60ft (I 8.3m).
5. Utilities
Overhead and underground utilities are present along both sides of SR 1423 throughout
the project limits.
There is a 10-inch (L 5m) C.I. county water line located on the north side of SR 1423
throughout the project length. It is also located along SR 1427 on the west side.
6. Access Control
There is no control of access along SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road).
7. Speed Limits
The posted speed limit is 55mph (88.5km/hr).
8. Bridges and Drainage Structures
There are no bridges within the project limits, however Bridge No. 3 lies just west of the
beginning of the project. This bridge is part of TIP Project B-3682 and will be replaced due
to its structural deficiency. According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance records, the bridge's
sufficiency rating is 19.9 out of a possible 100.0.
s
Minor drainage structures exist along SR 1423. Roadside ditches are prevalent
throughout the project study area. There are also several non jurisdictional upland cut
ditches/drainage areas in the project study area.
9. Horizontal Curvature
The horizontal curvature of SR 1423 is substandard for the posted speed limit, which
contributes to the low level of safety of this facility.
10. Intersecting Roads
All intersections along SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road) are at grade. There are two stop-
signed controlled intersections along the project, located at the intersections of SR 1427
(Grants Creek Loop) / SR 1423, and SR 1413 (Rocky Run Road) / SR 1423.
11. Project Terminals
The western project terminal is located at the intersection of SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road)
and SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop). This intersection is stop-signed controlled. The eastern
project terminal is located at the intersection of SR 1423 and SR 1413 (Rocky Run Road).
This intersection is stop-signed controlled.
12. Degree of Roadside Interference
The degree of roadside interference is low along SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road). The
roadway is located in a rural area just north of the Jacksonville City Limits, and the
development primarily consists of single family residential properties, widely spaced apart,
with one school, Morton Elementary School, located approximately 1400 feet (427m) west of
SR 1427 (Waters Road).
13. Schools / School Bus Data
Morton Elementary School is located west of the project limits, on the north side of SR
1423 (Old Thirty Road) approximately 1400 feet (427m) west of SR 1427 (Waters Road).
The Transportation Director of the Onslow County School Bus Garage estimates that 40
buses per day travel on SR 1423.
14. Railroads
No railroads exist near or along this project.
15. Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations
Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations do not exist along the roadway section.
However, the project section of SR 1423 is a designated bicycle route in Onslow County, the
"Jacksonville City to the Sea" bicycle route.
16. Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes for the section from SR 1427 to S... 1413 in the year 2000 are estimated
to be 3,000 vehicles per day. The projected traffic volumes for the same section in the year
2025 are estimated to be 5,400 vehicles per day. Projected traffic volumes, major turning
movements, truck data and design hour data are shown in Figure 3.
C. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Project Area
One roadway improvement project, included in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program, is located adjacent to the proposed project (see Figure 1). A brief description of this
project. along with its current schedule, is listed below:
TIP Project B-3682 -
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 3 over Little Northeast Creek, along with the
widening and realignment of SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road) from SR 1411 (Waters Road) to
SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop) in Onslow County. The 0.47 mile (0.76km) project is
included in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with right of way
acquisition scheduled for FFY 2002 and construction scheduled for FFY 2004.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Length of Project -
The length of the proposed project is approximately 2.0 miles (3.33 km).
B. Roadway Realignment
The alignment for the project will be designed to improve the overall safety of the facility,
and minimize impacts to wetlands, streams, and adjoining properties.
C. Cross Section
The realigned and roadway sections will be upgraded to AASHTO standards. The roadway
typical section will have a 24-foot (7.2m) travelway, with 4-foot (1.2m) paved shoulders and 4-
foot (1.2m) grassed shoulders along each side. Where guardrail is required, shoulders will be
increased by a minimum of 3 feet (0.9m) on each side.
D. Bridges and Drainage Structures
Existing drainage structures along the project will be retained and extended in accordance
with the widening, and existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the extent possible.
7
E. Design Speed
The recommended design speed is 50mph (80km/hr). The posted speed limit is expected to
be 45mph (72.4km/hr).
F. Right of Way
The proposed ROW of the project varies between 60 ft (18.3 m) and 80 ft (24.4 m)
throughout the project limits. In addition to the proposed right of way, temporary construction
easements will also be required throughout the majority of the project (See Figure 2).
G. Access Control
No control of access is proposed.
H. Intersection Treatment
The intersections of SR 1423 at SR 1427 and SR 1413 are currently stop sign controlled.
They will remain stop sign controlled after the project's construction. A left turn lane is
proposed on SR 1423 onto SR 1427.
1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations
The project section of SR 1423 is a designated bicycle route in Onslow County,
"Jacksonville City to the Sea" bicycle route. Therefore, 4ft (1.2m) paved shoulders have been
implemented into the design. These paved shoulders will extend along both sides of the road.
J. Estimated Costs
The estimated cost is $1,195,000 including $345,000 for right of way acquisition and
$850.000 for construction. The estimated cost projected by the 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program is $941,000, including $48,000 for right of way, $743,000 for
construction, and $150,000 spent in prior years.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION
A. No Build
• This alternative would avoid the environmental impacts that are anticipated as a result of the
project; however, this alternative does not meet the purpose of the project, which is to improve
the level of safety associated with the facility. Therefore, there would be no positive effect on
the safety of the highway. This alternative is not recommended, however, it does serve as a basis
for comparison of other alternatives.
Because the no-build alternative would provide no positive effect on the safety of the
highway, it was eliminated from further study.
V. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Geographical Location
Onslow County is located in North Carolina's Coastal Plain region. Onslow County is
bounded by Pender, Duplin, Jones, and Carteret Counties and the Atlantic Ocean. The terrain is
relatively flat. The project is located within Onslow County's planning jurisdiction, east of
Jacksonville.
1. Project Study Area
The physical study area may extend beyond the actual limits of the project as defined in
the TIP. The study area for this TIP project incorporates the community that may be affected
by the project improvements. It was devised by examining the project's location in relation
to the overlay of United States Census Tracts, the role the facility plays in the local network,
and the development patterns of the region. The project study area is shown in Figure 5.
B. Community Profile
The assessment process begins with defining the project and the study area. This helps to
identify the areas of potential impact. Secondly, a Community Profile is developed. A
Community Profile is a summary of the history, present conditions, and anticipated future of an
area. It determines the characteristics of the study area, such as: demographic information;
location of residences and businesses; economic data; social history of the community; and
existing and future land use. The development of the profile is supported by information
collected from a variety of sources including extensive fieldwork, local agencies, census data, tax
records, real estate brokers, local citizens and employers, historical societies, and local land use
plans. A Community Profile can be used as a basis for identifying potential impacts of a
proposed transportation project. It is part of the "affected environment" in a NEPA evaluation.
The following comprises the Community Profile for the Old Thirty Road study area.
1. Population and Demographic Characteristics
The 1990 United States Census and 2000 United States Census data (when available)
were used to gather information on the population and demographics of the project study
area, unless otherwise stated. Census Tracts 1 and 23 are used to represent the Old Thirty
Road Study Corridor for the 1990 Census data. However, Tract 1 was broken down into
Tracts 1.0 1, 1.02, 1.03 for the 2000 Census data. With this breakdown, Tracts 1.03 and 23
encompass the length of the Old Thirty Road Study Corridor for the 2000 Census data. o
Therefore, comparisons at the tract level can only be made using Tract 23. Census data for
the City of Jacksonville is included as comparison, even though the project is located in
Onslow County's jurisdiction. The boundaries of the Census Tracts (for 2000) and the limits
of the Old Thirty Road Study Corridor are shown in Figure 6.
9
a. Population Growth Trends
According to the available 1990 and 2000 census data, the total population for North
Carolina increased by approximately 21.4 percent over the past decade. Onslow
_ County's population only increased 0.3 percent, while the City of Jacksonville's
population increased by 122 percent during that same period. This is due in part to the
fact that the City of Jacksonville annexed a portion of Camp Lejeune in 1990. Within
Census Tract 23, the population increased 34.7 percent.
b. Ethnicity and Race
From 1990 to 2000, both the "white" population and the "black" population as a
percent of the total decreased in North Carolina, Onslow County, and the City of
Jacksonville. Yet, within Tract 23, the "black" population as a percent of the total
increased, while the "white" population as a percent of the total decreased. However, the
majority of the population is racially white throughout North Carolina. Using 2000
Census data, a breakdown of the ethnicity and racial characteristics of Onslow County,
the City of Jacksonville, and Tracts 1.03 and 23 is shown in Table 1. The same
information for Onslow County, the City of Jacksonville, and Tracts 1 and 23 using 1990
Census data is shown in Table 2.
The Hispanic population has grown throughout North Carolina. Within Onslow
County, the Hispanic population increased from 0.3 percent of the population in 1990, to
7.2 percent of the population in 2000. Within the City of Jacksonville, the Hispanic
population increased from 5.2 percent of the population in 1990, to 10 percent of the
population in 2000. However, for Tract 23, the Hispanic population remained 7.1
percent.
Table 1. Ethnicity and Race by State, County, City and Tract for 2000
Category North Onslow City of Tract 1.03 Tract 23
Carolina County Jacksonville
Total Population 8,049,313 150,355 66,715 4,028 3,796
W'nite 5,804,656 108,351 42,655 (63.9%) 3,275 (81.3%) 2,649 (69.8%)
(72.1%) (72.1%)
Black or African 1,737,545 27,790 15,987 (24%) 568(14.1%) 749 (19.7%)
American (21.6%) (18.5%)
American Indian, and 99,551 1,108 (0.7%) 503 (0.8%) 15(0.4%) 16(0.4%)
Alaska Native (1.2%)
Asian 113,689 2,526 (1.7%) 1,380 (2.1%) 24(0.6%) 120(3.2%)

Native Hawaiian and 3,983 283(0.2%) 126(0.2%) 1(0.02%) 12(0.3%)
Other Pacific Islander (0.05%)
10
Hispanic or Latino (of any 378,963 10,896 (7.2%) 6,702(10%) 124(3.1%) 269 (7.1%) ,
race) (4.7%)
Source: 2000 US Census
Table. 2. Ethnicity and Race by State, County, City and Tract for 1990
Category North Carolina Onslow
County City of
Jacksonville Tract I Tract 23
Total Population 6,628,637 149,838 30,013 12,245 2,819
White 5,008,491
(75.6%) 111,939
(74.7%) 20,303
(67.6%) 10,899
(89%) 2,200(78%)
Black 1,456,323
(22%) 29,808
(19.9%) 8,007
(26.7%) 980(8%) 425(15.1%)
American Indian,
Eskimo, or Aleut 80,155 (1.2%) 939(0.6%) 144(0.5%) 69(0.6%) 8(0.3%)
Asian 49,970 (0.8%) 2,562 (1.7%) 800(2.7%) 145(l.2%) 91(3.2%)
All Pacific
Islander 2,196 (0.03%) 432(0.3%) 102(0.3%) 21(0.2%) 10(0.4%)
Hispanic origin 76,726 (1.2%) 376(0.3%) 1,571 (5.2%) 337(2.8%) 199(7.1%)
Source: 1990 US Census
c. Age Distribution
Using 2000 Census data, age within the state, county, city and study area can be
found in Table 3. The percent of the total number of persons each age group comprises is
shown in parenthesis.
According to 2000 Census data, within North Carolina, 12 percent of the population
is age 65 or older. Within the study area, the percent of the population age 65 or older
ranges from 4.8 percent to 9.4 percent, which is lower than North Carolina as a whole.
Furthermore, the median age of the residents in Onslow County and the City of
Jacksonville is 25 and 22.4, respectively. Camp Lejeune, a Marine Corps base is located
in Onslow County and according to the Onslow County 1997 Land Use Plan, over
126,000 people are directly associated with the base and of that number approximately 90
percent are residents of Onslow County. The presence of the base is indicative of the
lower percentage of people aged 65 or older and the low median ages.
Table 3. Age Distribution within North Carolina, Onslow County, the City of Jacksonville
and the Study Area Tracts for 2000
Age North Onslow City of Tract 1.03 Tract 23
Carolina County Jacksonville
Total 8,049,313 150,355 66,715 4,028 3,796
Population
Under 5 years 539,509 13,288 6,433 (9.6%) 292(7.2%) 318(8.4%)
(6.7%) (8.8%)
5-9 years 562,553 (7%) 10,594 4,346 (6.5%) 267(6.6%) 328(8.6%)
(7%)
10-14 years 551,367 9,854 3,538 (5.3%) 290(7.2%) 337(8.9%)
(6.8%) (6.6%)
15-19 years 539,931 13,686 7,256 (10.9%) 287(7.1%) 330(8.7%)
(6.7%) (9.1%)
20-24 years 577,508 27,775 18,862 286(7.1%) 335(8.8%)
(7.2%) (18.5%) (28.3%)
25-34 years 1,213,415 23,762 10,514 574 624(16.4%)
(15.1%) (15.8%) (15.8%) (14.3%)
35-44 years 1,287,120 20,206 6,736 (10.1%) 761 671(17.7%)
(16%) (13.4%) (18.9%)
45-54 years 1,085,150 12,971 3,750 (5.6%) 497 358(9.4%)
(13.5%) (8.6%) (12.3%)
55-64 years 723,712 (9%) 8,720 2,100 (3.1%) 394(9.8%) 298(7.9%)
(5.8%)
65 years and 969,048 9,499 3,180 (4.8%) 380(9.4%) 197(5.2%)
over (12%) (6.3%)
Median Age 35.3 25 22.4 35.3 29.4
Source: 2000 US Census
d. Income Levels
The median household income for North Carolina was $26,647 in 2000. The median
household income for the study area is comparable to the state and ranges from $23,189
to $27,621.
Household income levels within the study area for 1989 can be found in Table 4.
Also shown in Table 4 is the percent of the total number of households each income level
comprises. Historical poverty tables from the United States Census Bureau show that the
12
weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four is $17,050 per year. According
to the United States Census Income and Poverty Status in 1989, 179,906 families were
below the poverty level in North Carolina, which equates to 7.1 percent of the total
number of households. This is comparable to the percentage of families below the
poverty level in the study area, which ranges from 5.4 percent to 8 percent of the total
number of households.
Table 4. Income Levels and Poverty Status for Households in the Study Area for 1989
Income Level (1989) North Onslow City of Tract 1 Tract 23
Carolina County Jacksonville
Total Number Of Households 2,517,098 40,545 10,931 4,554 910
(family and nonfamily)
Families Below the Poverty 179,906 3,235(8%) 881(8.1%) 322 49(5.4%)
Level (as a percentage of total (7.1%) (7.1%)
households)
Less than $ 5,000 185,418 2,042(5%) 620(5.7%) 321(7%) 20(2.2%)
(7.4%)
$ 5,000 to $ 9,999 243,607 3,068 (7.6%) 900(8.2%) 312 30(3.3%)
(9.7%) (6.9%)
$10,000 to $14,999 250,496 5,101 995(9.1%) 538 90(9.9%)
(10%) (12.6%) (11.8%)
$15,000 to $24,999 497,371 11,646 2,753 (25.2%) 1,290 244(26.8%)
(19.8%) (28.7%) (28.3%)
$25,000 to $34,999 432,954 8,126(20%) 2,151 (19.7%) 892 226(24.8%)
(17.2%) (19.6%)
$35,000 to $49,999 443,188 6,070(15%) 1,820 (16.6%) 747 175(19.2%)
(17.6%) (16.4%)
$50,000 to $74,999 312,349 3,366 (8.3%) 1,204(11%) 383 93(10.2%)
(12.4%) (8.4%)
$75,000 to $99,999 85,545 712(1.8%) 295(2.7%) 55 32(3.5%)
(3.4%) (1.2%)
$100,000 to $149,999 42,401 237(0.6%) 97(0.9%) 8(0.2%) 0(00/0)
(1.7%) '
$150,000 or more 23,769 177(0.4%) 96(0.9%) 8(0.2%) 0(0%)
(0.9%)
Median Household Income $26,647 $23,386 $25,698 $23,189 $27,621
Source: 1990 US Census
13
e. Educational Attainment
Educational attainment data was collected for persons 25 years or older in North
Carolina, Onslow County, the City of Jacksonville, and Tracts 1 and 23. The highest
percentage of people achieving a high school diploma or higher was in Tract 23 with 87.8
percent. This is compared to 70 percent in North Carolina. The highest percentage of
people achieving a bachelor's degree or higher was in the City of Jacksonville with 18.2
percent. This is compared to 17.4 percent in North Carolina. The percentages of people
achieving a high school diploma or higher was above the North Carolina percentage
throughout the study area. However, the percentage of people achieving a bachelor's
degree or higher was below the North Carolina percentage throughout the study area.
This is indicative of Camp Lejeune being located in Onslow County. The majority of
those enlisted for service, enlist after graduating from high school and do not attend
college or receive their bachelor's degree until after serving four years with the military.
The breakdown at all four levels, state, county, town, and tract can be found in Table 5.
Table 5. Educational Attainment within North Carolina, Onslow County, the City of
Jacksonville and the Study Area Tracts for 1990
Educational North Onslow City of
Attainment Carolina County Jacksonville Tract 1 Tract 23
(for persons 25 years (4,253,494 (72,824 (16,985 (7,172 (1,541
or older) persons) persons) persons) persons) persons)
Less than 91h grade 539,974 4,312 799 724 64
9`h to 12`h grade, no 737,773 8,038 1,834 1,005 124
diploma
High school graduate 1,232,868 26,830 5,384 2,541 653
Some college, no 713,713 18,789 4,347 1,725 432
degree
Associate degree 290,117 5,079 1,535 413 134
Bachelor's degree 510,003 7,156 2,133 551 116
Graduate or 229,046 2,620 953 213 18
professional degree
Percent high school 70% 83% 84.5% 75.9% 87.8%
graduate or higher
Percent bachelor's 17.4% 13.4% 18.2% 10.7% 8.7%
degree or higher
Source: 1990 US Census
14
f. Employment Status
Table 6 shows the total number of persons over the age of 16 that are in the labor
force and the number of those not in the labor force. In North Carolina 67.6 percent of
the population are in the labor force. This number rises in the City of Jacksonville to
71.1 percent, in Tract 23 to 77.6 percent, and in Onslow County to 79 percent. These
high percentages are indicative of the high percentage of people that are "working class
age" within the study area. The percentage of the population in the labor force in Tract I
is 67 percent, which is comparable to North Carolina.
Table 6. Labor Force Status within North Carolina, Onslow County, the City of
Jacksonville and the Study Area Tracts for 1990
Labor Force North Onslow City of
Status Carolina County Jacksonville Tract 1 Tract 23
(for persons 16 (5,203,230 (116,263 (21,888 (9,197 (2,001
years and older) persons) persons) persons) persons) persons)
Not in Labor 1,683,303 24,177 6,324 3,032 449
Force
In Labor Force 3,519,927 92,086 15,564 6,165 1,552
Percent in Labor 67.6% 79.2% 71.1% 67% 77.6%
Force
Source: 1990 US Census
2. Economic and Social Characteristics
a. Economic Base
According to the Onslow County, North Carolina 1997 Land Use Plan, the County's
economy is poor when compared to the remainder of the counties in North Carolina.
This is partly due to low wage rates, limited industrial parks, and stagnant population
growth. The majority of the jobs in Onslow County are in the government, trade, and
services sectors. Camp Lejeune, a Marine Corps base is located in Onslow County.
According to base personnel, there are approximately 4.200 civilian employees.
However, the County's economy is improving and according to the Economic
Development Commission for Onslow County, the county "strives to alleviate
unemployment and stimulate the economic development of Onslow County by
encouraging business and industry expansion and/or relocation to Onslow County." The
N.A. Burton Industrial Park, located near Jacksonville on US Highway 258/NC 24
approximately three miles north of US Highway 17, is the only industrial park in the
County. The park consists of 730 acres. According to the Chamber of Commerce in
Onslow County, there are currently no industries located within the park. In addition, the
15
County is one of 13 counties within the Global Transpark (GTP) Region. Because, the
majority of the study area is rural in nature, there are not a lot of employment
opportunities within the study area. Morton Elementary School, located west of the
project's limits is the largest employer in the area.
b. Housing Costs
The 2000 and 1990 Census data breakdown of owner-occupied housing units at the
state, county, town and tract level can be found in Table 7 and Table 8. According to the
data, from 1990 to 2000, the percent of owner occupied units increased in Onslow
County from 53.7 percent to 58.1 percent and in Tract 23 from 64.4 percent to 68 percent,
while it decreased in the City of Jacksonville from 48.7 percent to 39.2 percent.
The 2000 Census data on housing values is not currently available. The 1990 Census
data indicates the values of owner-occupied housing units range from less than $50,000
to greater than $300,000. According to the data, the vast majority of homes within the
study area are valued at less than $99,000. The median value of homes is reported to be
$65,800 in North Carolina. The median value of homes in Onslow County and Tracts l
and 23 is reported to be $62,200, $60,200, and $60,900, respectively. These values are
slightly lower than the North Carolina value. However, the median value of homes in the
City of Jacksonville is $66,100. The breakdown of the housing values at the state,
county, city and tract level within the study area can be found in Table 9.
Table 7. Housing Units for 2000
North Onslow City of Tract 1.03 Tract 23
Carolina County Jacksonville
Total Housing 3,523,944 55,726 18,312 1,696 1,410
Units (Vacant or
Occupied)
Total Occupied 3,132,013 48,122 17,175 1,546 1,310
Units
- Owner 2,172,355 27,973 6,733 1,190(77%) 891(68%)
Occupied (69.4°/x) (58.1%) (39.2%)
- Renter 969,658 20,149 10,442 356(23%) 419(32%)
Occupied (30.6%) (41.9%) (60.8%)
Source: 2000 US Census
16
Table 8. Housing Units for 1990
North Onslow City of Tract 1 Tract 23
Carolina County Jacksonville
Total Housing 2,818,193 47,526 11,810 5,365 1,037
Units (Vacant or
Occupied)
Total Occupied 2,517,026 40,658 10,916 4,603 961
Units
- Owner 1,711,817 21,835 5,311 3,183 619(64.4%)
Occupied (68%) (53.7%) (48.7%) (69.2%)
- Renter 805,209 18,823 5,605 1,420 342(35.6%)
Occupied (32%) (46.3%) (51.3%) (30.8%)
Source: 1990 US Census
Table 9. Housing Values (Owner Occupied) for 1990
Housing Values North Onslow City of Tract 1 Tract 23
Carolina County Jacksonville
Specified Owner 1,217,975 14,774 4,705 1,867 531
Occupied Housing
Units
Less than $50,000 382,781 4,103 1,037(22%) 581 84(15.8%)
(31.4%) (27.8%) (31.1%)
$50,000 to 575,677 8,912 3,019 (64.2%) 976 434 (81.7%)
$99,000 (47.3%) (60.3%) (52.3%)
$100,000 to 155,158 1,220 505(10.7%) 179 8(l.5%)
$149,000 (12.7%) (8.3%) (9.6%)
$150,000 to 56,252 312 77(l.6%) 65(3.5%) 2(0.4%)
$199,999 (4.6%) (2.1%)
$200,000 to 33,088 170 44(0.9%) 52(2.8%) 3(0.6%)
$299,000 (2.7%) (1.2%)
$300,000 or more 15,019 57(0.4%) 23(0.5%) 14(0.7%) 0(0%)
(1.2%)
Median Value $65,800 $62,200 $66,100 $60,200 $60,900
Source: 1990 US Census
17
c. Business Activities and Employment Centers
The project study area is rural in nature and consists primarily of farmland and rural
residential development. Morton Elementary School, located west of Grants Creek Loop,
just beyond the project's western terminus is the largest employer in the area. According
to school personnel, Morton Elementary has approximately 70 employees. In addition,
several small businesses are located along Old Thirty Road at the intersection with
Waters Road approximately one mile west of the project's limits.
3. Land Use and Transportation Plans
a. Existing Land Use
The project study area is located in a rural area within Onslow County's planning
jurisdiction. Farmland, woodlands, and dispersed linear residential development
encompass the length of the study area from Rocky Run Road to Grants Creek Loop.
The residences appear to be owner-occupied. The homes are relatively old and well
maintained. However, there were a few newer homes built in a cluster. Based on field
observations, the residents appear to be middle class and predominantly white, although
African Americans comprise a portion of the area's residents.
A small, family cemetery is located in a field on the north side of Old Thirty Road
east of Grants Creek Loop. The cemetery is set back well from the road in the middle of
an agricultural field.
Just beyond the project's western terminus, after crossing the bridge over Little
Northeast Creek on Old Thirty Road, is Morton Elementary School on the north side of
Old Thirty Road. Morton Elementary School is relatively small, with approximately 500
students. The school consists of five main buildings. The bridge that crosses over Little
Northeast Creek will be replaced on new location in a separate NCDOT TIP Project,
identified as TIP Project No. B-3682.
b. Existing Land Use and Transportation Plans
Onslow County's policies on future development, land use, and growth can be found
in the Onslow County, North Carolina 1997 Land Use Plan, prepared by Holland
Consulting Planners, Inc. According to the document, Onslow County has full planning
and regulatory authority over approximately 58 percent of the land within the county's
490,940 acres. Approximately 262,270 acres of Onslow County's regulatory jurisdiction
is undeveloped. However, 46.6 percent of this acreage may be considered wetlands.
This leaves approximately 122,218 acres of suitable land available for future
development. Most of the existing land use within the County relates directly to the
following three factors: Camp Lejeune, Coastal Environment, and Agriculture and
Forestry Operations.
According to the County Planner, Onslow County does not have a formal zoning
ordinance. Currently, the County is in the process of completing a Comprehensive Plan,
18
which may dictate the need for formal -oning. However, parts of Old Thirty Road are
witnin a Special Development district Within this district anything is permissible except
adult stores. In addition, stores sellin6 ..lcoholic beverages require a special use permit.
The Onslow County, North Carolina 1997 Land Use Plan classifies the study area as
"rural with services." This classification provides for very low-density land uses
including residential, public facilities. and health care facilities.
The 1988 Onslow County Recreation and Park Master Plans were prepared by East
Carolina University. The plan called for the acquisition, administration, development and
management of future parks; as well as a greenway system and additional water based
recreation opportunities. It was recommended that there be three district parks; one on
the northeastern side of Jacksonville, one in the Swansboro area (expansion of the present
Hubert Bypass County Park), and one in the northwestern portion of the county
(development of the recently purchased Richlands/Steed County Park). Furthermore, a
greenway or linear park system is needed to provide active and passive opportunities for
recreation. It was recommended that the location of these trails be dispersed throughout
the county using existing streams, river corridors, abandoned railroad rights-of-way,
utility rights-of-way, and existing parks/trails.
The proposed improvements are included in the City of Jacksonville's thoroughfare
plan, which includes Onslow County. In addition, the Onslow County, North Carolina
1997 Land Use Plan was prepared in accordance with requirements of the North Carolina
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
c. Future Land Use and Transportation Plans
According to the County Planner, no new developments have been approved for the
study area. However, Rocky Run Road (SR 1413), located at the project's eastern
terminus, has recently undergone residential development and the possibility exists for
further residential development on Rocky Run Road. Over time, this trend may spread to
Old Thirty Road beginning at the intersection with Rocky Run Road. No other
developments have been discussed or approved for the study area.
Currently Onslow County does not have a thoroughfare plan. The County is
incorporated into the City of Jacksonville's transportation plans. However, if the
Comprehensive Plan, currently being finalized, dictates that the County needs a separate
thoroughfare plan, one will be developed in the future.
4. Community Facilities
Morton Elementary School is located west of Grants Creek Loop, beyond the project
limits. The school provides educational services for approximately 500 students ranging
from Kindergarten to Grade 5. According to school personnel, the primary mode of
transportation is school bus. No other public or community facilities exist within the study
area.
19
5. Farmland Impacts
The Farmland Policy Protection Act (FPPA) of 1981 (7 CFR 658) requires all federal
agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and
important farmland soils, as designated by the United States Soil Conservation Service
(USDA). The proposed improvements to Old Thirty Road will directly convert
approximately 4.84 acres of farmland. The Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form that
was sent to the USDA's National Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) in Raleigh, North
Carolina has been received. The form is included in Appendix A.
6. Wild and Scenic Rivers
The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 USC 1271) was adopted to
preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, or recreational features in a free-
flowing condition. The Act classifies designated rivers as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational.
Wild Rivers are those rivers free of impoundments, inaccessible except by trails, with
primitive, pristine shorelines and unpolluted waters. Scenic rivers must meet these same
criteria, with the exception of being accessible by roadways. Recreational rivers are the least
pristine of the three classifications, as there may be some development along their shoreline,
are accessible by roadways, and may have been impounded in some sections. Rivers
classified under the Act must first be listed on the National Rivers Inventory (NRI). The Act
requires that all federal actions, which may compromise the designation of a Wild and Scenic
River, or foreclose the possibility of future designation of an NRI river, be coordinated with
the United States Department of Interior. No Wild, Scenic, or Recreational Rivers
designated under the Act occur within the project area.
North Carolina passed similar legislation in 1971, the Natural and Scenic Rivers Act.
Four rivers have been designated as State Scenic Rivers: the New River, Lumber River,
Horse Pasture River, and the Linville River. None of these rivers are located within the
project area.
C. Analyzing Community Impacts
1. Social and Psychological Aspects
Social and psychological impacts can result from changes in population, community
cohesion, social values, or the quality of life of the residents in the project study area as a
result of the proposed project. The project will provide positive improvements to the area by
increasing the level of safety associated with the roadway. The project will not directly cause
or encourage an influx or loss of population, affect the cohesion of the area, or isolate people
from one another. The study area is sparsely populated with residences, many associated
with farms. The development pattern is not conducive to pedestrian movement, although a
few homes are clustered together. The improvements will not change mobility within the
study area, reduce access among study area residences, or isolate one or more residences
from the others. The project will benefit the community by reducing the driving hazards
associated with the poor horizontal curvature of the roadway. Therefore, based on field
20
surveys and discussions with a local planner, it is concluded that the proposed project is not
expected to cause any changes to the social and psychological aspects of the community.
2. Physical Aspects
Physical impacts can result from the construction of a barrier (noise walls or fencing) or
increased noise, vibration or air pollution in the project study area. None of the above
mentioned impacts are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.
3. Visual Environment
Visual impacts can affect a community from both the view of the road and the view from
the road. The view of the road by the residents contributes to the feeling of community pride
and value. The view from the road is from the user's perspective and leaves an impression of
the community on the driver as well as the residents. The proposed improvements include
the addition of pavement along the roadway. However, the addition of pavement will not
change the character of the area or the residence's relationship to the roadway. The addition
of pavement will benefit the community by increasing the safety of the roadway, which is too
narrow. Therefore, no adverse impacts to the visual environment are expected to occur as a
result of the proposed project.
4. Land Use
The proposed improvements to Old Thirty Road are compatible with the Onslow County,
North Carolina 1997 _Land Use Plan. According to the land use plan, the study area is
classified as "rural with services." This classification provides for very low-density land uses
including residential, public facilities, and health care facilities. No developments have been
approved for the area. The project will not provide access to undeveloped land or create any
new intersections. Hence, the improvements are not expected to encourage development in
the study area. Therefore, the proposed project is not likely to cause changes in the land uses
along Old Thirty Road. In addition, sewer services are not currently provided by the county
and according to the county planner, there are no plans in the near future to provide sewer
services to the county. This will limit the development of the county and study area.
5. Economic Conditions
The proposed improvements to Old Thirty Road are not expected to cause any changes in
the economic condition of the project study area. The project is not expected to encourage
growth within the study area. However, some land will be required for right-of-way,
removing it from the area's tax base.
6. Mobility and Access
Old Thirty Road is part of the designated "Jacksonville City to the Sea" bicycle route.
Currently, paved shoulders along both sides of the roadway are proposed. However, to better
accommodate bicyclists, it is recommended that "Share the Road" signs be installed to notify
motorists of the possible presence of cyclists.
21
According to the director of Onslow United Transit Services (OUTS), transportation
services are provided on an as needed basis for elderly and disabled residents of Onslow
County. In addition, the Council on Aging, Department of Social Services in Onslow County
provides limited transportation to elderly and disabled residents of Onslow County. This
service is provided Monday through Friday for residents age 60 years or older. The Council
of Aging is a client of OUTS and most of the residents who contact the Council of Aging for
transportation are transported by Coach, the vender for OUTS. Although, there are no
scheduled routes, it is estimated that Coach uses Old Thirty Road approximately twice a
week. In addition, OUTS with NCDOT funding offers a program called Rural General
Public (RGP) to residents of Onslow County regardless of age or disability. The RGP will
transport anyone as long as the route is rural to rural, urban to rural, or rural to urban. Under
the RGP program, people are not transported from an urban location to another urban
location. The proposed project is not expected to impact the area's access to this type of
transportation.
7. Provision of Public Services
There is one school located on Old Thirty Road just west of Grants Creek Loop. The
primary mode of transportation for Morton Elementary School students is bus service.
According to personnel at the Onslow County school system's transportation department,
there are approximately 14 bus stops associated with the Onslow County school system, one
Head Start bus stop, and two bus stops for alternative schooling within the study area.
However, there are approximately 108 school buses that travel this section of the road on a
daily basis. The improvements will provide a safer route of transportation for the school
buses.
Onslow County provides public water services to properties throughout the project area.
Sewer services are not provided to the project area. The project is not expected to adversely
affect or interrupt public facilities or services within the study area.
8. Safety
No adverse impacts to safety are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.
The project is expected to greatly enhance safety by improving the horizontal curvature of
the roadway and by adding pavement to provide wider travel lanes.
9. Displacement
No displacements of residences or businesses are anticipated as a result of the proposed
project.
10. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
The Council on Environmental Quality defines indirect impacts as those "which are
caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still
reasonably foreseeable" (40 CFR 1508.8). Cumulative impacts are defined as "impacts on
the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other
22
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless off what agency (federal or
nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 1508.8). Based on these
definitions, the current land use plan for Onslow County, and information provided by the
County Planner, it is concluded that the project will not produce indirect impacts within the
study area. Furthermore, the proposed improvements will improve the safety of the roadway.
Based on the forecast in the Onslow County, North Carolina 1997 Land Use Plan, during
the next seven to ten year period, Onslow County anticipates no substantial development in
the study area. However, Onslow County has no formal zoning requirements; therefore,
unplanned development may occur. The proposed improvements, while enhancing safety,
are not expected to make the study area more attractive to developers. In addition, the lack
of sewer services within the study area is expected to deter development. Furthermore, the
proposed improvements will improve vehicle and driver safety along the roadway but will
not increase capacity along the roadway. No public or private actions have taken place in the
study area that would adversely affect its residents. Therefore, it is concluded that no past or
present actions combine to result in a cumulative impact that would either adversely or
beneficially affect the study area.
11. Title VI and Environmental Justice
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related statutes, requires there be no
discrimination in Federally-assisted programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, age,
sex, or disability. Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," provides that "each federal
agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and
low-income populations." The Executive Order makes clear that its provisions apply fully to
the American Indian populations and Indian tribes. Environmental justice refers to the
equitable treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.
The proposed project will not place any adverse impacts upon any areas having low
income and/or minority populations, or split or isolate any such communities. No residences
are being displaced by the project or isolated from one another. In addition, Census data and
field surveys indicate that no predominantly low income or minority communities exist
within the immediate vicinity of the project. This assessment has found no evidence or
indication of discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability.
The proposed project is being implemented in accordance with Executive Order 12898.
23
D. Findings and Recommendations
1. Summary of the Effects of the Project
Based on a review of the proposed project, the overall direct impact from the addition of
pavement and the improvement of the horizontal curvature on Old Thirty Road will be low,
and should in fact be positive by improving vehicular and driver safety along the roadway.
2. Mitigation and Enhancement
Mitigation involves any action that alleviates or offsets any anticipated adverse impacts
or replaces an appropriated resource. Enhancement measures involve adding a desirable or
attractive feature to the proposed project to make it fit more harmoniously into the
community. Enhancement measures are not designed to replace lost resources or alleviate
impacts caused by the proposed project. No adverse impacts are expected to occur as a result
of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation or enhancement measures are proposed
E. Relocation Impacts
One residential relocatee was identified based on the preliminary designs (see Relocation
Report in Appendix B). However, after further review, it was concluded that the slopes in the
vicinity of residence could be modified to avoid relocating the house. Therefore, no relocatees
are anticipated as a result of this project.
F. Historic and Cultural Resources
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 the opportunity to comment.
Historic Architecture
Maps and files were reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to locate
any potential structures within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). In a concurrence form
dated 11/21/99, 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 within the APE. A copy of the concurrence form is included in Appendix
A.
2. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in a memorandum dated April 19, 1999,
recommended that "no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this
project." A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in Appendix A.
24
G. Natural Systems
Research of the project study area was conducted prior to field investigations. Information
sources used in the pre-field investigation include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle
map (Kellum, NC), NCDOT aerial photomosaics of the project study area (1:200) and Soil
Survey of Onslow County (USDA, 1992). Water resource information was obtained
from publications of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR), and North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in
the study area was gathered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) List of
Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Federal Species of Concern, By County, in
North Carolina (16 June 2000) and from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT biologists
on 14 and 15 June 2000, 17 July 2000, 22 August 2000, and 7 and 12 September 2000. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification
involved using one or more of the following observational techniques: active searching and
capture, visual observations (binoculars), identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds,
scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing
delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
1. Physical Characteristics
Soil and water resources, which occur in the project study area, are discussed below. Soil
types and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
Onslow County lies in the Lower Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. Land in the
project study area is characterized as relatively flat. The project is located in outside
Jacksonville surrounded by fields, woods, and houses interspersed throughout. The project
study area is located between approximately 10 ft (3.8 m) and 25 ft (7.6 m) above mean sea
level.
a. Soils
The project study area is located within the Norfolk-Goldsboro-Onslow Association
and the Muckalee-Dorovan Association. The Norfolk-Goldsboro-Onslow Association is
characterized by gently sloping upland soils that are moderately-well to somewhat-poorly
drained, and have a loamy subsoil. The Muckalee-Dorovan Association is characterized
as nearly level flood plain soils that are poorly drained and are loamy throughout.
The project study area is located along five different soil series and five mapped soil
units. Four occur in upland areas and include the Goldsboro series, the Norfolk series,
the Onslow series, and the Lynchburg series. The Muckalee series occurs in the
floodplain.
25
The Goldsboro series includes one mapped soil unit: Goldboro fine sandy loam, 0-2%
slopes. This soil is non-hydric, moderately-well to well drained, brownish, and has
moderate infiltration and slow to medium surface runoff, increasing as slope increases.
The Norfolk series includes one mapped soil unit: Norfolk loamy fine sand 2-6%
slopes. This soil is non-hydric, moderately-well to well drained, brownish, and has
moderate infiltration and slow to medium surface runoff, increasing as slope increases.
The Onslow series includes one mapped soil unit: Onslow loamy fine sand. This soil
is non-hydric, somewhat-poor to poorly drained, grayish brown, has moderate infiltration
and slow surface runoff.
The Lynchburg series includes one mapped soil unit: Lynchburg fine sandy loam.
This soil is somewhat-poor to poorly drained, grayish brown, has moderate infiltration
and slow surface runoff. Lynchburg fine sandy loam is a non-hydric soil that may
contain some hydric inclusions of Rains soil.
The Muckaleee series includes the soil mapped unit: Muckalee loam. This soil is
coarsely textured, poorly drained, grayish brown, has moderate infiltration and very slow
surface runoff, and is a hydric soil. This soil is frequently flooded for brief periods from
November to April and in wider flood plain areas water may pond for long periods during
winter.
b. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses the resources'
relationship to major water systems, its physical aspects, best usage classification, and
water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed,
as are means to minimize impacts.
1. Characteristics of Water Resources
Water resources that are located in the project vicinity lie in the White Oak River
Basin. The proposed project crosses four intermittent unnamed tributaries (UT) and
two perennial UTs of Horse Swamp located in the New River and Tributaries
Subbasin 03-05-02 and United States Department of Interior Hydrologic Unit
03030001. Horse Swamp flows into Little Northeast Creek which is listed as an
Anadramous Fish Spawning Area 1.5 mi (2.43 km) downstream from Bridge No. 3
over Little Northeast Creek (Figure 1). Anadramous fish are those which spend most
of their life in the ocean but return to their natal freshwater streams to spawn. Little
Northeast Creek flows into Northeast Creek 3.8 mi (6.2 km) south and downstream
from the bridge. Approximately 1.2 mi (1.9 km) downstream from where they join,
Northeast Creek is designated as a Fish Nursery Area.
26
UT #1, an intermittent stream, crosses SR 1423 0.33 mi (0.53 km) east of SR
1427. UT# 1 originates north of SR 1423 and flows south where in converges with
Horse Swamp. North of SR 1423 the channel is ditch-like and located in cleared
agriculture land. To the south, the channel is well shaded and more naturally
vegetated.
UT #2, an intermittent stream, crosses SR 1423 0.47 mi (0.76 km) east of SR
1427. UT#2 originates north of SR 1423 and flows south where in converges with
Horse Swamp. Water is flowing from two separate channels that converge into UT#2
within the project study area. The channels are not well defined and are well shaded.
UT #3, an intermittent stream, crosses SR 1423 0.74 mi (1.2 km) east of SR 1427.
UT#3 originates north of SR 1423 and flows south where in converges with Horse
Swamp. The channel is well defined and well shaded and had vegetation growing in
the streambed.
UT 44, a perennial stream, crosses SR 1423 1.1 mi (1.8 km) west of SR 1413.
UT#4 originates north of SR 1423 and flows south where in converges with Horse .
Swamp. The channel is well defined and well shaded.
UT #5, an intermittent stream, crosses SR 1423 1.2 mi (0.73 km) west of SR
1413. UT#5 originates north of SR 1423 and flows south where in converges with
Horse Swamp. The channel is well defined and well shaded.
UT 46, a perennial stream, crosses SR 1423 0.6 mi (1.0 km) west of SR 1413.
UT#6 originates north of SR 1423 and flows south where in converges with Horse
Swamp. The channel is sinuous throughout and is well shaded south of SR 1423 and
in a cleared maintained yard north of the road. Fish, crawdads, and frogs were
observed at UT#6.
Table 10. Water Resource Characteristics in the Project Study Area
Strea Class Width ft, Depth- inn = ?,Y ,, ?Sgbsftte v,,, go0ow > . } . , .Clarity
In {m) Icm)° ? ? .
U i ff i intermittent I.:) ku.:)) l (:). t) sa none Poor
UT#2 Intermittent 1.5 (0.5) 2(5.1) sa moderate Good
UT#3 Intermittent 2(0.6) 8(20.3) sa none Poor
UT#4 Perennial 2(0.6) 6(15.2) Sa slow Poor
UT#5 Intermittent 3(0.9) 3(7.6) Sa, gr, co slow Poor
UT#6 Perennial 2(0.6) 3(7.63) Sa, gr, co slow Fair
sa: sand, gr: gravel, co: co e
Roadside ditches are prevalent throughout the project study area. There are also
several non jurisdictional upland cut ditches/drainage areas in the project study area.
27
2. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). According to the DWQ, the best usage classification of Horse
Swamp (DWQ Index No. 19-16-2-1) is C NSW. Unnamed tributaries receive the
same classification as the stream into which they flow therefore, the best usage
classification of all the UTs is C NSW. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The
supplemental classification NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Water) are waters which require
limitations on nutrient inputs. No water resources classified as High Quality Waters
(HQW's), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW's) are located within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the project study area.
3. Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality management for the
17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological,
chemical, and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning.
All basins are reassessed every five years. AMS station P-3100000 (0209317585) is
located on Little Northeast Creek at SR 1406 near Jacksonville, NC below its
confluence with Horse Swamp. The station is approximately 2.3 mi (3.7 km)
downstream from Bridge No. 3 over Little Northeast Creek, located 0.1 mi (150 m)
west of SR 1427, and was last sampled in 1994. The station at Little Northeast Creek
was the only station in subbasin 03-05-02 to exceed the water quality criterion for
three specific water quality parameters. The pH and dissolved oxygen fell below the
criterion and the results for the fecal coliforms was above the criterion. The swamp-
like conditions along the shore of Little Northeast Creek may account for its inability
to meet certain water quality standards.
Likewise, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed
by the DWQ and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program
which addresses long term trends in water quality. The program assesses water
quality by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed
monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water
quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these organisms are
reflections of water quality. There are no BMAN sampling stations within the project
study vicinity.
Point source pollution refers to discharges that enter surface water through a pipe,
ditch, or other defined points of discharge. 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. Horse Creek Farms Utilities Corporation (Permit No. NC 0062359, Date
10/22/92) is a permitted point source discharger to Little Northeast Creek, located
approximately 0.13 mi (0.21 km) south of Bridge No. 3, west of the project study
area.
28
Non-point source pollution refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater flow or a non-defined point of discharge. There are many types of land
use activities that can serve as sources of non-point source pollution in the White Oak
River Basin including land development, construction, crop production, landfills,
roads, and parking lots. Water quality may be significantly influenced by agricultural
runoff. Land clearing can cause soil erosion which leads to stream sedimentation,
and animal waste can cause nutrient loading in streams. Oxygen-consuming waste is
also likely to be a primary source of water quality degradation in the project vicinity.
4. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Potential impacts to water resources in the project study area are dependent upon
final construction limits. Roadway construction in and adjacent to water resources
may result in water quality impacts. Clearing and grubbing activities near the creek
will result in soil erosion leading to increased sedimentation and turbidity. These
effects may extend downstream for considerable distance with decreasing intensity.
Removal of streamside vegetation will have a negative effect on water quality.
The vegetation typically shades the water's surface from sunlight, thus moderating
water temperature. The removal of streamside canopy during construction will result
in more extreme fluctuating water temperatures. During warmer portions of the year,
the water temperature will increase, resulting in a decrease in dissolved oxygen
because warmer water holds less oxygen. Streambank vegetation stabilizes
streambanks and reduces sedimentation by trapping soil particles.
Construction activities adjacent to water resources increase the potential for toxic
compounds (gas, oil, and highway spills) to be carried into nearby water resources via
precipitation, sheet flow, and subsurface drainage. Increased amounts of toxic
materials can adversely alter the water quality of any water resource, thus impacting
its biological and chemical functions. Indirect impacts to surface waters may extend
both upstream and downstream of the project study area. Indirect impacts may
include changes in flooding regime, discharge, erosion and sedimentation patterns.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the entire impact area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters
should be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project. The NCDOT, in
cooperation with the DWQ, has developed a sedimentation control program for
highway projects which adopts formal BMPs for the protection of surface waters.
Erosion and sedimentation will be most pronounced as a result of disturbance of
the stream banks and substrate. Sedimentation from these activities may be high
during construction, but should diminish rapidly following project completion if
exposed soils are revegetated and streambanks stabilized.
29
2. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include terrestrial, aquatic and wetland ecosystems. This section
describes those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships
between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences
and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the
context of plant community classifications.
Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described and discussed.
Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*). Scientific
nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and plant
species described. Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common
name only.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate,
community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant
names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Habitats used by terrestrial
wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were determined
through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation
(Martof et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Rohde et al. 1994; Potter et al. 1980).
a. Terrestrial Communities
Two terrestrial communities are identifiable in the project study area: disturbed
community and mixed pine hardwood forest.
1. Disturbed Community
This community encompasses several types of habitats that have recently been or
are currently impacted by human disturbance: roadside shoulder, maintained yard,
power line easement, and fallow fields. These irregularly maintained habitats are
kept in a low-growing, early successional state. Herbs, grasses and vines located in
the roadside shoulder and maintained yard, include fescue (Festuca sp.), beadgrass
(Paspallum sp.), broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), common plantain (Plantago
major), English plantain (P.lanceolata), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), geranium
(Geranium sp.), pennywort (Hydrocotyle sp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
crabgrass (Digitaria sp.), white clover (Trifolium repens), trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans), dandelion (Taraxicum officinale), and bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon).
The power line easement is located on the southeast end of the project study area.
Herbs, grasses and vines located in the power line easement and fields include
beadgrass, daisy fleabane (Erigeron annuus), bushclover (Lespedeza cuneata), dog
fennel, wild onion (Alium canadense), goldenrod, broom sedge, panic grass (Panicum
sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), saw
greenbrier (Smilax bona- nox), trumpet creeper, and vervain (Verbena sp.). These
30
are, -eceive less maintenance and have more shrubs and saplings than other
disc )ed areas. Shrubs and tree species located in the power line easement include
blac j, perry (Rubus argutus), blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), black cherry (Prunus serotina), red maple (Acer
rubrum), winged elm (Ulmus alata), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboreum), American holly (Ilex opaca), and loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda). Plants located in the roadside ditches include Carex crinita, Cyperus sp.,
Rhynchospora sp, and a rush (Juncus sp.).
2. Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest
There are varying degrees of succession in this community. Subsequently, pines
began to grow in the drier conditions that resulted. Dominant species located in the
canopy and subcanopy include sweetgum, black gum, wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera),
sourwood, flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), horse sugar (Symplocus tinctoria), American elm (Ulmus americana),
blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), southern red oak (Q. falcata), post oak (Q.
stellata), water oak (Q. nigra), white oak (Q. alba), pepperbush (Clethra sp.), red
chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra), titi (Cyrilla
racemiflora), sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), and loblolly pine. Species
located in the herb and vine layer include trumpet creeper, yellow jessamine
(Gelsemium sempervirens), winged sumac (Rhus copallina), poison ivy, greenbrier,
strawberry (Fragaria sp.), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and muscadine grape
(Vitis rotundifolia).
Nine wetland communities were identified scattered throughout the mixed pine
hardwood forest of the project study area. The wetlands are thoroughly described in
Section 3.a. Lb.
b. Terrestrial Faunal Component
Many species prefer open, disturbed habitat to feed and nest in. The least shrew
(Cryptotis parva) inhabits relatively open areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation.
The Eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis) and the hispid cotton rat
(Sigmodon hispidus) prefer old fields and roadsides where they feed on seeds, shoots and
leaves. In disturbed areas that are exposed to sunlight and near edges, the Carolina anole
(Anolis carolinensis) is found. Birds such as the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura)*,
the fish crow (Corvus ossifragus)* and the brown headed cowbird (Molothrus ater)*
forage for seeds and insects in open, disturbed areas. Soaring over open areas searching
for carrion, the turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)* can be observed.
Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and clearings.
The Eastern cottontail (Sylvilaguslloridanus) prefers a mix of herbaceous and woody
vegetation in disturbed open areas such as old fields and edges of forests. The opossum
(Didelphis viginiana)* prefers woodlands but can be found in open areas as well and can
be observed as roadkill in the area. The gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)* can be seen
in residential yards as well as wooded areas. The black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta)* will
31
come out of forested habitat to forage in open areas. The northern mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos)* can be observed perched singing in edge habitat.
Many species prefer to forage and nest primarily in forested communities. The gray
_ fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) may be found in the early successional stages of the
forest. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)* tracks were observed in wetland
areas in the interior part of the forest. The spring peeper (Hyla crucifer) may be found
under forest litter and in the undergrowth and will breed in wetter areas such as roadside
ditches and wetlands. The Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) is a terrestrial turtle
but will be found near water in hot, dry weather. The five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus) and the copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) may also be found in forested
communities. Birds such as the Northern cardinal (Thryothorus ludovicianus)*, tufted
titmouse (Parus bicolor), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), red bellied
woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus)*, red eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus)*, and the wood
thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) will forage and nest within the forested community.
c. Aquatic Communities
There are both intermittent and perennial streams located in the project study area.
Physical processes such as flow variability, channel structure and substrate have a
tremendous influence on the ecology of streams. Physical processes in addition to the
chemistry and temperature of the stream water have a profound influence on the aquatic
biota that the stream is capable of supporting.
Intermittent streams are channels which cant' water during the wet times of the year.
They are partially supplied by ground water rising to the surface as stream baseflow.
Because water is not flowing year round, they do not support the aquatic fauna, such as
salamanders and fish, as a perennial stream does. They will, however, support species
that do not depend on constant water flow. Species such as the marble salamander
(Ambystoma opacum) can be found under logs and leaf litter in areas that will flood their
nest sites in winter. The Eastern spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus holbrooki) is found near
temporary pools of water in the lowlands of the coastal plain. Many of the terrestrial
species such as the opossum and the white-tailed deer will utilize intermittent streams
during wet periods.
Perennial streams sustain flow throughout the year. Perennial streams support an
assemblage of fauna that require constant source of flowing water, as compared to
intermittent or standing water. There are many amphibians and reptiles that may be
observed in and adjacent to small, slow flowing creeks such as UT# 4. The marbled
salamander and the southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus) can be found
under logs, rocks, and leaf litter in moist areas along streams. The little grass frog
(Limnaodus ocularis) frequents forests streams with swampy conditions in the coastal
plain. The green frog (Rana clamitans) and the snapping turtle (Chelydra seroentina) are
also found along streams. Fish species that may be located here include swamp darter
(Etheostoma fusiforme), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirusi), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon
oblongus), eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), pirate perch (Aphredoderus
sayanus), eastern silvery minnow (Hybognathus regius), flier (Centrarchus
32
macropterus), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), sunfishes
(Lepomis spp.). Possible anadramous fish include the alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)
and the blueback herring (A. aestivalis). Invertebrates observed in the perennial streams
include whirlygig beetles (Family Gyrinidae), water striders (Family Gerridae),
dragonflies (Order Odonata), and damselflies (Order Odonata).
d. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to
the natural resources in terms of the ecosystems affected.
1. Terrestrial Impacts
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of
each community (Table 11). Project construction will result in the clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived using
the ROW limits within the project study area. Usually, project construction does not
require the entire ROW width; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 11. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities in the Project Study Area.
Community Project"Total
Disturbed 4.63 (11.42)
Mixed Pine 0.28 (0.70)
Hardwood
TTotal ?1.91i2:)
Units: Hectares (Acres); Values are approximate.
The biotic communities found within the project area will be altered as a result of
project construction. Terrestrial communities serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter
habitat for fauna. During construction, species that utilize the open disturbed habitat
will temporarily be displaced. Eventually, altered areas will revegetate and a
disturbed community will be re-established. Because the species that inhabit
disturbed communities are adapted to living in highly altered habitats, the area should
be repopulated by species for which suitable habitat is provided following project
completion.
Some of the forested habitats located along the project study area are already
relatively fragmented by powerline easements, fields, and houses. Following
construction completion and revegetation, edge species will still have adequate
habitat and the impacts from the loss of habitat should be minimal. The forested
habitat loss will potentially impact fauna not located in the project study area as well`
Interior species may be impacted from the reduced forested habitat available. If
forested tracts become too small in area, interior species will not repopulate.
However, because the impact will be along the already disturbed edge habitat, and
33
due to the fragmented nature of the area, impacts to fauna in the forest communities
should be minimal.
2. Aquatic and Wetland Impacts
Construction activities will impact the water resources located in the project area
as well as those downstream. Impacts are likely to result from the physical
disturbance of aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate and water quality). Disturbance of
aquatic habitats has a detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by
reducing species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical
alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic
communities:
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Algae blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from an
increased sediment load.
Road construction impacts can affect the functions that wetlands perform in an
ecosystem as well. Wetlands influence regional water flow regimes by intercepting
and storing storm runoff which ultimately reduces the danger of flooding in
surrounding and downstream areas. Loss of wetland communities will result in loss
of water storage area. Wetlands have been documented to remove organic and
inorganic nutrients and toxic materials from water that flows across them as well as
decrease the sediment load. In this respect, impacting wetlands can directly affect the
water quality, and therefore the aquatic organisms, of the UTs in the project study
area.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to BMPs
for Protection of Surface Waters. Strict erosion and sedimentation controls will be
maintained during the entire life of the project. Anadramous Fish Guidelines should
be adhered to avoid potential impacts to these fish.
3. Jurisdictional Issues
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to three
important issues--Waters of the United States, Protected and Rare Species, and Essential Fish
Habitat.
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of "waters of
the United States," as defined under 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) §328.3 (a).
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR §328.3 (b), are those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
34
saturated conditions. Surface waters are waters used in interstate or foreign commerce,
waters subject to ebb and flow of tides, all interstate waters including interstate wetlands,
and all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams. Any action that proposes
to place fill material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
1. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
a. Jurisdictional Streams
Four intermittent UTs and two perennial UTs of Horse Swamp are considered
jurisdictional surface waters. These water resources are described thoroughly in
Section Lb. I.
b. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using criteria specified in the
1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". For an area to be
considered a "wetland", the following specifications must be met; 1) presence of
hydric soils (low soil chroma values), 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and
3) evidence of hydrology, including; saturated soils, stained leaf litter, oxidized
rhizospheres, matted vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases,
and surface roots.
The Cowardin classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) is a uniform
approach in describing concepts and terms used in classifying ecological taxa
located in a wetland system. The DWQ rating scale gauges wetland quality using
a numerical rating system (1-100 with 100 being the highest value). See Table
13.
Nine wetland communities are identified scattered throughout the mixed pine
hardwood forest natural community. The wetland communities and streams that
lie within the project limits are shown in Figure 2.
Wetland M
Wetland M is located south of SR 1423 approximately 0.47 mi (0.76 km) east of
SR 1427, adjacent to UT#2. Wetland M is located on a freshwater intermittent
stream and is a headwater forest that is intermittently flooded. Vegetation located
in wetland M includes poison ivy, trumpet creeper, Japanese honeysuckle,
Virginia creeper, sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis), Chinese privet, sweetgum,
muscadine grape, black willow (Salix nigra), giant cane, and tag alder (Alnus
serrulata). Drift lines, sediment deposits, drainage patterns, oxidized root
channels, and low chroma soil colors were observed. The Cowardin classification
for wetland M is PFO 1 EM 1 (Palustrine: Forested- broad-leaved deciduous,
Emergent- persistent), and the DWQ rating is 39. This wetland is a non-riverine
system.
35
Wetland N
Wetland N is located north of SR 1423 approximately 0.47 mi (0.76 km) east of
SR 1427, adjacent to UT42. Wetland N is located on a freshwater intermittent
stream and is a headwater forest that is intermittently flooded. Vegetation located
in wetland N includes poison ivy, trumpet creeper, Japanese honeysuckle,
Virginia creeper, sycamore, Chinese privet, sweetgum, muscadine grape, black
willow, giant cane, and tag alder. Drift lines, sediment deposits, drainage
patterns, oxidized root channels, and low chroma soil colors were observed. The
Cowardin classification for wetland N is PFOIEMI (Palustrine: Forested- broad-
leaved deciduous, Emergent- persistent), and the DWQ rating is 39. This wetland
is a non-riverine system.
Wetland P
Wetland P is located south of SR 1423 approximately 0.54 mi (0.87 km) west of
SR 1413. Wetland P is an isolated freshwater ephemeral wetland that is
seasonally flooded or inundated. Vegetation located in wetland P includes soft
rush (Juncus effusus), blackberry, black willow, goldenrod, pennywort,
bushclover, red maple, dog fennel, and a panic grass (Panicum sp.). Drainage
patterns, sediment deposits, oxidized root channels, and low chroma soil colors
were observed. The Cowardin classification for wetland P is PEM1 (Palustrine:
Emergent- persistent), and the DWQ rating is 13. This wetland is a non-riverine
system.
Wetland Q
Wetland Q is located north of SR 1423 and approximately 0.73 mi (1.2 km) west
of SR 1413, adjacent to UT#5. Wetland Q is located on a freshwater intermittent
stream and is a bottomland hardwood forest wetland that is seasonally flooded or
inundated. Vegetation located in wetland Q includes sweetgum, giant cane, red
maple, laurel-leaf greenbriar (Smilax laurifolia), netted chainfem (Woodwardia
areolata), wisteria (Wisteria sp.), sweetbay magnolia, chinese privet, wax myrtle,
poison ivy, and tag alder. Drift lines, water marks, water-stained leaves, and low
chroma soil colors were observed. The Cowardin classification for wetland Q is
PFOI (Palustrine: Forested- broad-leaved deciduous), and the DWQ rating is 40.
This wetland is a riverine system.
Wetland R
Wetland R is located on UT#4 north of SR 1423 approximately 1.1 mi (1.8 km)
west of SR 1413. Wetland R is located on a freshwater perennial stream and is a
bottomland hardwood forest wetland that is seasonally flooded or inundated.
Vegetation located in wetland R includes red maple, Chinese privet, tulip poplar,
goldenrod, muscadine grape, sweetgum, trumpet creeper, elderberry (Sambucus
36
canadensis), Japanese honeysuckle, and blackberry. Drift lines, sediment
deposits, water-stained leaves, oxidized root channels, and low chroma soil colors
were observed. The Cowardin classification for wetland R is PSS 1 /4 (Palustrine:
Scrub-Shrub- broad-leaved deciduous / needle-leaved evergreen), and the DWQ
rating is 49. This wetland is a non-riverine system.
Wetland S
Wetland S is located on UT#4 south of SR 1423 approximately 1.1 mi (1.8 km)
west of SR 1413. Wetland S is located adjacent to a freshwater perennial stream
and is a bottomland hardwood forest wetland that is seasonally flooded or
inundated. Vegetation located in wetland S includes red maple, Chinese privet,
tulip poplar, goldenrod, muscadine grape, sweetgum, trumpet creeper, elderberry,
Japanese honeysuckle, and blackberry. Drift lines, sediment deposits, water-
stained leaves, oxidized root channels, and low chroma soil colors were observed.
The Cowardin classification for wetland S is PSS1/4 (Palustrine: Scrub-Shrub-
broad-leaved deciduous / needle-leaved evergreen), and the DWQ rating is 49.
This wetland is riverine system.
Wetland T
Wetland T is located north of SR1423 and approximately 0.74 mi (1.2 km) east of
SR 1427, adjacent to UT#3. Wetland T is located on a freshwater intermittent
stream and is a bottomland hardwood forest wetland that is intermittently flooded
or inundated. Vegetation located in wetland T includes royal fern (Osmunda
regalis), tag alder, red bay (Persea borbonia), bushclover, wax myrtle, netted
chain fern, giant cane, common greenbrier, American holly, water oak, cinnamon
fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), buttonbush
(Cephalanthus occidentalis), sweetgum, and tulip poplar. Water marks, drift
lines, sediment deposits, drainage patterns, water-stained leaves, and low chroma
soil colors were observed. The Cowardin classification for wetland T is
PFOIEMI (Palustrine: Forested- broad-leaved deciduous, Emergent- persistent),
and the DWQ rating is 45. This wetland is a non-riverine system.
Wetland U
Wetland U is located south of SR 1423 approximately 0.73 mi (1.2 km) east of
SR 1427, adjacent to UT#3. Wetland U is located on a freshwater intermittent
stream and is a bottomland hardwood forest wetland that is intermittently flooded
or inundated. Vegetation located in wetland U includes royal fern, tag alder, red
bay, bushclover, wax myrtle, netted chain fern, giant cane, common greenbrier,
American holly, water oak, cinnamon fern, false nettle, buttonbush, sweetgum,
and tulip poplar. Water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits, drainage patterns,
water-stained leaves, and low chroma soil colors were observed. The Cowardin
classification for wetland U is PFO 1 EM 1 (Palustrine: Forested- broad-leaved
37
deciduous, Emergent- persistent), and the DWQ rating is 45. This wetland is a
non-riverine system.
Wetland V
Wetland V is located south of SRI 423 and 1.2 mi (1.2 km) east of SR 1427,
adjacent to UT#3. Wetland V is located on a freshwater intermittent stream and is
a bottomland hardwood forest wetland that is intermittently flooded or inundated.
Vegetation located in wetland V includes royal fern, tag alder, red bay,
bushclover, wax myrtle, netted chain fern, giant cane, common greenbrier,
American holly, water oak, cinnamon fern, false nettle, buttonbush, sweetgum,
and tulip poplar. Water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits, drainage patterns,
water-stained leaves, and low chroma soil colors were observed. The Cowardin
classification for wetland V is PFOIEMI (Palustrine: Forested- broad-leaved
deciduous, Emergent- persistent), and the DWQ rating is 45. This wetland is a
non-riverine system.
2. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Approximately 173 ft (54 m) of jurisdictional water is located within the ROW
limits of the project study area (Table 12). Actual impacts to the surface water
community may be less than reported because the entire ROW width and easements
are often not impacted by construction projects. The amount of surface water impacts
may be modified by any changes in roadway design.
Table 12. Stream Impacts Within the Project Study Area
Water Resource ?. ° . t"SttrnImpact° "
UT #1 Intermittent 39 ft (12 m)
UT #2 Intermittent 15 ft (5 m)
UT #5 Intermittent 38 ft (12 m)
UT #6 Perennial 51 ft (16 m)
Total
'All are Unnamed tributaries of Horse Swamp
2 Impact was calculated based on the feet(meters) of stream located in the ROW limits,
not including segments of\stream that are already piped.
Nine separate wetland systems are located in the project vicinity, however four
are within the ROW limits of the project. The total estimated impact to these areas
by the project is 0.0425 ac (0.017 ha). The wetlands are individually described in
Section 3. Jurisdictional Issues under section a.l .b and in Table 13.
38

Table 13. Wetland Impacts Within the Project Study Area and Classifications
Water'Resource
1 Stream Site Impact Area ac(ha)l Cowardin Chas= DWQa
rating
Wetland M UT #2 0.01 (0.004) PFO1 EM 1 39
Wetland N UT 42 0.0035 (0.001) PFO1 EM I 39
Wetland P Ephemeral 0.014 (0.0056) PEM 1 13
Wetland Q UT 45 0.015 (0.006) PFO1 E 40
Wetland R UT #4 0 PSS1/4 49
Wetlands UT 44 0 PSSI/4 49
Wetland T UT 43 0 PFOI EM l 45
Wetland U UT #3 0 PFO1 EM 1 45
Wetland V UT 43 0 PFOI EM l 45
Total 0.0425 (0.017)
'IMPACT ESTIMATES ARE DERIVED USING THE ROW LIMITS WITHIN THE PROJECT
STUDY AREA.
z Cowardin classifications for each wetland are defined in Section 3.a.l.b.
3 The DWQ rating scale gauges wetland quality using a numerical rating system (1-100 with 100 being
the highest value).
3. Permits
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated from project construction. In
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit will be
required from the COE for discharge of dredge or fill material into "waters of the
United States." Due to surface water impacts, a Section 404 Nationwide 14 Permit
(NWP 14) will likely be necessary for this project. Final decision concerning
applicable permits rests with the COE.
A NWP 14 authorizes activities required for the construction, expansion,
modification, or improvement of linear transportation crossings (e.g., highways,
railways, trails, and airport runways and taxiways) in waters of the United States,
including wetlands. A NWP 14 may be used for public linear transportation projects
in non-tidal waters, excluding non-tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters, provided
the discharge does not cause the loss of greater than '/z acre of waters of the United
States. This permit requires that the District Engineer be notified if: the discharge
causes a loss of greater than 1/10 acre of waters of the United States; and if there is a
discharge in a special aquatic site, including wetlands.

39
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to
the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the
state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity
that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401
permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit. The
COE reserves the discretionary authority to process the permit application as an
individual permit.
The subject project is located within a county that is under the jurisdiction of
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). CAMA is administered by the N. C.
Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM). The NCDCM 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 (AEC) in which uncontrolled develop
might cause irreversible damage to property, public health and natural environment.
A CAMA permit from the NCDCM is required if the project meets all of the
following conditions:
a) Located in one of the twenty counties covered by CAMA;
b) Located in or affects an AEC designated by the CRC;
c) Considered to be "development" under CAMA; and,
d) Not qualify for an exemption as identified by CAMA or the CRC.
An NCDCM representative determined that this project necessitates a CAMA
permit. Because a CAMA permit is required, a CAMA Major Development permit
will also be required.
The CAMA Major Development permit application will also serve as an
application for other state permits and for permits from the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) as required by Section 10 the Rivers and Harbors Act and
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. It is likely that the USACE would authorize the
project under a Section 404 General Permit 291. The state permits include:
a) Authorization to excavate and/or fill;
b) Authorization into lands covered by water; and, Authorization under
401 Water Quality Certification.
4. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands"
and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological, and physical integrity of waters of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetlands has been defined by the CEQ to include: Avoiding impacts (to
40
wetlands), minimizing impacts, and rectifying impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory , itigation) must be
considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practical possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
COE, in determining appropriate and practical" measures to offset unavoidable
impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those
impacts and practical in terms of costs, existing technology and logistics in light of
overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practical steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these
steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions.
Practical means to minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands impacted by
the proposed project include:
• Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median
width, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
• Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover
during construction.
• Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the protection
of surface waters and wetlands.
• Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies.
• Asymmetric widening to whichever side of the road will have the least wetland
impacts.
Due to the close proximity of the 4 wetlands to the existing facility, avoidance of
these wetlands was not possible. The four impacted wetlands are located so close to
the existing edge of pavement that complete avoidance could only be attained by
doing nothing or re-routing the road to a new location. However, through the use of
steeper side slopes (3:1) and by widening the road symmetrically, NCDOT was able
to minimize impacts to these streams and wetlands.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not
be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable
compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain
after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory
actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of waters of the United
States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site.
41
b. Protected and Rare Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-
protected, be subject to review by the USFWS. Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
1. Federally-protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA. As of 26 February 2001, there are 11 federally
protected species listed for Onslow County (Table 14). Following are brief
descriptions of the characteristics and habitat requirements for each listed species.
The biological conclusion for each species will resolve the potential impacts due to
the proposed project.
Table 14. Federally Protected Species of Onslow County.
rga or mrssrssrpprensrs AM (b/A)
Caretta caretta
Charadrius melodus
Chelonia mydas
Dermochelys coriacea
Felis concolor cougar
Pieoides borealis
Amaranthus pumilus
Carex lutea
Lysimachia asperulaefolia
Thalictrum cooleyi
Loggerhead sea turtle T
Piping plover T
Green sea turtle T
Leatherback sea turtle E
Eastern cougar E*
Red-cockaded woodpecker E
Seabeach amaranth T
Golden sedge E
Rough-leaved loosestrife E
Cooley's meadowrue E
' Endangered (E) species are a taxon which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
Threatened (T) species are a taxon likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
Threatened by Similarity of Appearance T(S/A) species are a taxon which is threatened by similarity of
appearance with other species and is listed for its protection.
Proposed Endangered (PE) species are a taxon proposed for official listing as endangered.
* indicates an obscure and incidental record.
42
Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) T(S/A)
Animal Family: Alligatoridae
Date Listed: 4. ,one 1987
The alligator is a large aquatic reptile, measuring 1.8-5.8 meters in length, with a broadly
rounded snout, heavy body, laterally compressed tail, and a dark gray or blackish color.
Young are black with conspicuous yellow crossbands; the banding may occasionally
persist on adults, although very faintly. Unlike the American crocodile, the fourth tooth
on the lower jaw of the alligator fits in a notch in the upper jaw and is not exposed when
the jaws are closed.
The alligator is found in rivers, streams, canals, lakes, swamps, bayous, and coastal
marshes. Adult animals are highly tolerant of salt water, but the young are apparently
more sensitive, with salinities greater than 5 parts per thousand considered harmful. The
diet consists of anything of suitable size, including mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds,
fish, and crustaceans.
Nesting takes place in late spring and early summer, with the female building a mound of
grass and other vegetation that may be two feet high and six feet across. The nest is
usually constructed near the water, in a shaded location. The clutch of 30-60 (average
35) eggs is laid in a cavity near the top of the mound, and is incubated by the heat from
the decaying vegetation. The female usually remains near the nest until the eggs hatch.
Hatching takes place in about nine weeks, at which time the young begin calling to alert
the female to excavate the nest.
This species is listed as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance, and is therefore not
protected under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. However, in order to control the
illegal trade of other protected crocodilians such as the American crocodile, federal
regulations (such as hide tagging) are maintained on the commercial trade of alligators.
No survey is required for this species
Caretta caretta (Loggerhead turtle) Threatened
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 28 July 1978
The loggerhead sea turtle is a large marine reptile, weighing 170-500 kg. The loggerhead
has a large head and blunt, powerful jaws. The carapace and flippers are reddish-brown
and the plastron is yellow. There are five pairs of pleural scutes on the carapace, with the
first touching the nuchal scute. Three scutes on each side connect the carapace and the
plastron.
The loggerhead sea turtle is found in a wide variety of habitats, including the open ocean,
bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and large river mouths. Hatchlings are
often seen in association with floating sargassum seaweed. The diet includes sponges,
jellyfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and fish. Loggerheads often forage in coral reefs, rocky
areas, and shipwrecks.
43
On the east coast of the U.S., the nesting season begins in about May and lasts until
November. Females crawl onto the beach at night and excavate a chamber in the sand,
using their hind flippers. They lay 64-341 eggs, the average being about 115. These
hatch in about two months, usually emerging at night. The hatchlings crawl toward the
ocean, possibly using illumination off the water and slope of the beach as cues to find the
water. Little is known about where the young go once they enter the ocean, but evidence
suggests that 12-30 years are required to reach sexual maturity. Females only nest every
2-3 years, but may lay 2-6 clutches during a reproductive year.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle is not located within the
project study area. A review of the North Carolina NHP database of Rare Species and
Unique Habitats revealed no known occurrences of the loggerhead sea turtle within 1.6 km
(1.0 mi) of the project study area. Therefore it can be concluded that construction of this
project will not impact this species.
Charadrius me%dus (Piping plover) Threatened
Animal Family: Charadriidae
Date Listed: 1 I December 1985
The piping plover is a small shorebird resembling a sandpiper, weighing 42-56 g, with a
length of 15-20 cm. Their plumage is white below and brownish gray above, with a
black band across the forehead and a black ring around the neck. The black marking may
be indistinct during the winter. The legs are yellow, and the bill is yellow in summer and
dark in the winter. Chicks are precocial and covered with a sandy-colored down. This
plover's call is a clear "peep-lo". This bird's movement pattern during foraging is like
that of most plovers, running in short starts and stops.
Piping plovers prefer habitat that consists of large sandflats or mudflats for foraging in
close proximity to a sandy beach for roosting and nesting. They nest on sandy or gravelly
beaches in sparsely vegetated areas that are slightly higher in elevation than the
surrounding beach. The nest is a shallow scrape in the sand, often with shell fragments in
it, and a clutch usually consists of four eggs. The eggs hatch in May and the young
fledge about a month later. Parents will often try to distract predators from the nest by
feigning a broken wing. Migration to the wintering grounds occurs in early September.
Piping plovers eat a wide variety of worms, fly larvae, beetles, crustaceans, molluscs, and
other invertebrates (Bent 1928). The foraging behavior consists of quick darting
movement across the sand or mudflat, with sudden stops to probe the sand for food items.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the piping plover is not located within the project
study area. A review of the North Carolina NHP database of Rare Species and Unique
Habitats revealed no known occurrences of the piping plover within 1.0mi (1.6km) of the
project study area. Therefore it can be concluded that construction of this project will not
impact this species.
44
Chelonia mydas (Green sea turtle) Threatened
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 28 July 1978
The green sea turtle is a large marine reptile, weighing 100-295 kg. The smooth, keelless
carapace is light to dark brown with darker mottling and the plastron is light yellow. The
head is fairly small with a serrated lower jaw, and there is a single claw on each front
flipper. There are four pairs of pleural scutes on the carapace, with none touching the
nuchal scute, and a single pair of elongated scales between the eyes. Hatchlings
generally have a black carapace, white plastron, and white markings on the edge of the
carapace and flippers.
Adult green sea turtles are generally found in shallow water, especially in lagoons and
shoals inside reefs, bays, and inlets where marine grasses and algae are abundant.
Hatchlings are often seen offshore, in association with floating sargassum seaweed. The
diet consists mainly of marine grasses and algae, although mollusks, sponges,
crustaceans, and jellyfish may also be taken.
On the east coast of the U.S., the nesting season begins in about June and lasts until
September. Females crawl onto the beach at night and excavate a chamber in the sand,
using their hind flippers, in which a clutch of 75-200 eggs is deposited. Incubation takes
48-70 days, and the hatchlings usually emerge at night. The hatchlings crawl toward the
ocean, possibly using illumination off the water and slope of the beach as cues to find the
water. Little is known about where the young go once they enter the ocean, but evidence
suggests that 25-50 years are required to reach sexual maturity. Females only nest every 2-
4 years, but may lay seven clutches during a reproductive year, with 9-13 days between
clutches.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the green sea turtle is not located within the
project study area. A review of the North Carolina NHP database of Rare Species and
Unique Habitats revealed no known occurrences of the green sea turtle within 1.6 km (1.0
mi) of the project study area. Therefore it can be concluded that construction of this
project will not impact this species.
Dermochelys coriaeea Leatherback sea turtle) Endangered
Animal Family: Dermochelydae
Date Listed: 2 June 1972
The leatherback sea turtle is the largest of the turtles, weighing 295-680 kg with a length
of 1.2-1.8 m. This turtle is unique in that its carapace is not composed of hard scutes, but
is rubbery with small bones embedded in it. The carapace has seven longitudinal keels,
and is dark brown or black. The plastron has five longitudinal keels. There is not a well-
defined angle between the carapace and plastron, making the animal somewhat barrel-
shaped. The head and flippers are brown or black with whitish spots, and the flippers
have no claws. The beak is somewhat hooked, with a tooth-like cusp on either side of the
upper jaw. Hatchlings are dark brown or black, with white or yellowish carapace keels,
and their skin has small scales that are lost as the animal grows.
45
The leatherback sea turtle is a strong swimmer and mainly pelagic, often seen near the
edge of the continental shelf. Preferred nesting beaches are usually isolated, with close
proximity to deep water, bordered by vegetation, and steep enough so that dry sand is not
too far from the water. The diet consists mainly of jellyfish, along with some sea urchins,
crustaceans, squid, tunicates, fish, and seaweed.
Nesting in North Carolina takes place in June through September. Clutch size is
approximately 80-100 eggs, of which a third may be yolkless. Females may nest several
times in a single season, but probably do not nest every year. Incubation takes 55-74
days, and the hatchlings emerge at night. They immediately head for the ocean, possibly
using light cues to find the water.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the leatherback sea turtle is not located within the
project study area. A review of the North Carolina NHP database of Rare Species and
Unique Habitats revealed no known occurrences of the leatherback sea turtle within 1.0mi
(1.6km) of the project study area. Therefore it can be concluded that construction of this
project will not impact this species.
Felis concolor cougar (Eastern cougar) Endangered*
Animal Family: Felidae
Date Listed: 4 June 1973
The eastern cougar is a large, unspotted, long-tailed cat weighing between 68 and 91 kg.
Males are 30-40 percent larger than females. The cougar's body and legs are a uniform
tawny color, although the belly is a pale reddish color, and the backs of the ears, tip of the
tail, and sides of the muzzle are black. Kittens are spotted with black and have ringed tails
until they are about 6 months old.
Historically, the eastern cougar occurred from eastern Canada south to Tennessee and
South Carolina. Its distribution has contracted to a few scattered locations in Minnesota,
Michigan, and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Additional sightings have also
been reported in several counties of western and southeastern North Carolina. No
populations of this species are well documented. Habitat requirements consist primarily
of large tracts of wilderness and adequate prey, and this species can live in coastal
swamps as well as mountainous regions. Cougars feed mainly on white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), although they may also eat small mammals, wild turkeys, and
occasionally domestic livestock. It is estimated that a female cougar can have a range of
5-20 square miles, and a male can have a range upwards of 25 square miles.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the Eastern cougar is not located within the project study area. The
project vicinity is relatively fragmented by cultivated land, residential areas, and a school,
not allowing for the large tracts of wilderness required by the Eastern cougar. A review of
the North Carolina NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats revealed no known
occurrences of the eastern cougar within I.Omi (1.6km) of the project study area.
Therefore it can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this species.
46
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black and white
except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is
black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker are
white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the
black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (pinus
palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50%
pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat
for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are > 60 years old and are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up
to 500 acres (200.0 hectares). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are
infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 12-100 ft (3.6-30.3 m) above the ground and average 30-50 ft (9.1- 15.7 m) high.
They can be identified by 'a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The
RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
A survey for red-cockaded woodpeckers in the potential habitat areas at the project site
was conducted on December 13, 2000 by NCDOT Biologists Hal Bain, Jared Gray, Jill
Holmes, and Matt Haney. No red-cockaded woodpeckers were observed, nor were nesting
cavities, or any other evidence that they may be using the project study area. A review of
the North Carolina Heritage Program Database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats
revealed no known occurrences of the red-cockaded wookpecker within 1.6 miles of the
project study area. Therefore it can be concluded that the construction of this project will
not impact this species.
Amaranthus pumilus (seabeach amaranth) Threatened
Plant Family: Amaranaceae
Flowers Present: June to frost
Seabeach amaranth is an annual legume that grows in clumps containing 5 to 20 branches
and are often over a foot across. The trailing stems are fleshy and reddish-pink or reddish
in color. Seabeach amaranth has thick, fleshy leaves that are small, ovate-spatulate,
emarginate and rounded. The leaves are usually spinach green in color, cluster towards the
end of a stem, and have winged petioles. Flowers grow in axillary fascicles and the
legume has smooth, indehsicent fruits. Seeds are glossy black. Both fruits and flowers are
relatively inconspicuous and born along the stem.
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to the Atlantic Coastal Plain beaches. Habitat for seabeach
amaranth is found on barrier island beaches functioning in a relatively dynamic and natural
manner. Seabeach amaranth grows well in overwash flats at the accreting ends of islands
and the lower foredunes and upper strands of noneroding beaches. Temporary populations
often form in blowouts, sound-side beaches, dredge spoil, and beach replenishment. This
species is very intolerant to competition and is not usually found in association with other
species. Threats to seabeach amaranth include beach stabilization projects, all terrain
vehicles (ATV's), herbivory by insects and animals, beach grooming, and beach erosion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
47
Suitable habitat for seabeach amaranth does not occur within the project study area. A
review of the North Carolina NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats revealed
no known occurrences of the seabeach amaranth within 1.0mi (1.6km) of the project study
area. Therefore it can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this
species.
Carex Lutea (Golden Sedge) Proposed Endangered
Plant Family: Cyperaceae
Flowers Present: mid April to mid June
Golden sedge is a perennial sedge whose culm (stem) may reach three feet (lm) or more
in height. The yellowish green leaves are grasslike, with those of the culm mostly basal
and up to loin (28cm) long, while those of the vegetative shoots reach a length of 25in
(65cm). The inflated perigynia (sac which encloses the ovary) are bright yellow at
flowering and about .16 to .20 in (4 to 5 mm) long, and the perigynia beaks are out-
curved and spreading. Golden sedge is most readily identified from mid-April to mid-
June during flowering and fruiting. It is distinguished from other Carex species that
occur in the same habitat by its bright yellow color, by its height and slenderness, and
especially by the out-curved beaks of the crowded perigynia (LeBlond et al. 1994).
Carex lutea grows in sandy soils overlying coquina limestone deposits, where the soil pH
is unusually high for this region, typically between 5.5 and 7.2 (Glover 1994). Soils
supporting the species are very wet to periodically shallowly inundated. The species
prefers the ecotone between the pine savanna and adjacent wet hardwood or
hardwood/conifer forest (LeBlond 1996; Schafale and Weakley 1990). Most plants occur
in the partially shaded savanna/swamp where occasional to frequent fires favor an
herbaceous ground layer and suppress shrub dominance. The species appears to be a
very rare, narrowly restricted endemic to an area within a 2-mile radius of the
Onslow/Pender County line in southeastern North Carolina (LeBlond 1996).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for golden sedge is not located within the project study area. There are no
pine savanna areas in the project study area and all wetland areas are dominated by shrubs
and trees and therefore do not favor an open herbaceous ground layer. A review of the
North Carolina NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats revealed no known
occurrences of golden sedge within 1.Omi (1.6km) of the project study area. Therefore it
can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this species.
Lysimachia asperulae plia (rough-leaved loosestrife) Endangered
Plant Family: Pnmulaceae
Federally Listed: 12 June 1987
Flowers Present: June
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb having slender stems and whorled leaves.
This herb has showy yellow flowers which usually occur in threes or fours. Fruits are
present from July'through October.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of North and South
Carolina. This species occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and
pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on a wet, peat, poorly
48
drained soil), on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils
overlaying sand. It has also been found to occur on deep peat in the low shrub community
of large Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly drained depressions of unknown origins).
The areas it occurs in are fire maintained. Rough-leaved loosestrife rarely occurs in
association with hardwood stands and prefers acidic soils.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife is not located within the project study area. A
review of the North Carolina NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats revealed
no known occurrences of rough-leaved loosestrife within l .0mi (1.6km) of the project
study area. Therefore it can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact
this species.
Thalictrum coolgi lCooley's meadowrue) Endangered
Plant Family: anunculaceae
Federally Listed: 7 February 1989
Flowers Present: late June-July (best mid July)
Cooley's meadowrue is a tall herb growing to 1 m or more when in flower. Its slender
stems are erect in sunny locations and lax or sprawling when shaded. The leaves are
ternately divided and the leaflets are about 2 cm long, narrow with entire margins or
rarely with two or three lobes near the tip. The entire plant is glabrous with no hairs or
glands. Male and female flowers occur on separate plants in loose few-flower clusters at
the top of the plant. The flowers lack petals and the sepals fall off early. The male
flowers have numerous pale lavender stamens. The female flowers have several separate
spindle-shaped carpels which develop into narrowly ellipsoid, ribbed, one-seeded fruits 6
mm long, each tipped with a persistent linear style.
Cooley's meadowrue occurs in wet pine savannas, grass-sedge bogs and savanna like
areas, often at the border of intermittent drainages or swamp forests. This species is
usually found in areas that contain some type of disturbance such as clearings, burned
savanna edges, maintained roadsides and power line rights-of-ways. It is found on fine
sandy loam, circumneutral soils that are seasonally (winter) moist or saturated and only
slightly acidic (pH 5.8-6.6).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for Cooley's meadowrue is not located within the project study area. There
are no wet boggy areas in the disturbed and open habitat found in the project study area. A
review of the North Carolina NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats revealed
no known occurrences of Cooley's meadowme within 1.Omi (1.6km) of the project study
area. Therefore it can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this
species.
2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species which may
or may not be listed in the future. There are 22 FSC listed for Onslow County as of 16
June 2000. FSC are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species
49
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Organisms which are listed
as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern by the NHP list of Rare Plant and
Animal Species 1993 are afforded state protection or are monitored under the State
Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
However, the level of protection given to the state listed species does not apply to
NCDOT activities. Table 15 provides the FSC listed in Onslow County and indicates
the species state status, and whether or not there is adequate habitat for each species
in the project area.
Table 15. Federal Candidate/NC Protected Species in Onslow County.
Scientific Name Common Name ..State Status . :Habitat -N: -,
Ainiophila aestivlis Bachman's Sparrow SC No
Ammodrantus henslowh Henslow's sparrow SR No
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake SR No
Laterallus jamaicensis Black rail SR No
Ophisaurus mimicus Mimic glass lizard SC No
Passerina ciris ciris Eastern painted bunting SR No
Rana capito capito Carolina gopher frog Sc No
Procambarus plumumanus Croatan crayfish W3 Yes
Asplenium heteroresiliens Carolina spleenwort E No
Carex chapmanii Chapman's sedge W 1 Yes
Dionea muscipula Venus flytrap C/SC No
Litsea aestivalis Pondspice C No
Lobelia boykinii Boykin's lobelia C No
Mvriophyllum laxum Loose watermilfoil T No
Oxypolis ternata Savanna Cowbane W 1 No
Panicum hirstii Hirsts panic grass E No
Parnassia caroliniana Carolina grass-of-parnassus E No
Rhexia aristosa Awned meadowbeauty T No
Rhynchospora thornei Thorne's beaksedge C/PE No
Solidago pulchra Carolina goldenrod E No
Solidago verna Spring-flowering goldenrod E/PT No
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel C No
'Endangered (E) species are a taxon whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's flora/fauna is
determined to be in jeopardy.
Threatened (T) species are a taxon which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Special Concern (SC) species are a taxon in North Carolina which requires monitoring.
Significantly Rare (SR) species are a taxon not listed by the NC WRC but which exists in small numbers and has
been determined by the NHP to need monitoring.
Candidate (C) species are a taxon that is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state.
Watch List (W) species are any other species believed to be rare and of conservation concern in the state but not
warranting active monitoring at this time (Wl: rare but relatively secure, W3: rare but uncertain documentation).
50
Proposed Threatened/Endangered (PT/PE) species are a taxon which has been formally proposed for listing as
Threatened/Endangered, but has not yet completed the legally mandated listing process.
A review of the NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats on 12 April
2000 revealed findings of peltandra saggittifolia, Hooker's milkwort (polygala
hookeri), short-bristled beaksedge (Rhynchospora breviseta), and graceful goldenrod
(Solidago gracillima) within 1.0mi (1.6km) of the project area. Surveys for these
species and the FSC were not conducted during the site visit, nor were the species
observed during the site visit.
c. Essential Fish Habitat
The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSFCMA) set forth a new mandate to identify and protect important
marine and anadramous fisheries habitat. Federal action agencies which fund, permit, or
carry out activities that may adversely impact essential fish habitat (EFH) are required to
consult with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding potential adverse
effects of their actions on EFH. The MSFCMA requires that EFH be identified for all
fisheries which are Federally managed. EFH is defined in the MSFCMA as "those
waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth or
maturity."
Onslow County is listed as a county that contains waterbodies in which EFH species
are found. None of the waterbodies listed are immediately within the project study area
or vicinity, however Little Northeast Creek flows into Northeast Creek which converges
with the New River, a listed waterbody. The New River is approximately 8.9 km (5.5
mi) downstream from the project site. Ron Sechler, of NMF, commented that an
Essential Fish Habitat study "would not be necessary because the (project study) area was
far enough away from the waters of primary concern." He also agreed that due to the
presence of freshwater mussels in Little Northeast Creek, it is not likely that EFH species
would be found in the project study area. EFH species are usually found in waters of
higher salinity content than freshwater mussels can live in.
H. Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted in the vicinity of the project. In addition to a
field survey, a file search of appropriate environmental agencies was conducted to identify any
known problem sites along the proposed project alignment. Based on the field reconnaissance
and records search, no anticipated UST sites were found within the project area. No regulated or
unregulated landfills or dumpsites occur within the project limits. No potential RCRA or
CERCLA sites were identified within the project limits. However, unregulated UST's and
unregulated landfills may be encountered by right of way during their initial contacts with the
impacted properties. The NCDOT Geotechnical Unit should be notified of their presence prior
to acquisition so that the actual condition of the site can be examined. If a site with unregulated
UST's, dumpsites, or landfill is identified by Right of Way, a further investigation should be
performed prior to right of way. This assessment will also be used by the Department to estimate
the associated clean up cost and make right-of-way recommendations.
51
I. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Air Quality Analysis
This project is located in Onslow County, which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 and 93 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
traffic volumes; therefore, the project's impact on noise and air quality will not be significant.
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
NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise if Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772, and for air quality of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
J. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns
The drainage area of Little Northeast Creek at the proposed crossing is 9.3 square miles (24.1
square kilometers). Onslow County is currently participating in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. This crossing of Little Northeast Creek is located in a designated flood hazard
zone. No detailed flood studies have been done at the subject crossing. The crossing of Little
Northeast Creek is located below headwaters. It is not anticipated that the proposed project
should have any adverse impacts on the existing floodplain. Figure 7 is a copy of the Flood
Insurance Rate Map for Onslow County on which the 100-year flood fringes are shown. There
are no buildings located on the upstream or downstream floodplain, which is primarily wooded.
K. Section 4(f) Resources
No Section 4(f) properties will be involved with this project.
VI. COMMENTS. COORDINATION. AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On November 30, 1999, a citizen's informational workshop was held in Onlsow County
at Morton Elementary School (see Appendix B for a copy of the Notice of a Citizens
Informational Workshop and the Workshop Handout). This workshop was held in order to
obtain comments and suggestions about the project from the public. Additionally, the proposed
improvements were presented to the resource agencies on November 8, 2001 in order to address
agency concerns and to determine if any changes were recommended. Agencies in attendance
included the US Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Resources
Commission, Federal Highway Administration, Division of Coastal Management, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
Minutes of the meeting are included in Appendix A.
52
FIGURES

A
i Begin Project
Protect
ee
TIP Proico B•?68' / ,` C Gt
1411 7 1423
a
a Old 30 Ftd' 1423 location 2
,n+ 1423
' o
mu? ? / ,' •?_- ----- ?•
Badge No 3
data location 1 1413
% c i4
\ee a r
. rrr ara aat T ? .
Jou ME
f • " • ?r

..0 .
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
: DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
ImW w row is to SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road)
From SR 1427 (Grants Crook loop)
to SR 1413 (Rocky Run Road)
Onabw Catmty, State Projod 0.7326024
Fodor al Aid Projod No. STP-1423(2)
TM Projod No. W-3413
FIGURE

4
F-
SR -1411
Begin Project
0
o ?
?f
t 10o 3,200
OO 7
2,800 9.5% PM -55%
` RM
SR -1423
2000 / 2025 Traffic Volumes
W-3413
Onslow County
SR-1423 from SR 1411 to SR 1413
2000 Estimated Average Doily Traffic
o° SR - 1421 End Project
0
Q?
`o,Ly, cps _3?
?oo X3,000 _ 800
q
SR-1423
PM 2.200
9.5% - 555:
(2.1)
p0
?
b
?
SR -1413
LEGEND

D-H - Dom. h.ar ?'w.. M

7tA - ?It..,b.Tfll-M
rr
i
r - M I.Y
D.. ? D
Y MDf M sum
3

W-3413
Onslow County
SR-1423 from SR 1411 to SR 1413
2025 Estimated Average Daily Traffic
SR -1421
5
Q?
5,400
SR -1411
v
t00
Begin Project
0
, 0 6,200
End Project
SR-1423
0
,goo
17 Q?
Sew/
Q?O' { ,,700 ? -55%
1 t (2,')
SR -1423
PM
(2,11
3,700
h?
SR -1413
LEGEND
ma- w
DKO - D.V. n..N va.. M
D - DY?r.11ti M
?- - OwYw r 0
w T.+.m-M
Tr - IM Ir
ow+ N 0
wDT TD fau
I Figure 3
W?
a
C7
w
Z
O

H
V
W

W
A
E

O ?n
°
x 3 ?,

W ?
o w
°
3 a o
o
E?
A
W
O
a.
O
a
b?
> o
a.
f
PROJECIT
AREA
,
1 e r = r s.
r
e
IS N A
.. .T.? .ss.i•-?.".?' '; .,.' "mow.., }.? ,
°
"a 2 0 2 Kilometers
i
U5G5 7.5 Minute Tn raphic pea , KELLUh1, NC
Prepared For:
("{3MMt NITV INIVACTS PRO-1EC"I'tiTI.DI' AREA
_ ?1[Y.vl ?f .?.,vpr, ?,t}?-onria inc ? .
ii OLD 30 ROAD (5R 1423) WIDENING FIGl Ott':
}? .n
TIP. No. W-3413
. } b1 59t15 ONSLOIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ?? --
4

LEGEND
r „i ,'A""- !!;
0 Miit3y .?....?...
?.
PrepdreciFcc ?5ourct°CENSUS T[!'9C
M of North Carolina, lns,
a.'sol ianwca>asAr?><o,s„??„10, 2CCC OLD 30 ROAD (SR 9423) V IDEN1i`dG F.EG UR 1';
t2.#0 gh, NG I'007 q h i VV-3413 Tat. !762-M19t1 pax: B113"t"Q icy '? ,+{1 . { . No, ?, ONSLOWe COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA }
ZONE C rl
., ,RM11
`>\ \\ 1
?.
II --_-,1 If 11
ZONE C ', II p II
?? ?,% II n U n Iii !
? ?n U p p
.'' / ? ? ? II n 11 t1 11 11
II II 1 In
'' i? II II It A 111 II II
It 11 If Cl
It II II \???
i, 11 II II 11 11 11
4' 11 It !1 n l1 It 11 ?\`
11 ?` II J` 1\ it
it ,?i II ?? 11 11 11 II f`-_:
'i If
> ?• \ II 11 11 11
?'' / / \ 2 11 II II
II
\\ • ?? , ?i II /i \\ It it
11 it
t 1
. ?? ? 11 ,? 11 11 \ 11 rye''
(\\ ~ ' \ ,: ' 11 II \ 111 \\\\ 11 ?.
\\ 11 !I U \ \ 11
\` \ 11 II \ 11 >\ 11 '?
\\\ ' 111 \\\ 111 \\\ JII ?? e.' ?C:
I \
\\ ?? , \
it
111 ? ? \\ ``\\
11 \\ \` \
Ii { \I1 _ '1 I??_ \?\
II s ?? r
II '? u? a \A2 ?'?
11 rl
I I
I 11 ?_ ? =1 I II I
Ih
W+I II
I I
t\
ri.
O \\
r

C
J

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PnJt
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE M
ONSLOW COUNTY
NORTH CAROLIN,
(UNINCORPORATED AREA
PANEL 225 OF 556
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMI
370340 022'
EFFECTIVE DA
JULY 2, V
Pcklmll hllcrl;cilct DImugellicill Ac
Q
Q
J
Q
0
I
/i
APPENDIX A
.1r.,T OF CO."
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
V
s?o +.' NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Habitat Conservation Division
Beaufort Facility
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
November 16, 2001
Mr. Bill Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 iVlail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Attention: Jackie Obedience
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
This responds to your October 23, 2001, request for National Marine Fisheries Service (NMMFS)
comments on Project number. B-3683/W-3413, Improvement of SR 1423 from SR 1411 to SR 14131
including replacement of Bridge No.3 on new location, in Onslow County, North Carolina. The
purpose of the project is to increase safety levels and to replace Bridge No. 3 over Little Northeast
Creek. The new bridge would be located approximately 80 feet south of the existing bridge location
and the old bi idge would be removed once work on the new bridge is completed.
Our initial review of the project indicates that reasonable efforts have been made to avoid and
minimize impacts to wetlands and aquatic resources. We note that unavoidable wetland losses and
adverse impacts are anticipated in connection with relocation of 322 linear feet of stream and
planned filling of 0.12 acre of wetlands. These impacts need to be offset and we recommend that
this occur in advance of, the Department of the Army (DA) permit application process. Ideally, the
DA public notice for the project should describe the mitigation to be provided, and we should be able
to concur without providing further comments and recommendations. You may wish to consult
further with us in connection wiV, these mitigation needs.
Little Northeast Creek, is a tributary of the New River and it provides habitat for anadromous fishery
resources for which the NMFS has stewardship and management responsibilities. Plans. as stated
in your letter, to adhere to the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT)
Anadromous Fish Guidelines are commendable and should be strictly adhered to. This would
seasonally restrict or limit work in waters and wetlands during periods ofanadromous fish spawning.
Planned incorporation of the NCDOT's Guidelines and Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition is also desirable and alleviates the need for detailed comments and recommendations
concerning this aspect of the project.
® Printed on Recycled Paper
A-1
l
?4 a
ti'?rrna?
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have questions or additional needs,
please contact me at the letterhead address, or at [phone].
Sincerely,
O1
Ronald S. Sechler
Fishery Biologist

To ex 1-i
s? n,Y.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
April 19, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch ?
_
Division of Highways
Department of Trans tation
ff
FROM: David Brook ' ? '? .
Deputy State His ric re rvation ficc
SURTECT: SR 1423 from SR 1411 to SR 1413, Onsiow r..?.
County, Federal Aid Project STP-1423(2) and
BRSTP-1423(3), State Project 8.73260'24 and ME?A `
8.22G 12017 TIP W-3413 and B-3682, ER 99-
8343
Thank you for your memorandum of February 18, 1999, concerning the above project.
We have checked our maps and files and have located the following historic structures
within the project area:
ON 267, House
ON 386, Erasmus Morton House
Both are located on the north side of the road and shown on the attached map. A North
Carolina Department of Transportation architectural historian should evaluate these
properties.
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 protect
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.

I

r in
ft5TP- 1423 ) i b 3fo6Z
Federal Aid #STP-1423(2) TTP #W-3413 County: Onslow
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Improvements to SR 1423 from SR 1411 to SR 1413, includin¢ replacement of
Bridge No. 3
On October 21, 1999, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
0 a scoping meeting -
photograph review session/consultation
other `
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as Properties 1-7 are considered not eligible for the National Register and no further
evaluation of them is necessary.
9 there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
?b•zl . q
Date
FHW
State Historic Preservation
Aamtntstrator, or otner reaerat Agency

s tlllo
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
Date
I ?t-G'S

A-3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
December 14, 2001
TO: Meeting Attendees
FROM: Jackie Obediente
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: B-3682/W-3413 Agency Meeting Minutes
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
An agency meeting was held on November 8, 2001 at 1:00 p.m., in the Photogrammetry
Conference Room in the Century Center. The following were in attendance:
Jackie Obediente
Eric Midkiff
Jill Holmes
Ron Lucas
Bill Arrington
Cathy Brittingham
David Cox
Beth Barnes
Cynthia Perry
Tim Goins
Tom McCartney
Chris Militshcer
Mason Herndon
Joe Blair

Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch (PD&EA)
PD&EA
PD&EA
Federal Highway Administration
Division of Coastal Management
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Water Quality
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
USEPA - Raleigh
Division 3 - DEO
Division 3 - DICE
This project is not going through the merger process, however, the purpose of this
agency meeting was to present and review the preliminary designs to determine whether
any changes need to be made, or whether any permitting problems are anticipated.
Below is a summary of the topics that were discussed:
• The current project schedules are as follows -
B-3682: Categorical Exclusion - December 2001
RW - August 2002
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone]
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone]
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW..DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
A-4
LET - January 2004
W-3413: Categorical Exclusion -January 2002
RW - January 2003
LET - January 2004
• CAMA - This project will require a CAMA Major Permit. This permit must be
applied for 34 months before LET date. Utility relocations will be addressed and
included in the CAMA permit. Conditions of the permit will be coordinated during
the permitting process.
• Anadramous Fish Moratorium and T&E Species- Because this project lies within
an anadramous fish spawning area, Anadramous Fish Guidelines will be followed.
There is a possibility that this moratorium period may be the longest period; which
lasts from February 15 to September 30. We will look into coordinating the LET date
around this moratorium period. T&E Species survey report will be included in the
Categorical Exclusion (CE).
• Bridge Demolition and Construction - For purposes of the environmental
document, PD&EA is required to calculate a worst-case scenario concerning amounts
of bridge demolition debris that have the potential to fall into the water. It is assumed
that the worst-case scenario would involve the entire concrete deck falling into the
water during removal. In accordance with any CAMA permit, NCDOT is aware that
no debris will be allowed to fall into the water during the removal of the bridge.
Bridge removal methods will be discussed in the CE.
• Avoidance and Minimization of Wetlands - descriptions concerning avoidance and
minimization measures taken will be included in the Categorical Exclusion. These
minimization measures include the implementation of 2:1 slopes at the bridge
approaches, and avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands at curves and
along the roadway. Descriptions will include justification of why the curves and the
roadway could not be designed differently to avoid wetland impacts, and how 2:1
slopes at the bridge approaches were implemented into the design.
If you have any questions cor"cerning the meeting, or the meeting minutes, please call me
at 919-733-7844 extension 228, or email me at jyobediente(&
,dot. state. nc.us.
cc: David Timpy, USACE
Allen Pope, Division 3 Engineer
John Hennesy, DWQ
Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries, HCD
Jimmy Gooodnight, Roadway Design
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Dale of Land Evaluation Request
November 6, 2001
Name of Project Federal Agency Involved
NCDOT TIP Project No. W-3413 FHWA
Proposed Land Use County and Stale
Transportation facility Onslow, North Carolina
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received by NRCS M O U . t'I 1 2-60
Does the site contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(ff no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). 62" O Acres Imgated
'r- Average Farm Size
1 D
Major Crop(s)
D Y w Formable Land in Govt. Jurisdiction
Acros: 3 Z 2 x 5, 7 Amount of Farmland As Defined in FP A
Acres: 0 2 x 5 •. -14 5
Name of Land Evaluation System Used
E
on$1,ok-J Name of Local Site Assessment System
o Dale Land E V" Returned by NRCS
/2 D
.-
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Sib Rating
Site A sites Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres in Site [ -
XT-PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime and Unique Farmland :31545
B. Total Acres Statewide and Local Important Farmland 0.96
C. Percentage of Farmland in County or Local Govt Unit to be Converted 40-01
D. Percentage of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction with Same or Higher Relative Value -113 , O
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evokation Criterion
Relative Value of Farmland to be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100!'0iMs)
.Z
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maximum
Pointe
1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 / S
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 10 O
3. Percent of Site Being Farmed 20 S
4. Protection Provided by State and Local Govemment 20 20
S. Distance from Urban Built-up Area 51
6. Distance to Urban Support Services 15
7. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared to Average 10
8. Creation of Non-Farmable Farmland 10
9. Availability of Farm Support Services 5
10. On-Farm Investments 20
11. Effects of Conversion on Farm Support Services 0
r 12. Compatibility with Existing Agricultural Use 10
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value of Farmland (From Part V) 100 10 • ?, S
Total Site Assessment (From Part V( above or a local
site assessment
160
1 O
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 Ems) 280 ( S U - 1-<
Site Selected: Date of Selection Was A Local Silo Assessment Used?
Yes 0 No O
Reason For Selection:
i
(See Instructions on reverse side) - Form AD-1W5 (10-83;
A-5
`,.
APPENDIX B
J!
RELOCATION REPORT
r7l F.I.S. I 1 CORRIDOR M DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PROJECT: 6.7326024 COUNTY Onslow Alternate of Alternate
I.D. NO.: W-3413
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: F.A. PROJECT BRSTP-1423 3
Improvements to SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road) from SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop) to SR 1413 (Rocky Run Road)

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 1 0 1 0 1
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M $ 0-150 0-20M so-ISO
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 150-250
Yes No Ex lain all "YES' answers. 40-70M 1 250-400 40-70M 250-400
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400-600 70-100M 400-600
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 600 up 100 uP 600 up
y_ . Displacement? TOTAL 1 ±r
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Res pond by Number)
Project? NOTE: All residential displacees considered families.
ect
hi
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, .
s proj
3. There is an ample supply of businesses not affected by t
Indicate size, type, estimated number of
Employees, minorities, etc. 6.8 14. MILS Services, local realtors, newspapers, etc.
8. As mandated bylaw.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 11. Onslow County
x 6. Source for available housing (list). 12. Or built If necessary.
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
Families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there Will be adequate DSS housing
Housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
Financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
Source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 18 ..5.

Afti:z lth 2-7-02,
te
D
Right of Way Agent D to :.-: a
A roved b
n.:..;--I k , I-., .,.r sM1c Rolnr?Hnn Anent
Form 15.4 Revised 10100 - - r'
2 Copy Division Right of Way
Office
fir'
APPENDIX C
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Fax:[phone] Nov 5 101 14:30 P.02/02
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
_ FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
ON SR 1423 (OLD THIRTY ROAD)
FROM SR 1411 TO SR 1413
' Projects 8.7326024/8.2261201 W-3413/8-3682 Onslow County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold a Citizens
Informational Workshop on November 30, 1999, between the hours of
4:00 PM and 7:00 PM in the Cafeteria of Morton Elementary School, 485 Old 30
Road, Jacksonville.
Project W-3413 will improve SR 1423 from north of SR 1411 to SR 1413, and
Project B-3682 will replace Bridge #3 over Little Northeast Creek. Comments
from the public will be used in the preparation of the environmental document
being developed for this project.
NCDOT representatives will be available at the workshop to answer questions
and receive comments relative to the proposed projects. Information at the
workshop will be general in nature. No detailed designs are available. Interested
individuals may attend at their convenience during the above-stated hours.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact-Mr. Edwin A. Peters, Project
Development Engineer, at P. d. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611, or cell
919-733-7844, ext. 228.
In order to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, NCDOT will provide
auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to attend the
workshop. To receive special services, please contact Mr. Peters at the above
address or fax [phone] prior to the date of the workshop.
C-

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch

Z
0
T/
SR 1423 (OLD THIRTY ROAD),
FROM SR 1411 (WATERS ROAD)
TO SR 1413 (ROCKY RUN ROAD),
ONSLOW COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. W-3413 AND B-3682
NOVEMBER 30, 1999
Citizens Informational Workshop

NO RTH ?\

CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
SR 1423 (OLD THIRTY ROAD), FROM SR 1411 (WATERS ROAD)
TO SR 1413 (ROCKY RUN ROAD), ONSLOW COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. W-3413 AND B-3682
Purpose of the Citizens Informational Workshop
w
The purpose of the Citizens Informational Workshop is to involve the public in the
project planning process. If you have comments or suggestions about the proposed
improvements described in this handout, please let a representative of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation know. A comment sheet is provided for you to write down
your questions or concerns so that we can keep a record of and fully consider your ideas,
comments, and suggestions.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation realizes individuals living close
to a proposed project want to be informed of the possible effects of the project on their
homes and businesses. However, exact information is not available at this stage of the
planning process. Additional design work is necessary before the actual right of way limits
can be established. More detailed information will be available at a later date.
A comment sheet is included in this handout. Written comments on this project may be
left with North Carolina Department of Transportation representatives at the Citizens
Informational Workshop or submitted through the mail. If additional information is
needed or you would like to submit comments after the Citizens Informational Workshop,
please address your requests and comments to:
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Program Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Description of the Proiect
The North Carolina Department of Transportation's 2000-2006 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) proposes to improve the horizontal curvature of SR 1423(Old
Thirty Road) and replace Bridge No. 3 over Little Northeast Creek.
Proiect Schedules
The proposed project is scheduled for right of way acquisition in fiscal year (FY)
2001 and for construction in FY 2002. The current cost estimate is $2,240,000, which
includes $2,150,000 for construction and $90,000 (TIP) for right of way acquisition.
Current Status
Currently, planning and environmental studies are in progress. A Categorical
Exclusion is scheduled to be completed in September 2000. A public hearing will be
scheduled following the completion of the Categorical Exclusion. At this public hearing,
the public will have an opportunity to review a map showing the proposed design. Factors
that may affect the design of this project include engineering criteria and environmental
factors such as relocation of homes or businesses, wetlands, historic sites, etc. A form is
C-3
available from Nr'DOT representatives if you feel you have or know of a structure whicl
has historical significance. The improvements currently under investigation are describe
in the next paragraphs.
Proposed Improvements
The proposed project includes providing additional pavement and improving the
horizontal curvature of the roadway at select locations along SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road)
from SR 1411 (Waters Road) to SR 1413 (Rocky Run Road) where the design speed of
the curves is inconsistent with the design speed of the overall facility. Additionally,
Bridge No. 3 over Little Northeast Creek will be replaced on new location in conjunction
with these horizontal alignment improvements.
Anticipated Right of Way Impacts
The existing right of way on SR 1423 is approximately 60 feet. It is anticipated
that minimal additional right of way will be needed to accommodate the proposed
improvements.
NCDOT will use the result of the environmental and engineering studies within t
study corridor to develop an alignment which is safe and cost effective and which
minimizes impacts to existing development and historic and natural resources.
No final decisions have been made regarding this project. Therefore, the above
information and schedule are preliminary and subject to change. As planning for the
project continues, we will include all comments and suggestions to the extent possible.
y
COMMENT SHEET
SR 1423 (OLD THIRTY ROAD), FROM SR 1411 (WATERS ROAD)
TO SR 1413 (ROCKY RUN ROAD), ONSLOW COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. W-3413 AND B-3682
(You do not have to answer all the questions on these sheets, but please take the time to
give us your comments and concerns regarding this project. Please continue any responses
` on the back of this sheet.)
NAME:
(Please print)
ADDRESS:
(Please print)
COMMENTS, CONCERNS AND/OR QUESTIONS REGARDING PROJECT W-3413
and B-3682:
(If you need additional space, please continue on the back.)
WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONS.
WAS THE PROJECT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED TO YOU? WERE NCDO
REPRESENTATIVES UNDERSTANDABLE AND CLEAR IN THEIR
EXPLANATIONS? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
WERE DISPLAY MAPS EASY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND?
PLEASE EXPLAIN.
WERE NCDOT REPRESENTATIVES COURTEOUS AND HELPFUL? _
PLEASE EXPLAIN.
HOW MIGHT WE BETTER PRESENT PROPOSED PROJECTS AND ADDRESS
CITIZEN'S CONCERNS IN FUTURE INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS?
HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS MEETING TODAY?
DO YOU FEEL THE MEETING WAS ADEQUATELY PUBLICIZED? _
PLEASE EXPLAIN.
Additional comments can be sent to Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager of the Proje
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.
I 1

]
N
?N
a " 4 rnp?OZ
° 3

v
o' p
Am- MATCHLI NE -L- 31 +00.00 SEE SHEET 5
a
? 2 aax'O Z
Z

a
N Z 0 S?
2 gZ
R 77
I:

Z ? 0 m <'' >?>
5-a Zo
N E W O m p A p d
un
00 o u p Z p

m a i
f e
? I N
.
"
m r rn
l

<

I

I vm
Z

n'D -um

r
Z
n
?
Tit
I? ' I
K . V)
D V) I
D ° -?d
a +? a
In d.I
+
I

O Ul

_.. -
- II 1 ? ti ?A
w ' I /l t
I I so \
do
Q ? ;gyp ?• IS
/ J / // IQ Q p I lu
e? I lz
?.. ? Q II o ?
PCSto. 36+18.80
r?l II ? I
G7 Q
4
/ ? F?? p ?? Q Q? I i Im
O?p EQ IQ
49 ? m
? o
a Q 0? ? a? mll I? I I
PTSto. n
T 90tgB.51 I I I '^
I
d ml ;
E:,?' I I ? m
Q ? ?? w I
4 ` m
cysr`? Q Q\ ?Q rn l I I
m
0
Soo
/
D y
W W
? rs
0 0
0 0
0
O p
r r-
I
CJ
m
00
O m
Z Z
T
9 m
O
n`m
-i m
v o
A V
N W
W N
O.
N N
\ II
44 -r 00.00 SEE SHEET 7
A
MATCI-ILINE -?
P
N
D D
W W
Ul LA
O O
0 0
v v
T
D D
M
m
n
_v m -4 m
Z W lyt
n N
03
+ N
co ?`
o W N
O
N
Om?`Ir O??
II 11 II II II II II ?
:V 03 -I 1jC ? I
tnbW a?q?"gN
?(vmzR?o,
p?0(b
- R ?Ln
35,
o
?9
I`
Q
2
F ti
U y
II II II II II II II ?
?O?NAW O I
0L?
U?
?l0
NAD 83
? $z
S.r?. 30
Sy ??
iz
trj
Ay A?
P
z
r
z =?

Y
M,.-.
0
P
MATCHLINE -L- STA. 44+00.00 SEE SHEET 6

i
o ?\ ° n Q
1 n° n 1
m ? Q \
0 1 1
o z S\f\1 `1
Q 1 1
I
00
Q
A Q Q ?p
9 m ? ?Q
n
ISFD
I T I
-x-x-j
\ \ to
1m
\\ 1
m
i
- r
m
m
z
m
m Z
m
.CB 99?.
J .]G o
rQ
t\N
c
z ca i
I \.
X/

QQQ
Q
QQ
37
O
v
pC
fit
N

O
N
N E
o f] ° o
v °o 0 3
0 O N H
2?0
o T... E
W NV
O a- 10
W 0 A O
wDQr?, yna
P
O •o ? 7p d?
N ?
o
,oh 70
`-?
9 Z ? C 1<O?
Z? a°: r--
.0 0
?E o
A
N
W W
Z Apia
5 0 9
Z ZN
mq?0A
?02_DCZ
A^ ?0D
ZO
Z?y m
v
N N D
N ,? y
m0 m
z
n
2

\\ ?Q Q I Q

Q Q ? \\ Q 1 / !

? hJ
N 5 S S•Q / I'
0
•CC CP. OII
a Ln
M
OIN/ ? .
II
Q III
YI
I I
dd
o n
[L D
0
N ?
?m
n
0
wn
um
?y
s"VI I
N
II ?
V
r ?
?N-4 83
m
/rn
I '
m
I •
QQ Q Q
/
/ . z U 'Lti

'z a: ?? lrn ?
?zozl
'
\`
?? ` 1 1
I I
? I \ \1 -
' n
? A

Nm v
I ' ' v v
n n
uo
1 m
N~ 4
1 I /
I
IIN V
11
? •
r
?
?/ ? III
tni:iz
VII

! 6' 9 ?
MATCH
STA- 58+00-00

0
z gz
sr 10
7, a r
8 ? e Ci7
>
zz $?
rp

P
3
a 0 a z
a _a o °0 3`n 5IMP
° Tf$
" 1TQ' pwA O("0ZZ /?1 44A
CI
O O O W N W O ,-I- \ \ NF
m33pv6 i?n'I °° ? STA
_•• 4
00,00
Qa °zv
z MA
o P ?-s m0 I I / / ( \
.1
C W W .C?!•p /
m N / L7
N /
I /
•y T HO
? / z n zos
a T / /
o a n
m I
v v ? /
N
l I / I
II
T
I I
m
I ? ?I
? I I
I I I
U0
o
um
_ I
11'90? n
3.ZZ A.&I 5 Id13 of M/yl.(e'0 I m ? ?
m N
O ?
m I I r.
m tl 11 1 1 I it
.a p
?A a
e
u ?x o
x x_ --
1105 6 1
IM/H of d111.(0'0 \
3.6 0 0 . 1( zZ -9 .B 1 5 \
IM \\
I o ??
I?
_ .11.109 \
l .1[ .z1.e1 5
os
0.09' IR/¦ /Ep1 \
W"n.c5ee
Si ,.96N
OA ?A
S
y
W
O_
P

Nqp 83
$m $n
zt ?o
r
a? :m
ro ar
Cn
l

s 16
A
°' 0 S
0
9bx00 \ ? ?
S?P•
A
v
z ?
F?
v - - - - _ - 12 GRevEt ??•• \
------ ---- 1 ?o-
?v
S
N
n
c;nw m
v
n n ?
v p
u =
NAD 83
I 1 . .35
d ? I
o ? p Q I ? I 1
I r„ c 11 ?
a
tY'O'A
P
O
Rlw,
5°'6CI
3.a m.o s O ._?N1.3?• Jq C
(59.87• _ 9jE e: o ?
L
m I25.33. z ti
m IEIP ?0 i m m
_ +1 O
u o A x ?" ?
u O CNCI `.
- ? n r I a?
s 7,57 13 F `
- _ a d •'QrrEIP N
_ __ w E r0 R/W7 `Idi z J6.
^' ? N
d d d 0.55' (EIP ?`?`?}?r??I Q u I I • x k 5 /YI 0 E _
? ` II m i
N ?^ Zm V"• ? a
vLr1 ?-> I I I ??
o m ? ,3 ti m
I L ?p
m?
6 4 3? ? _ - - -N-S•- -
Ew (0 ?75r F •FO
I
°'(r'JS• `} [Y I ArM O
F
`) / zsl. z. T I z
/ X 6 -f.' g m o m I
k t.I ? E/PI , I ?+ OK ?
k? k L? 1 • /Toil c ? I ? VM
Q ?2A
a /
Nuu/ -x
\ \??`? ? uTo ? I T
E d I Iv
OED
o

3
N ? oo S
E _

to -Ai 7y°
- ?
QnOyS
Z o n'? N
AA
u 0- aowvw Z-1
Z
?O
z?°oo
w P Q R ?a ?yr=?C

$
°
c t^
N
Z
-
-?
o Z
o ]ta o

y V m 0 m
32
Z
T
A w N
N ... •
STq /?
IBS
?p
1 ?
00
b
? az
o8rr to
? 'ro
ro ?
3r
'L ?' O?

?' to o
M •o c° 0 3
O? S A N m A C) 0 Z
N
Z 0 N"? J N
•° a ] is Nw
?3 A m(?
O-I O
??Zv,?
^3
+
O
ma oA
d
as ,
4r?
0
?
'Ta
? ?
o Z
o?
Ax-•
Aa.o?n? y
Z? o
D^>zv

O
•O z
o
a
Ny N 50
1
0 c
g. Z -?
m y
F 9 PC.
T
G1 ? P
? N n
S
m
N N
s6' 2? W
? 328 Bl.
?m
V _ 68'
I /
IC
1

y iRiw.
b
?wK
mom
Q
m
C9 C A /
e n
m p
v
n
\8546:38
MI ti?.6S5
Q
OI r ?'l ?7 ?3i==
r 9I?m
I?
JI m
I
I
I I
m
I ; m 2
v
a ?
u ?
m
1
N
S
°
N
P
1
1 pp pp see SHEEZ 11
_ ssip, ? k
Mp,1GHl1NE

? 87
$tm" ?O
? b
z ?r
^A IrrYyy' A
?r Y
pp SEE SHEET 9
Sip„ 1p9 ?. pp. . ,?,
. , d 1

M
P
P
•T
Cyl/HF
6 ` .STq• I27'1.0
00
l ? ? sFF sy
FFT 70
8
m
Z
w
C
tn'
N
+- T
T /
- - wca.vct - ? _
I
I II 14 c
0.1 1
S I?I I
?n o
_ ° o I?I I
ti ; I I I
n
1'I I
? I
\ ii3p% T
$100015 M I
jI

C+ I Q
(> j ? II a
I I
?I Q ?mn
\,??I I n° n Y `7
II Q?
V; j I I I
r^?` ? I I
?- II
1\

o e? 1
a oo
c O 3 m A E O7 Z
?4? yT p N A ? ? N O
1 T`?.,.Aa Om8
z?z
J
.Oi.p ? S NyyZ?H
8
N 2
w m
R
r\
\j
1

o
n o
w ;
,I O
I \
I
I ?
I J1
J1 i
T /
I
T ? m o
I ?
I ?, o
m m
I ? m y
I I _ n ?
v
r c o
I
I T /
4bC \S
r
/ rd
N
l
I?
1
I
I
I
I
I? I
I
II ?

?.jqp ' 83
LM (n
D D
N N
v v

' °
,oo o
A A

Ir i-
m m
v v
?
T
D V1
D
?
A m
-o

m
n
n

O
?i `m

m
n
°r'p
?. ?. o
A
N V

N
I _ GJ of
n N
z
11 N
a A
sM so
az ?m
r y
L}?'d d STA![ u
N r V ?,
.? ate... ?,.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOvERNOR
October 27, 2004
Amended: November 29, 2004
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Attention: Mr. Dave Timpy, USACE
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Application for Nationwide 23 Permit
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
cRo?MUWIED
DEC 0 3 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 3 over Little Northeast Creek, in Onslow
County, Division 3, Fed. Project No. BRSTP-1423(3), State Project No.
8.226120 1, WBS Element 33224.1.1, TIP B-3682.
Proposed widening and realignment of SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road) from SR
1411 (Waters Road) to SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop), in Onslow County,
Division 3, Fed. Project No. STP-1423(2), State Project No. 8.7326024, WBS
Element 35052.1.1, TIP W-3413.
Please fmd the enclosed copies of the Restoration Plan, half size plans, and the amended permit
drawings.
The proposed bridge replacement project, TIP B-3682, calls,for the replacement of Bridge No. 3
on SR 1423. Bridge No. 3 crosses Little Northeast Creek, located in the New River and
Tributaries Subbasin 03-05-02. The current bridge is 70 feet long, with a 24 foot roadway width.
Built in 1964, it consists of four spans and has a reinforced concrete floor and timber joists on
timber caps and piles. The deck is 12 feet above the streambed of Little Northeast Creek.
According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance records, the bridge's sufficiency rating is 19.9 out of
a possible 100.0. Part of the roadway will be realigned, and a new bridge will be built on a new
location to replace the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the existing alignment
during the construction period. The existing bridge will be removed upon completion of the new
bridge.
Roadway improvement project W-3413 is located adjacent to the proposed bridge replacement
project and will be included with B-3682 for permitting purposes. This 2.0 mile project
proposes to improve the horizontal curvature of SR 1423 from SR 1427 to SR 1413 in Onslow
County. Bridge No. 3 will be removed and replaced at a new location in conjunction with this
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX [phone]
WEBSITE. WM'V.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
2725 CAPITAL BLVD
PLB SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27604

2
proposed alignment. Currently SR 1423 is a two-lane paved facility, with pavement width
varying from 18 feet to 21 feet. The existing roadway is characterized by tangent sections with
abrupt transitions to sharp curvature. The existing horizontal alignments are substandard for the
posted speed limit. The realigned roadway will be upgraded to AASHTO standards. The
realigned roadway will have a 24 foot travelway, with 4 foot paved shoulders and 4 foot grassed
shoulders along each side. Where guardrail is required, shoulders will be increased by a
minimum of 3 feet on each side. The new roadway will be at approximately the same elevation
as the existing structure. This proposed project (W-3413) crosses three intermittent unnamed
tributaries (UT) and one perennial UT of Horse Swamp.
An on-site field meeting was held on September 27, 2004. Attendees of this meeting include:
Mr. Bill Arrington (NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM)), Mr. Dave Timpy (Army
Corps of Engineers (USACOE)), Mr. Mason Herndon (Division 3 Environmental Officer) and
Ms. Cheryl Knepp (NCDOT Office of Natural Environment (ONE)). This meeting addressed
the following issues:
1) Summarize any discrepancies between the permit drawing impacts and impacts addressed in
the CE.
Discrepancies are minor between impacts accrued in the CE and in the permit drawings. The
CE offers a guideline on proposed work, where the permit drawings are the actual designed
impacts. When the CE is signed, the design plan is preliminary; and, therefore, impacts are
estimates. Wetlands A, B, and L were avoided with only temporary impacts being associated
with them as stated in the CE (Table 3, CE B-3682). The impacts shown in the permit
drawings for wetlands D, K, Q and P differed slightly from those shown in the CE (see also
Table 13, CE W-3413). Channel impacts weren't calculated in the CE; channel impacts
were associated with adjacent wetlands. The main difference between the CE and the permit
drawings is the impact to UT 2 and wetlands M and N; the CE shows impacts totaling
0.0135 acre. The proposed permit drawings avoid impacts to that area altogether by
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median width,
ROW widths, fill slopes and /or road shoulder width.
2) Describe the bridge construction methods to be used.
After review of the structure plans, Mr. Mason Herndon determined the bridge will be cored
slab concrete; therefore, top down construction will be used with pile driving installation
methods.
3) Each TIP has a separate Categorical Exclusion document associated with it. For efficiency
purposes, Mr. Timpy agreed to allow the projects to be permitted together.
4) The designation of Little Northeast Creek as a "public trust area" is questionable. The
stream is marginally navigable by canoe. It seems the area directly under the bridge may
have been dredged years ago to allow for greater clearance underneath. This dredging was
done to allow safe passage of materials under the bridge during flood events. There is a
navigational difference about 50 feet up and downstream of the bridge where the stream
returns to its natural meander. It is questionable if a canoe could navigate that area. Mr.
Arrington wanted to review the determination made in 2001. Upon conference with Mr.
Arrington's supervisor, Ms. Cathy Brittingham, he came to the conclusion on 10/6/04, that
the project does not fall within an AEC therefore not requiring a CAMA permit.
5) Create a restoration plan for the causeway and bridge removal.
The removal of Bridge No. 3 should include extracting (or cutting to streambed elevation)
the pilings, including those from previous bridge replacements. This will allow boat traffic
to better maneuver Little Northeast Creek. The causeway will be graded down to normal
elevation and replanted with indigenous wetland vegetation. The wetlands surrounding the
causeway will be reconnected after the extirpation of the roadway. This on-site mitigation
B-3682/W-3413

3
will allow other impacts within the project area to counterbalance, therefore eliminating the
off site mitigation request to the EEP. The complete Restoration Plan is attached.
6) All streams and tributaries that are to be impacted by roadway fill and pipe extensions were
reviewed. This included UT #: 0, 1, 5, & 6. After examination, Mr. Timpy decided all would
be considered intermittent, not requiring mitigation.
Also, at the time of the site visit, all linear impacts were calculated from easement to
easement. However, upon review, impacts will not extend that far. The following changes
have been made:
For "Fill in Surface Water", the impacts are shown from the end of the existing pipe out to
the end of the new pipe on the upstream end and out to the end of the rip rap pad on the
downstream end.
For "Existing Channel Impacted," the channel length was measured from the end of the
existing pipe to the end of the new pipe on the upstream end. For the downstream end,
measurements were taken from the end of the existing pipe to the downstream end of the rip
rap pad.
PROPOSED IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: Horse Swamp and Little Northeast Creek are located in the White Oak
River Basin (Hydrological Cataloging Unit 03030001) and are both classified by the Division of
Water Quality as C NSW. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II), nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the
project area.
The structure targeted for replacement spans the open water stream associated with Little
Northeast Creek. This section of Little Northeast Creek has been assigned Stream Index
Number 19-16-2 by the NC DWQ. Little Northeast Creek flows into Northeast Creek
approximately 3.8 miles downstream (south) of Bridge No. 3. Field investigations indicate that
floodplain wetlands (WL: A, B, D, L) occur along both sides of Little Northeast Creek north and
south of SR 1423. Little Northeast Creek is classified as a 303(d) Biologically Impaired Water
from its source to Northeast Creek. According to the North Carolina 2003 Impaired Waters List,
the cause of impairment is due to its low dissolved oxygen levels. Potential sources of this
impairment are urban runoff or storm sewers. Table 1 explains the Cowardin Classification and
NC DWQ rating for each impacted wetland. Additional streams or tributaries impacted by the
widening roadway improvements are associated with Horse Swamp, which has been assigned
Stream Index Number 19-16-2-1 by the NC DWQ. Horse Swamp flows into Little Northeast
Creek. There are 3 wetlands (WL: K, Q, P) that will be associated with the impacts of the
roadway widening project (see Table 2).
Table 1. Classification of Wetlands within the Proiect Area
PERMIT DRAWING
STATION CE SITE ID COWARDIN CLASS NC DWQ RATING
L 27+70 Lt/Rt WL A PFOIEMI 59
L 28+60 LT/RT WL B PFOIEMI 29
L 29+50 RT WL D PFOIEMI 33
L 25+50 RT WL K PFOIEM2B 42
L 27+20 LT/RT WL L PFO I EM I B 59
L 102+10 LT WL PFO 1 E 40
L 116+15 RT WL P PEM1 13
B-3682AV-3413

4
Wetland Impacts: The permanent wetland impacts, summarized in Table 2, total 0.15 acre of
palustrine: forested broad-leaved deciduous wetlands. These impacts are associated with
mechanized clearing, roadway fill and the installation of 24"and 48" Reinforced Concrete Pipes
(RCP). These impacts are related to widening SR 1423. The temporary wetland impacts
associated with this project are due to hand clearing inside the wetlands for placement of the
new bridge. These temporary impacts total 0.16 acre (see permit drawing sheets 5-10 for further
details).
Stream Impacts: The stream impacts, summarized in Table 2, include four intermittent
UTs of Horse Swamp (DEM Index No. 19-16-2-1, 8/1/91). Permanent impacts associated
with fill in surface water total 0.05 acre and 208 feet of impacts. These impacts are due to
installation of 24", 36", 42" and 48" RCPs (see permit drawing sheets 5-10 for further
details). ACOE had determined these streams to be intermittent requiring no mitigation (see
field meeting summary above).
Table 2: Summarv of Jurisdictional Impacts
Permit Drawing
Station CE
Site Permanent
Wetlands (ac) Temporary
Wetlands ac Surface Waters (SW)
ID R NR R NR Fill in SW
ac Channel
Impacts ft)
L 19+00 Rt UT 0 0.02 47
L 27+70 Lt/Rt WL A 0.07
L 28+60 Lt/Rt WL B 0.03
L 29+50 Rt WL D 0.05 0.02
L 25+50 Rt WL K 0.03
L 27+20 Lt/Rt WL L 0.05
L 51+00 Lt/Rt UT 1 0.01 60
L 102+10 Lt WL 0.05
L 102+30 Rt UT 5 0.01 35
L 108+50 Lt/Rt UT 6 0.01 66
L 116+15 Rt WL P 0.02

TOTAL. 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.05 208
R = Riverine NR = Non-Riverine
Utilitv Impacts: There will be no permanent utility impacts associated with this site. Any
necessary clearing of wetlands for utility installation will utilize mats and non-mechanized
means, no grubbing methods will be used. All areas where new buried cable or aerial electric
utility lines cross the creeks will be installed by the directional bore method. A detailed
description of utility work to be performed follows:
Sta. 19+00 -L-
UT # 0 (UT= Unnamed Tributary) Permit Drawing says:
- Fill in surface water and Existing Channel Impacted
* proposed waterline on the north end of the proposed drainage pipe
* proposed water line does not impact the wetland permit drawing site and is outside (beyond)
proposed drainage pipe on north side
B-3682/W-3413
-Ab
5
Note: Sta. 28+00 -L- Northeast Little Creek
* utilize existing water line crossing under creek
* wetland on northside of bridge might be impacted slightly (if any) due to proposed water line
relocation/construction
Sta. 51+00 -L-
UT #I Permit Drawing says:
- Fill in surface water and Existing channel impacted
* proposed water line on the north end of the proposed pipe
* proposed water line is within toe of cut slope and under proposed drainage pipe
Sta. 102+50 -L-
Wetland Q Permit Drawing says:
- Fill in wetland and Mechanized clearing
* proposed water line will be under the proposed drainage pipe
* proposed water line is within toe of fill slope
Sta. 108+50 -L-
UT #6 Permit Drawing says:
- Fill in surface water and Existing channel impacted
* proposed water line will be under drainage
Bridtle Demolition: When removing the existing bridge, NCDOT shall not allow debris to fall
into the water. The contractor shall remove the bridge and submit plans for demolition in
accordance with Article 402-2 of the Standard Specifications. Possible methods for bridge
removal involve the contractor lifting out each span with a crane, or saw cutting the bridge in
sections, and then lifting these sections out. The piles would either be pulled, or cut off at the
mud line.
Removal of Bridge No. 3 should not cause any impacts to Little Northeast Creek or its adjacent
wetlands, however, installation of a turbidity curtain is recommended for pile removal and
installation.
Due to the possibility of anadramous fish in Little Northeast Creek, bridge demolition is
classified as a Case 2, which allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods
associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas. This
moratorium period begins February 15 and lasts until September 30.
Schedule for Construction: It is assumed that the Contractor will begin construction of the
proposed bridge work shortly after the date of availability for the project. The let date is March
15, 2005 with a date of availability of April 26, 2005.
B-3682/W-3413

6
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to "Waters
of the United States". The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable
design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory
mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional stages; minimization measures were
incorporated as part of the project design.
Practical means to minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands impacted by the proposed
project include:
¦ Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median width,
ROW widths, fill slopes and /or road shoulder widths.
¦ Installation of temporary silt fences, turbidity curtains, earth berms, and temporary ground
cover during construction.
¦ Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the protection of surface
waters and wetlands.
¦ Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies.
The project was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands in the area to the
maximum extent practicable. The project alignment was chosen to cross the narrowest band of
wetlands at the bridge approaches. Additionally, a 200 foot long bridge is proposed which will
span and avoid filling most of the wetlands in the area. As a result, impacts were avoided to
wetlands A, B, E, F, H, and L. NCDOT also coordinated with the USACE to avoid filling the
highest quality wetlands A and L. We were not able to avoid all impacts, however. Impacts to
wetlands D and K were unavoidable due to the bridge approach fill. Impacts to wetlands D and
K were minimized by decreasing the project footprint in wetlands by the use of 3:1 side slopes
and crossing wetlands perpendicularly. Additionally, measures to control erosion during
construction will be incorporated as well as strict enforcement of BMPs. The proposed
restoration plan (see attached) is approved for on-site mitigation. Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Natural Environment Engineering Unit shall be notified before any
construction begins with the onsite mitigation proposal.
INDIRECT AND CUMMULATIVE IMPACTS
Based on the forecast in the Onslow County, North Carolina 1997 Land Use Plan, during the
next seven to ten year period, Onslow County anticipates no substantial development in the
study area. However, Onslow County has no formal zoning requirements; therefore, unplanned
development may occur. The proposed improvements, while enhancing safety, are not expected
to make the study area more attractive to developers. In addition, the lack of sewer services
within the study area is expected to deter development. Furthermore, the proposed
improvements will improve vehicle and driver safety along the roadway but will not increase
capacity along the roadway. No public or private actions have taken place in the study area that
would adversely affect its residents. Therefore, it is concluded that no past or present actions
combine to result in a cumulative impact that would either adversely or beneficially affect the
study area. Presently, a more thorough ICI report is being compiled and will be distributed upon
its completion.
B-36821W-3413

7
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
As of January 29, 2003 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) now lists twelve federally
protected species for Onslow County (Table 3). Since the completion of the referenced CE, the
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) has been added to this list. A species habitat
determination is provided below along with a biological conclusion.
Table 3. Federallv-Protected Species for Pender Countv
Scientific Naine Common Naine Status Habitat Biological
Determination Conclusion
Denlochelys coriacea Leatherback sea E No No Effect
turtle
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded E No No Effect
woodpecker
Cllarardrius inelodus Piping plover T No No Effect
Alligator American T(S/A) No Not
mississippiensis Alligator
Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea T No No Effect
turtle
Chelonia nlydas Green sea turtle T No No Effect
Amaranthus punlilus Seabeach T No No Effect
amaranth
Carex lutea Golden sedge PE No No Effect
Lysimachia Rough leaved E No No Effect
as erulae olia loosestrife
Felis concolor cougar Eastern cougar E* No No Effect
Thalictnim cooleyi Cooley's E No No Effect
meadowrue
Haliaeetus Bald Eagle T (proposed No No Effect
i
leucoce halos for delisting)
Essential Fish Habitat: The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management
and Conservation Act (MSFCMA) set forth a new mandate for the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), regional fishery management councils (FMC) and other Federal agencies to
identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. The FMCS, with the
assistance from NMFS, have delineated "essential fish habitat" (EFH) for managed species.
Onslow County is listed as a county that contains waterbodies in which EFH species are found.
None of the waterbodies listed are located immediately within the project study area or vicinity,
however, Little Northeast Creek flows into Northeast Creek which converges with the New
River, a listed waterbody. The New River is approximately 8.9 miles downstream from the
project site. Ron Sechler, of NMF, commented that an Essential Fish Habitat study "would not
be necessary because the (project study) area was far enough away from the waters of primary
concern." He also agreed that, due to the presence of freshwater mussels in Little Northeast
Creek, it is not likely that EFH species would be found in the project study area. EFH species
are usually found in waters of higher salinity content than freshwater mussels can live in.
B-3682AV-3413
Aim
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: This 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 23 as
authorized by a Nationwide Permit (67 FR 2020; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3403 will apply to this
project. The NCDOT will adhere to all general conditions of the Water Quality Certification.
Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section.0500(a) we are providing two copies of
this application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, for their review.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/Permit.btml.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Cheryl Knepp at
cknepp(a-)dot. state. ne.us or [phone].
Sincerely,
GPh.D.
~ Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc:
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Ms. Cathy Brittingham, NCDCM
Mr. Bill Arrington, NCDCM
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. H. Allen Pope, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Mason Herndon, DEO
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
PDEA Project Planning Engineer
B-3682AV-3413

On-site Mitibation Plan
Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 3 on SR 1423 over Little Northeast Creek and SR
1423 from SR 1411 to SR 1413 in Onslow County, North Carolina.
TIP No. B-3682/W-3413
October 22, 2004
Overview
Roadway improvement project W-3413 is located adjacent to the proposed bridge
replacement project and will be included with B-3682 for permitting purposes. This 2.0
mile project proposes to improve the horizontal curvature of SR 1423 from SR 1427 to
SR 1413 in Onslow County. Bridge No. 3 will be removed and replaced at a new location
in conjunction with this proposed alignment. The NCDOT will replace the existing 70-
foot long bridge over Little Northeast Creek with a new bridge approximately 200 feet in
length, therefore, spanning a large portion of the existing wetlands. Moving the bridge to
a new location approximately 80 feet downstream will allow for the removal of
approximately 300 linear feet of causeway in previously filled wetlands beginning left of
station 26+95-L- to left of station 30+50-L-, not including the bridge over Little
Northeast Creek. The existing causeway will be removed and returned to an elevation
resembling that of the adjacent wetlands.
Existing Conditions
Bridge No. 3 is currently a causeway, which fills wetland habitat adjacent to Little
Northeast Creek. The adjacent community consists of green ash (Fraxinits
pennsylvanica), river birch (Betula nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos) and water oak
(Quercus nigra).
. AM
Proposed Mitigation Activity: Causeway Removal
The removal of the old causeway will mean that approximately 0.28 acres of fill will be
removed from wetlands associated with Little Northeast Creek. Approximately 300 feet
of existing causeway will be lifted, restoring the palustrine broad leaved wetland
underneath. It is anticipated that after the causeway is removed, existing wetlands will
again be connected, allowing the natural wetland hydrology to return. Therefore, NCDOT
proposes 0.28 acre of riverine wetland restoration credit.
The causeway should be removed to an elevation representative of the adjacent wetlands,
not to the wetland delineation line. The elevation at the delineation line is the uppermost
point of the wetland, consequently acting as the boundary between wetland conditions
and upland dry conditions. Excavating the causeway to a representative elevation
prevents a levee effect around the existing wetlands. The wetlands must be connected for
hydrology to return. If the uncovered causeway soils are slightly lower than the adjacent
wetlands, it is anticipated that organic materials carried by the wind, rain and/or brought
in and out by the flushing of the adjacent wetlands will settle into the restored area. This
will create the desired upper layer of natural material. It will also create small areas of
micro-habitat for fish, amphibians, and small mammals.
Proposed Vegetation:
The NCDOT proposes to replant with indigenous vegetation. The area to be restored will
be planted with green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), river birch (Betula nigra), willow
oak (Quercus phellos) and water oak (Quercus nigra). The NCDOT also expects natural
colonization of native flora to occur around the removed causeway.
The proposed restoration area is currently a standing palustrine: forested broad-leaved
deciduous wetland community. The canopy of this area is dominated by willow oak, water
B-36821JV 3413 2
AW
oak, American beech (Fagus grandifolia), green ash, red maple (Ater rubrum), and
American elm (Ubnus americana).
Proposed Hydrology:
The proximity of the restoration areas to Little Northeast Creek ensures that area will be
saturated and/or inundated for extended periods of time. It is anticipated that after the
causeway is removed, existing wetlands will again be connected, allowing the natural
wetland hydrology to return.
Monitoring
As requested by the Army Corps of Engineers, the NCDOT will perforrn 3 years of photo
monitoring with a site visit to determine if jurisdictional status has been met.
B-3682/ii- 3413
3

a u r
G'
91 AL
I ?. L En
I .?? , t - I I
- I
I- ? b
r
Pi?
b E. I l I I "aG$
A p [? Er
A?
a - r Nw I
?? - I - ?? 1 I ll ? O
II ]Il 1 I -?_ d
j, I I
I ? I I ?-
vi o M v? q
Z9 ? ? 'R 0
to i° 0
z y
?t-1 °
0
y H ? ? ? ? o
d O r
o !Ul ? a n
20
5'J
o
;v Pd r7Q
M 5QED y 0
y ?F
I

1

tt
1}i

1:

?

1

f

1

}

j

j

;

I

,

t

{

'}
?
? -

t
1 1?I
f
I I

}
' {
I
?

t
I

'I
1I?
tl j
? r

i
T

{t
I ,

jt.

: _

it FT
_ _
i
_ {
, ;
, i
i
#
f y 1
r
1 +
i' i
i i I
j
r r
t
I i" i I 1 ( t l ,
t i? . ? x
}
} {k
tt
} 1; 1 C

` 1 t' it }

t

t ? a 1 _ {

t-t
( + j i

{..

.}...

j
..t+
}
ri
+1 '
f }
# ? r ! '
f.
.1. - a }1
a t. ti
t+
r it - NI i4
. i }
t t
, ; ;
1 ?.
I l 1

a ,

? l

+ I

f I
f:-

-..

, ..

I

..

,

.+.

.1.

i t

....

,,,r. 1 I

r__.

...

' A

...i.?. I

7

...? f

11. -_
j

..'
?

?..

t { O
a
r

?
r

t1

i}

I?

-I:
+ j' 1 i
k 1 +{ .T } i f}' ; ; "

t
-{-? ?
(- r ` 1 r
,{
_? txi
?
a?
I I
?1 •
??
?. i
k {-
}-? C
'.?
I {"ri }
I i:' t
? r I
+?i r. _ .
.-«
1
I
I

114
}t I j{? }i1 }!r: :i Ps1'1 f 1?? j
,. ._} { I TI iI l 1$ { I?
I 4 4- -1

Ii ._;:
I ?
Il
+ t 1 ; - --

.. }
k { _ I C 1 rI . ! f i 1
T_ '? 1 ?
? ? i ? , ? z
? 1 !.
t { , t • :- r ._ f r i T - ? m. , 1
k i i t t i I + ?' t
1
U m
?

,?
I
1e
I
I
w
11 •- }
q C
p
t
-

}
{

III

.. }.
r

'
I
?

1
}l
I
t,

+ .. _

r I
_

_
..-

..

! f
if1.

n.

i
i

t
; ,M I?

(v
' h
-

r
C r
tt

(
?

T

o

1 n t
c
f

. I

fI
1
iii x

?i Vol <

?
?
m

b -<
o f-
}
m

1

t
}

1

j ul%

1

.
...:._

?...i...i ...

.}

.

I ?.

j.. I

l I j

} ..} I

? t

} i { t!

1 ? : .

?
..

r 1
.:
I

. .} 1

1

-

+
E5
... 1

,?
W Z T

. I t

I
.

.

.
. }
} I
I t : (t ?
j

,y
I

kFF

t

j i td

1

1

},
r

t

X o
?
R 1

?
{ ..

, - J t

kl I t i..., ,

I j

}
jlj
.o 1- pl Z f

? ?
?

r _ - -

1.
.
t ?0
f
t 1 ? O C:
1
,rttt -._....
, r r .., .
1 -...
, /?
_ _
I {
1I I
I.... t
1 f
i-
?'.

T F t }

I
1:7

!

I

;
I

t

:1 t

r i

jE
_

j

=! {

1 t ..

#

LL J_I a
11r,} +
. 00

{ y
?
t
l 1 I
I
..4
1?
4
t
?
.} 1? r
`'•' .t t
i?t
i
?•,,,,;
.. 0
r ? ?-r}?_. J? ?
, "?I
} 1, .
ti I t ' k « I-+ C _ ? }t ?-#t,." ? -; m
j {
: t i I
1 rt
f
-f ' r r t : t t : 4
1
# I* 1 L
r :
t
: -.-1
. `
.
.
_+ _
•
?
._
..._...
.
...;-
;..
.,
. _,. «. ..
.
_
.
- •-
} 1
'
_.
..,-
..{t -r
..,
_
.a

TI: ?

?Jt ;/

*
t

. d 1 ?
r r

I i

_

I
I-

- ~ I

.?
JIf
t ._

t ,
j

i i
,
,

,? ZI
` 111
1 yo-
If
} t- r l

POE.
I
?

?

I

!r

t •I
I
tt
1

I I..

? I

I

,.!

]
r
?-?

.
'

y
.•1
I,?

?
-
.

_a

it I
} } ,

? ? I !
} 1
i

1

}?

j

'

+ I

.., I f

?

..
,...,..
j
{
C
? y.

'
t
i ?

+ IT r ,
_ ` ;} 1 1 1 _ f
t `+ i ti a - r y : n
+ ; ? }
? f I
t }t I+7 j. z F }

-?
_1I I
f.+.I
;..: .'LC7_.

f t I . t .
? {
«-y{

,I

-'

1t
T t i.. . l I t
J[
J .._tI
iff
i 1
1 ??
J}
`t
I ? 1
?r
r }
I' '' i
I
t

II ! ?, -'+ IX
!I'.. {I 0 { !.
y',
r 1 } `
tr {
} ,
'[
tiJ ?
i I t
ty?
j t?
1
{
_ (It +{
1
1t + -111
?_1t FJ
? lr' t

- ,
..}1
1
?r. . ,

i i tl I t '

1y

-

'
-;

i

` 4.1

!- t
#r:..._.
J.
:? t
f 1.
?,
J f
r[} }
}{
Cb
y

I
Y
l
r 1'
?.
'
.:C

7-1
a
_
it}

I
+
!
?t y
}?I

I t
I
.

r i?

-I...,

-

1_

C

I+

' l

t-

(
_.
l {
?, -
i

,

7

r

'

1

} t I
t i a ' I 1f i r;
t 1 1
1 1 t
1 : . I
j i
1Iy ...

:.. F , 1-

1
{{

I I

:
a

}

??

! j

?

'

._.
L- -I i
...t (--
-F ?- { rI

t
? -_ - 1 1

t +.
.- 1 ? -1 1
_ ..
.
-}_ }_?-
.. ?
f ' - iii, 1
1 'I i +

l ,-
?
? i
+ i .?
.. -.
. r 1
(?I .•- ? ?
??_.• ?
'' 1
_ y
? I h , I
_rI -•
_
?
{
.., I .I , ;_
??
t'1 k
} ?•
,a
1
! I ?
? 1 ? C 11
! 1 t
1?
1
i::' { ? ?
l}r ? ?
° I.
I 1
!
7
?_ t
#?
t ?
_;I t
t I
_
1 ' j: t
t , c ? :
t _ ? ? t
{ t 1 I
? } • , ? ,. µ l t .i- 14 ? I + l ? l j t. .' , _; ` ` I' # 1 } .: ,. :
t -, ? ?. 1 f 'r t t A -1 ,
?
-
I t r t' +{ I. { r i ! ? -r j i t r
1 4 fi ti
j 1 f .. ,. ;: L ? ,
4 , 111

;
, t-
.._
t
._.,.:.. _.
..,..
..,.
.
.
_,.
.
.
t ,
, ;
,
.
t-
.
,, r....
,_•. III
it I ?.. J .
J: ' ? 1 1 , +I f.#
_i t I fi +It I
t I# k :.

tt
I
1
r
? } t
I. I.
i t II
! l J 1I
I # -

-:4 {
:-.
-
}
}
..
.
_
.. +
_.
..- _ . _ ?_
... ,
,
_ _ •
4
-
-

I
_

.... }. . _

.

.....
_ .

' .}.

..
t t , t t y
t ,
• .1 f t r i ,
I 11 11
k }
1- F t 1-
t +
I ,.rl
..?.
Lr
1 +
1_
. 4 E Q
_
1{ ..
1 1
1 1 _f {"

? y

??

??
t _
-;t } t-- r :.,ri t a? }. _r. + +-
l
{
r`1.1? .? ilr? L1... ?I ._Irl i. ..' ? ? + •6 .!.1...? ?:... 4 ,-i. ..' ...r. .

a-

)UNTYl
PROJECT
SITE
ONSLOW
COUN T
VICINITY
MAP
(WETLANDS
SURFACE WATERS)
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ONSLOW COUNTY
PROJECTS: 33224.1.1 (B-3682)
& 35052.1.1 (W-3413)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO.3
ON SR 1423 OVER LITTLE NE CREEK
SHEET 1- OF 1-2- 8 JUL
NORTH CAROLINA

- r ?
> t
V
?G^-' Sta ? ?. k
SITE
MAP
(WETLANDS
SURFACE WATERS)
0
?I
W
a
U
U)
O
z
1uu?
F?
F?
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ONSLOW COUNTY
PROJECTS: 33224.1.1 (B-3682)
& 35052.1.1 (W-3413)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO.3
ON SR 1423 OVER LITTLE NE CREEK
I .
WETLAND LEGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
WETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
¦ DENOTES MECHANIZED
•" »" •' = CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
TB - TOP OF BANK
WE- - EDGE OF WATER
- C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-
AwA PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- - - PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB - ' EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - - - - - - WATER SURFACE
X X X
x x LIVE STAKES
X
x
BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
W SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
UDN RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
® PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
-]-- --]N- -*--- GRASS SWALE
=I= _-- _= BASE GRASS SWALE
NCD® 1L
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ONSLOW COUNTY
PROJECTS: 33224.1.1 (B-36132)
fk 35052.1.1 (W-3413)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO.3
ON SR 1423 OVER LITTLE NE CREEK
5 nF 11
P R(OPEIE$TY (OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
1075 Lullwater Circle
5 John W. Banks, et. ux. McDonough, GA 30253
Thomas J. Marshall and 207 Brentwood Ave.
6 Kathleen H. Marshall Jacksonville, NC 28540
1009 Country Club Drive
F` 7 Mari jennie B. Warlick Jacksonville, NC 28540
619 Old Thirty Road
II Marjorie Padgett Jacksonville, NC 28546
602 Old Thirty Road
15 Kathleen M. Leone Jacksonville, NC 28546
145 Harbord Drive
16 Johri S. Martin Midway Park, NC 28544
237 Western Boulevard
22 Charles E. Franklin Jacksonville, NC 28546
170 Croom Lane
23 Donald R. Croom Jacksonville, NC 28546
816 Old Thirty Road
24 Jeffery L. Lambert Jacksonville, NC 28546
828 Old Thirty Road
2g James V. Rose Jacksonville, NC 28546
Road
1601 Pagan
Joseph H. Henderson Raleigh, NC 27603
0
. I
J
a
w?
x$
LL
? O
? o
O ? ob
?Q) a
OW cJ ?
Q.
~ W
oc
9 J33HS 33S 00'00+1£ --I- 9NIIH:)IVW
w? i ?

3 I?

"e ?i 1 I

9 • * ? Z
L?vrN H Z J

W Z o 1/

'??...` 3NJ 15Y3NIbUN 3111/7 ?.. n //•?
Q)
2W
?a
£S GYN m
Wm
ti
O
jE -1-I?I?•I '
li •-, 1?
< t!
ff ? (lilt'
SO
J
4
K
3
i
a
I t A
I? I
I
I` III A
\ , I
O ?
J
ti
S
N
N
r- \
Z 1
? Y
1
20
s? ` 1 \ I .
J
? d
1
'?, ° 'I N1? tl rl
1
o ? ;1 j ? ?\ \ ?1\1
°I11 ? 1? d? ? 11P
Qz Z
Z 3atU
o
I- Z
LLI
J Q
1i =

m
. O
Z
a
p \
/ w
/
/ W
qq

a W
??
l./
Z

Z U
U

W O
Z
?

.,
d Z U
a
I
$
1s•
?
? W
? L
z
_
?
I
??
I >ti?u`?
Q Z
S
U
?Ka? QZ ? ? Q
?
VV\
T ,
LU N

?

W

J
i
Q+
I
n \ LL w
U \31
I ,
I \
I ?
I ?
I
ul
w
a
w
I i
I?
I W
I
r I
I
I
II
II
0 1 \ YI
°?11 1 0 1
6 \ m W 1 \ I,
OZ ?? JII 1• ? ?, ?
1
r
1? II A I A?
1 ,l- Jf 1 1 l i l ? ?
bb/O/8
d
? a
0
?O
m ?
b
0
L G
Q> a
O W J
Liz
N V
>>
z 0
J Z
0
N
a
W
3
?W
z v! z
z &U N °z °z
oz oz ou ou
•
• u_
_
__
` __
.
4°d'2-d289E9\q1w
SNOIS"
,.11 , I^ _- v/11111 II / 1 1 111 ?^ -\ / --,
In DZZ
?3 CaC , \ /I //1 II ? III I 1 Qf _ \ /'
S 33s,
I 133 _
;4: It r
'PrA
_ _ \ ` Z \'? YJJHJ 1`YJNIWN J71N - }? \\ ?; I ? I\
-91
47
t, 1, / ?a///I'" \ 6Txl J T r ?C Z r
GS ON \ \ Tom ,-- 3 il,.f \ Ys WI Q I Z
Z 1 } m ' `,
IJ \ ul ?I? ? GAI ; ?`I ' /( {ply, p~6 I Z
I___- ? \Y4 ? •-' "I ', . III ?I L??? 1 I \ r ? 1
Q " 'IIII IIIII
j; I I; IIII fl' ` `A\? 1. \ I ?' `? LLI

YI?'I
I d \J k 1 I I\ \ ` \
S2 5 r? / 1111 I 1\ I ? 11 I'? I S . \ . ` ? J
Z\VI I _ i Ir 111'1IPI/ / I' 111' +I ` ` 1 \ LL I
W
\-- -- -
\ - -
\\ ` "/ 1 \ 11' 141' 1 1 '/ '1 1 \ ^y I' , i ` \ \' `\ _ I Q
\ ? ' I • ?'I' `I IIIII 1\ \ I li, I 111 \ ` \U\ \?,\ -N ,]0_ N
`I _ - - 1 111 1 tl \W i l 1, ?` / '1 \ \!\ \ `\ Si; t ` ?I Q
' ` '?I IIII \ \ll 4 `\??` `\\\?`. \.©1? J u
, /. \I _ \11111 \`4 1\1 _IIII`, I, - \ ?\\\ \\\\\ \ ? ?K ?Z
`. I `I `.. 1` I \ Il fill ?, 111\\ \I\II\\ \\ ?` Z? ZN Zyaa]
w W wJ
r I1I?11I 4 1, I,1 I / ?;`i 11 \ / `r I j I \ \? \ \ \ \ 13:: D i O u
'? I -_ ?? 111, \\1I \` yyy i \` \\?\ ?I , 1 1 `\ \ `?>t? ? •
\ \1 .111 N I' ''??I `\\ W`` \ \ 1 •
1 1 1' 11II4 - \I`11\ ?I1111 11111 `\\\I, \` \?;?g\ ?\ -n\ \ •
21
'/ ?- 1 j II\\\IIII'. 1\\ ?l ll?l _ `I 1 \` \?\ ` \ Y• • •
O? 1? i 111 \`\\` 1I1 1 ll?y IIII \ 1 \``\?`c-`\?? _ --_- ` BSI \1'?
/? / •?/? l"\1'.. 11 - \I / ,/ ' ' N --r 11111
/ / Iqv 11 F / ,' d \ ,AI
X25 1?../ 1\\?, I1 /II W / , \ 11
?? \II 11 n
? ??? I rl l l l ? ,? 1 V
\1\ I I ?_ ' l
O 11 /1? ?\ a3 r 1 - ?/ Lu
-- t
•? O 11// 1 ? 1 ' ? / ??1 \ 1111, \` ? \ \ ? ' ??r_'? r ? , _ - " `` .
Ll-
1 11 ," \
O /'O 1 -1111 ? I l / /, D-N- U? ?/ \\\\\I
/ 1 I
``?'\ „IJ?? 1+ 8? W / M 1',\11 .IIL? t r' z2+''Ur , L\?`?
OZ ' ?---11? \ o-af?? 1 1 _ ? 1 j ? ,,,\ `/6 11 Jio l Z \ I
`vW ,j/ r-O 11''1\ 1 I11 \ -- I I .%I' ObF ?//
I ` j `\^/ Q \ W, II \ Iw I _ 4I %1' r1FI? fir'/' - - - ` _ _ _ - - -
`C / t 'Lih 1r
- I'
/' \ N I d I i lb? Y' 1?(''7?l/?? 1 T II
;T ` \
• '14.a \ y1,73H? ? D'; ? ,I IIII /. I
I
J
` I ? 1 I
' I 1
II
1?
W
1? ??\\\? 1 ' 41' II Ij11
f?
l i d I 11 _._
1,?1 1 U\
C
1 c I ,
1'111 I
'
Y I 11I
IIII I
II
1

I `6
I 1
\
1 ,
I? 1 _ ?1 I
I
I
I
\ A I I I I
?' 11
IIII I
I' I I
'

I 1 ,
111!' `11
N
'
W I1}?
lR

I 1
1 I
Illy
I
I I
I I
I I'll
I II
I
l l

l I
l ?
I
' i ,• 1 I
'' /' '
- /
i I
I
I ? I
1 1
1 y11
I II I II
I'l l
I 'Ill
IIII
_ ,
/ I \ IIy I IIII
/ I ?.', ? 111•
/LUB
I
\ W - I
A/ I I
r 1 _ _ - - - - - - - \ I
I / 1' 1 / ' I
1
I r-
r `
I IU \ 1 `\
I
v
rz
O
z
ou
BI
SNOISIAU
d
Z o? z
r.? ? 8 W
i?j g zn
a z
m
W
W
Cl-
rJ?
v
£S pVN
$r
o?
?I
W
?` a a \
?\ a a a
a
O
w
a r-
3

m
0
a
?NIIH?l J
L ?3HS 3?S ?? ? 1 ?,? a
1 M
y a(p ? N
?+ I? I7 ' = a\ a a s a
I I I ?? a m
rl
r
r
W r
I i
I
I I
r
? I
06

k ?I
W
W
W I
rJ r
r
I
r
r
i
a/,
a oas ?
J O
M?
i
/ N
3
ti
1 at
r
I
u I
\1
W
r
a a
a as
I t? a a
I
I J
=s a a
W \
1
a
a a
a
a
a
%as as a
as a a a
a as
a
a
?a
aaa a
a
a ? a
3 ? ,l+a
o, a a s (,.? s `li?a
:i a cco a
a
aa? a a a ? °0 a
a
IS a a a a
as
k3cp a
? ?' ?a a a a
I ?
I I ? if ? W a?
I a '`J? O
II a ' a?
a I ??
a
00
I as a
I > 5\a a
a a a
I ? g? a
I 1
I I W ? % ?
I I 1 ° 'f' ?' ?+
I W \ S` , N
I Y I? /23 tj
7
I \? ` O
LL.
I oU
-
I o
w ©UZ
I I .iI,??Yy{ ?
5 133HS 33S 00'00+LE -1- 3NI1H:)IVW
/LI/8
4°d'£-dZ82E9\c'ltwlod\PPO°
51.61
SNOISIA3il
a
Z
r Lo z
?,o x
ZvZ P
z
z3 :r>
N <3 W S
>? Ij o
m ?
J
? I

o L
r
m
O J
4.1
I ?, W
_ - /j3 , \I/I, j1, Iw III (lV _ _ O'
25 N
021 ,• _? ? /?\,
C ? rya: ,?- [C ?l•... , c?_ ?y?-y f' ' \ \ f ?
1 5 _ III , \ \`, `, \S2 `m 1 ' I I _ l 1\\\ % ? ? \ ,r;
1 I 1 ,/ / III I 1/ .?' 1 1 \ \ , , \ '.
1 I I N / , , / , i 1 I F , , IN
, ...\
/ 11 1 1 I I I , ' 1 I w ( I I i ?/ ? II? `I / 1m'I? ? \
I ' I I I ' ,/ 1 ? ' , II '? ' / l 1 ? 1 1 \ \ \ \ ?
3 I 1 \\\\-\
1 1 I I / / / ( III I ' I I IN
\ 1 ?8 ? , i , I r ,il I lu
? \\ ` / \ `, `\ S \ \\
1 C? I 1 ,
/ , I 1 I 1,l n 1 , . \ \ 1 ( \ 1 \
1 I n I \ \ y 1
/ / I I I ?'a? '`? car l
I `
r / 1 I I I ,, I I N O o r
/ /' ' /? ? I I ? II 'I'/ i I ? O \ Ef'1 1 _ Y%u`tJ MII
el CD)
w ,
h / ? ,' / ? ? / ? I ? • `? "_ /yam v ? 1 -Q,;
/' / / , ,' Ir ' W VV:77
// / ,' 1 ti ` - - / IA CI., 1 • I W. \ '?G:.1 D / / /+, `WI III
P" Lill
` ` _ ?? I i III I I 1 \ ? ?? \ - \ \ 1 hA- \ \ \ II
\ \?, \ ??\ ?` \ \ _ \\ i I 111 r„ 'III 11` ?l- ', ` \???FF>,,? ?\ ,`\`\\ \' ? \\? ?ylY
?` s1? i'P 1. \ OC` 1 \ I I \ II? 1 \ 1 \ \ \ \ ' \ / -1 1
\?\ \ \ (,N Vi. \ I I Iw , 1 \ a'1?- j1
\ \ r, , I I ©©
/ / \ `, \\ \ ?w \ ?`? , ? I ?' I II I i IIII I 11, I \ .i, III w' \, 1 ry/ , 1WI I l _ \ 1
? f ? ? .>. 1 1 U r - .III ? it c3-- _ 1 \\t r / I/ I /'?? ,/^rl II
/ ? ? - \ F I , ' I 1 1 €i I `W I ' 1 ? I r r / %a%? r `[/ 1
(l ` ff++,
\ Q --'--\ ;ti3
: \ \\ - , \?? `.`w9y -?' ''_ ( ;\II i[vl '.) 6 / ,o/ 1' / //,' _ 1•, 1,, `- d , t / I
J \ , ' -07
JQ_
` -/\
43
i?A
/ / J I l , \ 777dddddd / / / 1
- , '. " ? 1\ C63'i ? _ 11''• i., ' ?` cJ \ , \ ? , cl \ \?r\? r ''? / _ _ ; \ 1
(IT
1'`,' '. \ _-' /%; __ =_?;{ID'1?%,Nl` ?, ` q , \\ I\ t 1, l l^ \ 1 ICI 1 -N 1 / C ©rq
l? `' - ?' - - - 1 -?/S? I'? v ` 1 , \ , 1 1 1 1 ?l .? 1' V O?•~ 11
;?.Il ?\111,\1\\ \ I /©"LG
LL.
?' I III /'' N'1
dij 11 - 1 'W r `-- \f? U Z
1 ?' r \\I /' I?I'11 \I I I \ I? ` \I `V2? _\ - '??' © ?IIry
S II I _ \ 1f 1\ 11 1 1 I \,I II '?\ I , ,' i.•? __ /\ /- ?\ `. '/?
S 133HS 93S 00.00-1- L£ -l- 3NIlH:)1VW
jb/1I/8 I I Isd,C-dZ89f9\sllwjed\
81
SNOISIA311
0
C 0
Z z7 0
26 aE ? O 00-00-1-8.9
-?-
d ^^^, J Z
L
g V)• tW?
35 :::E Z
S w v
11 N FY
Z \
i i cr N
LL
J • F W 1 \ ` •
1 )
ail 1 ter`, / 1 \
1 \ ? ' I I ( a \?Qd
0 c_\ s ? / % \\CJ
Q l ° ? d w `' ' ? fr ? \
o 1 1
W 1 1? as / a W
LL. II I `• a- v , t3? N a
•rV , W Zz
II I I- a o
v W I I I I Z ??...
y ?t
?... L trL
1?...` .. la ,r=e tj
W J
Q a ? ? \\ \ \ ?II\ w k ? LU \\ \
9 z
?- `d 1
09 V)
\ i ilk 08 ,
Z ?
J
e
\O O YJ
\ 1
\ 1 \ 3 ? +?
\ \ t ?? S[iyspS y(//
\ \ W
1 \ W
1 1
1
1 1 ; ? t-
1?- a
I k?k 1 W O o ?1
i x u,
k ? I v'1 ? 11 ° ? ?? ? ?)
\
-x-x? 1 I II 1 0 \
.u 1 1
Sir 0
w 1 I I Q.
1 i J
9 133HS 33S 00'00+1717 1- 3NI1H:)IVW
LI/8
m
0
O.
J
CV)
s
W
CD
CD
N
4sd'b-dZ89C9\s-4tw,od\PPo3
MVI
SNOTS"

V
N o
u, O.o 00,00+8s
v) cd,z
W O ZO
In o -< LLU
W In Q , \ , , / / r ?_? - \ //J `gyp b, r' ' 1 \ 1 t
4 If by
L, v)
n 1 \ ,rll\I ??'' - I ??II ?\ \, I, I i 1 , I / I
t= O w
W 1 \ ,r , ?? I I I/ , I / / 1
LLB. 1 Ill / t 1 i 1'\ I \ \
I fit J1
, Ill 4r/,- • \ III. ,{? `I /\? r /I 1 I \ 1 ?? \\ \ \ 1 1
, ` 11 l /j\ ? I I ? 1 ,III / \:f _ . 1 •'I I I ? ? \ \I \ I \ t I
r
',////V /' • F /W III ? ,;n,/___ -1\? \ Icil11 1 I • /,' / \`\\\I
t!- , II I
S b?( I ?1 r' /?•' , n
I tv t' I
1 - 1 `^\? I l 1 I o l ,y r I I I ' r r/ ' / i
\\ _ I 1 ? ? ?.` -gym ! \ ? r
IT V - ?J \ \` - LI I' I I 1 c?? \\ 11' / /\11 t??'?r'r
Its I
d\, \ sir l','???' /
/? , I T I I I 1 , , ,
('4 11 fit
l?Ic?r
If , r If
I I i /r /py('?? ' I /a ', lIM '? 1 I 1 (I ??,r)\Il U1
• too
v 1 ' \ I ' I jh I I ' %o ?r 1,' 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 I I l
1 _ I I , / I 'r l ' , , ? , I , I I? 11, ,eal I I l
it (it:
I , \ If 1 / I1 ?1I I 1
,• r/ ,, 1 I l I I, 1 1 1
I \ I ,/ ,,I 1 r? I , ?}1 r?I
COQ ' , / I I w / I ?P. ; I / , /? •V 3 < +' ,?I ' ' ,1s/?I7Wt, , I I r aC
GQ oN
v ?7,/?r/ ' I 1 I I,l/i I'r II 1 IL \\ (1J \ \ INI I , 1 , .,r W
/ Z
W (?\I Z a/ `` \I\ \ I?1 I y \ r 0
I ' ?I I (I 11 /I I? Y' Q \`\\\I\1\YW\'`\\?
IMI
-v z
Z /
•?? ?,? , II I I tit'.. - `\ \ \
0
0
a`.
J
I
cr)
r
..C
N
N
LLI
ll.l \ \ \ \I ° / 1 I ?{i Des/ 1 \\ \1`I, III, `\ `\`
1 cn L /pa z I \I \,` \\ I 1 111 / . \1 ?\ \\\\ C11'ti \
1 J
00-
\ yI\?\\? "s,r wit
\J\ ?j I i r,' , - `•IS!%y SAS ,II 19
\\ \ \ \ \\ \ W ( I I 1 II
- - \ `\ \ \\ I \ 1 ? 111 J\ I I\ \ I / i I
\ I ` ' 1 \I ` \I \ ?' 1 I I 'I ' I
1 \ \ f?k?jr`?\ `\ \\ Illl 11 \\ 1 t r I / _ I , \_?
11 1111 W { lh / - ' n ?? I
I / l \ X \ if
I I /- <\ I I uli 11 1, \ 111
11\` d ' 'j' !
?, /' , 1 - \ , ' ,li ,\ f 1 \ I I \\\TTTYY?yy -1\ ' 11?
II / ,' ' 1? ? \. 1 \ \t 11 11 'III 1` 1 II \, 1 ,' ?`' , '?, J,? I l
71
` I , , I I \ , , I III 1 11 1 , , \ - ?,
, \ r / , ' / kl I I I II 1 11 \ I It ? la!
I I r I
t \ Ill p, 1 \ 1 / ../ \
1 \ I k-?X?x_1J ' I 1 II ' I
it
I - ? ? _ ? I `\ 'III
lil;nu'IL /? \\ \
I l t _ -
9 133HS 33S 00'00+1717 1- 3NIIH:)IVW
/CI/8
4°d•b-dZ89C9\rjtwl.d\PPoo\ltlno
81
SNOISLUS
A/L
Z
3
W
Z
?o
o?
z
0
a
0.i
a=
ag
a
0!
--- ?k
??.5
?_.. x
> 60!
K
o
J 1
e

I
I
I
u "? 1
N ? k
J
C
U
3?so

N
Z
W J Q
2
U
W

001

L

ES CIVN N
o
N

7///
I?
II
I
I
I I
? I
I ?A I
I
1? I I
?WIA I
I11`I1

W a"Ft
c ? n \
L'
/
/V
? x x
b
o
I I w ?4
1 d 1a
_ F-
_
I- CL
' 'L-
LO W
U? Z
05 z
U
8 FZZ
I Ie'
I
1
I W
y 1 Q ?a ? °
?I
I a
0
W
LU
Q 0.
%'p Im J
Q Z
ca z
i- ?
= N U
Z C)
J Z
J_
L1. N
0

?\1
sc
s
15

0
Q_
J
i
0
n
m
.L
h
m

w
? N
W
Q
JD ?W

LL7,
?U {
L, tn
o? o" oz
3
z z z
0 0? v? ou
#

2? #
!
#
w

\
y ?\ `\ dNS
x9b
\\ ? OOO
. SO
ycd'PL°1bC9\cltwa?d\PPoo
3£'61
C3I ?,
gx
xC ? ,
-o ?
4
N C
x a' N
0
0
soi x?
IP
u
I
t-
SNOISMS

r,
0
.J
V
1 - -$ - \6\
I I _
£8 - -
GVN

0
IL
J
0
Ln
m
b
L
m
d
N
1 I I ww
` \ / 1 / / / ' 1 1? 1, 1 I III , W yG'/ r
1" ,' 11 / r I 11 ,/ LL V
Ln
N? lnLLa, ?O
11 ? ` ? 1 \ III V 4 ? W ? µl K ? ,Z
( , O ON O
/' r - ? 1 1 1 ?- I OZ OZ ?V
1` ..l
Z LU
w
5
y, ? ??s? ? 0 Q na..
%'0 ui -j
Ie4
00. D
00 = qi
60 u
LL.
4C, U)
/
10 ENO, ?. In,
J /n t 3? `
L1 1 /l/ I `v.? I
N 7../ 1 nr I \ - I
'? ? ?? ° I I l/ ' I W '( k
go/
O \/ \ 4
IZI
" 1 1 ' I? up ' I I I , 1 /
L_ J I S ? 1 I I I r'?y --"
1 I 1 .? `? ? W r t ' I I ?q
JI 1 / I \ I \
I I . VI , ? I I ?.?i ,y ?
I -
dN
d 123
rl"II w __©,0 o
1
I ? k J.V? • I O
"Lo LU _j
Z:Q
I 1 ?35?
?e _- - \ \\ o_ -? \1 I X11 ? \ U ? `\ I
I \ \ _ _ ? \' vas ?? / I I ,, ? V"? _I• _ I
, ` ? S??? ?? I I J _ - _lL - _ ?' - `'.ice •\..\ /
\ •. i '?, // ? ? I III I ? \ \ II
?` N 1 III, I IIIII I ' /
Al ,I w IJ /r / ' r
f>fLl/8 I I 4cd'[?L°Jbf9\gtWJad\PP°?
I LS'bl
b

4r
o L

a?
a?
04 8
z
,.a x
kJ' s
a
ozr
0
?Nt?N?l`iW
s ?p.Opk?Z?-dls '_ a
tt ???S ?? I I 1 v E
t I.,r
a
S//

?s
8
?I
I
?o I
tL ? W I
N I
ig ?p11EEW ???
1
' I
w I
y` ? Q
' Jt3 _
? Q?o? r 3 I

I ? ? II
I ? II
I Lu
I I --
I
?- ) 0 r---
?M. ?
II QQ
I
I
I ? o
Cl)
W w `
o• ?
y /
/' / ?% ? YO?pO?a? II to I •? //
W I
S ? I
t I
oil
aO W
M ,
pis ? 3x?.???y`iw
S 3s 00.00k 601
6 .0?H
C
Z
g` z
W J
J_
!L
0
t.=
0
J
Ln
s
in
0
0
Ih
1L1/© I I ysd•I-99CZC9\c?cw»d?PS°01
m
NB

0

-416
it
I rrt ,
?I 1
I I' _
1 ?} Q
O ??/ wzw'r_
rev-
,I
W I ;I
J / I
J_[] ? I I?, ? ?fl
O I ?' u r 1 ?; I
A? \ I ii
i ? ?n0 % /aye ? • ' ?-(76? _ I ,' ' I
_ 1 ? o 0
1 \w II
I \ ` ,I
I
/? OpWw_ f I / 4 ..1
1 ? ,' I I
1 I y i
l? -57 ? \ V I I I
1 I i l l . I I
____` \ 1 W I I '''I I
I II \
? I I I I \
` ( / ? ; III, I Iw f
Oil
-A 0-

11
1
1
fq! I
1
I d
I. ?

6 l??NS 3s CL 13
- ---' S pp.00k601
o?
Z
?
:`!5, Z_
W J
J
tL
a
0
1.
J
L
?°
0
a
s
N
a
a
N
v.d'I_99CZC9\.jt.
z
O 7
O
W o
¢
E
, -- co
Cq -4
- 00,14-
O
c
>
a
.
CO M
zx z?
IL c -j
x Q
F
. USN
O
Q
N
H
Q
U? G
z 0 co O
Q

0
ca w
z H c"

-)O
U) 0
Q
a
mx
w
Q a cn

z

?6 CU C)

C
0
Em

E
o
C
c o
C

E N .?
O
O
W
O
O 7
r Q
V)
F-
?

N
v E
v m
C d

LL
LL
LL E w
6

- 7
v

0

m E
MO
L O
O C

CD
Q
m

a
n
d

?i

(U 4t

N ? C

O N N ?
? v O
Z ?

F-
U rn??
w
? v ° M ?
?_ a? c
o
N
? w v E
W
Q

W W
U
d (n O
UQ

? N •- to
C
U
m O
O
O
O
O
- 0 O O O O
ii
m
?
C U
CO N m O O O
O O ?
=
U v O O O O

Q N ?
`- L N
v O O O
? ? aviU?
U
F- a r -
Q O
L D vi
? O O

F-
Z m
U o
X
W c }
? W co
w ? = v Z

Z E? m w o

Q
w
l
S N O
c -°
C
O
Z
N
W
O O Q O O

` C m m C m co m
U
iv
3
3 "O }
G
3 C
3 e
3 e
?
N V m m m ? M co
'o m
m m M

N

Q' wS dS W ?' 0.3 J ? KS
O
O
p J J
?
? J
O J O O
Cl)
E O O O O N N ? W
m 0 Q1 n (D
t O V) N N
l Cl
t O O t W
N n O N N n C
) co
_
LL. J N N J J N ..J O J !? ? (n
J J J J J N

F-

?°
Q
m
O
Y
W
C?
Xk
O
? N

?-
U
cu
N
N
E C
L ,
? N N r
iE `-O V O O
Z N
U
H
Q
a
? c r o 0
_ N m O
N
? W
U E
W

Q

W LL
U
UQ O_ U
C v O O
1? (u
Z)
U)

c ? o 0
0

m
c
C0 N
a? O 7
=
U o

Q N

0
LO

U N p O
O
? U N
N U ?
U
F- N
Q a o?
O > o0 0
? z L) O O
g W c
W
?
W _ N
(L
QZ Ev
? o 0
J

W
N
c °
C
_ c4 N
N
O
N
O
O
j? O O O

N

cu o_

LL
a

U
T
7 F..
O
Q'
N D tt
N fn O CN

C ? r
~

C) + W
=
N
v J
J ? Q
O
=
F- h'
F-
a
J
W
(n Z
O ?
a
\h dreunI\cadd\b3682.tsh ©9/08/
ZR:: OJE (C T 8.2261201 3602
0 o a
? ul
o w w
O n
T p m p
m
s
°
m
N
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
Z
n
H II II II II II II
v cn w cn ?O P w b
C O Ul N N a
0 . O O
O O ; M,
X cRo
g `m O m O O Q
F? m
ao ?'??,, N ? ? o, y
oa
?N N
N ? w -
O 4
CJ ?.'
N
A W - w
u u u u u
O
'4 -4
W W
3. 3. 3.
o '
1
cl C:
b
O 7i o ?I
A N to ??
?... R O j
?D stn n ? ?
V
Fl 1
m
n
'C y
t
VJ y
x
'a a
8.7326024
3413
y
CA
Z
90
N Z
=N
p2 Z
N 0
rn C
2g n
0?
90
v 0
C
1 Z
O
m
'u -
s r s"
w ? a r?
z ?r
10
$ ZZi
alp
0 O
g o
Z z
T
? a m
v Z
P $0
1+
AA
PP P
++ +
c4i `? °o
?-rL ?-
?3 T) T)
ZZ Z
T
O?,
A
C.
O
ZN W
w N
s
N A

N
V
+
O
O
O
O
m
Z
p
0
A
N
W
N
A
w
_Y

1 ' 0-

/
0
-
?U
4

P
?
w
A I"
Z
a
iw
P P
?
?$ $ a 0

l
I
mm
vv m
v

Z -p
A DZ c? ?
P v R, 4
+ O ° F

S
Z
ZE 3
N
p N 0?
O ? W N
O
?
N w
A
N
W

?-
Az
on
++ 0
O Z
0
N
O
+
O
44
y h
'C O
O
O '
W ?
N
b G7 w ?
C) W
47 O
V
C ? x y
v
V?
CO)
y Z
os
y
NAD 83
Z
v
n
0
z

Q
?U
L?7
Y Cr
;a
o
a
X
?a
3 26
cn
a'
14 °D
'
N a n
N
P T
P
z. 4 b

N

W
Q°

A
b
N
w
J
w
?
m ?
m p
O

I
i
P
a
y
23-NDV-20
e04,peh
i ?
> U
O O
VU y O
? O
O r
ca
O U -?
O
o n
F Ai
y
a
N
>
N
.30
O O
r ?
. D
A a
-1
" O
0
-1
A

?
0
0
N
-1
a
0
0
-1
y N
m m
m la
N cn
=' 7"
m 0
0 rt
q. N
0 0
1 '1
r
O O
m ?
REVISIONS
PARCEL I WAS REVISED TO SHOW NO CLAM. THE OWNER'S NAME WAS CHANGED ON PARCEL J. THE AREA OF PARCEL 3 WAS REDUCED. ROW MARKERS WERE
REMOVED ALONG PARCELS IAND J. THESE REOUESTS WERE MADE BY DN ROW (7-28-09). PJP 8-26-09

? N

D
D I

°) I
N+ O

O
+ I

O
?
O I
O O
O O
r

j
I I
m
m

? z
Z
I I

ti p

D
1 .
I
,n?'Z4Z
4.6U .Li .O N
T m
0 D
Z //m 0 T

w
I Zt
I

f (
"? y 1.1

IJ l
I I N
< A

? ti
rn I•
? W r
I
iv r
a I
p9
l m? , c
x

b

? ?4
6 I I ,S4'ZCZ
t. Ltl Ol UI .L Z'0 4.00192.0 N
0
$$
O • O
r
m
tp m
n? m
LAI
N
C ? Ul
? I
? Y
I N
o ?
W p
?- r
r
b
?p
N
r

1 8/17
:opv
? utupll I
k v1?l.?pQ tl
W 8??
?y
r-
NAD 83
/5
... .. . ... . .. ...
1I
A
LO_41 Y ,oa_ - J , '? Rmi
1 ? `4
?Aa ?j 2
MATCHLINE -L- 19+00.00 SEE SHEET 5

8 f
z -
?
r
? 4
a r ? ?

(?
z Z
y In r
REVISIONS
CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE OWNER NAMES ON PARCELS J AND 5. PARCEL 6 WAS CHANGED TO PARCEL J. THESE REQUESTS WERE MADE BY DN ROW (7-28-09).
PJP 8-26-04
10:36
:odd\b3682e05.pnh

N a N
I
> r
m> n ? ° s° 2
t ? O
Sm
? ?
o
a
n
r N 9 w
r
?
A o f
n
A wm 6o'i
o
° b
• D ?
n

O L
Y Y Y
A
O
A O O L
_ = S N
7 >
?l. ? > V. U1 Y> O
p?? O O _.. p y y r
pN?n00 I,._ OCr
O O N-! H
II?? .y
N A A N N 7 >
* ~ ~ N U O a
8V OO N
u ? O
f- r /' Or NOT
1 O ,O r
r ~ ~ ? X77 p
N
-1
N
O
s 'Y
?s
?S m°
?mY
HN?-
Sv
$? I
L
0 0.5' uln.
i
l?
N
0
ti
O
N
N
0
r
7-
m.
J r9.
F
7/
??ATCHLINE -L- 19+00.00 SEE SHEET Q
ra ? 1
O PR \\
1 y
S
A- I
1 '
1 ? I
1 K I
1 ? 1
mATCHLINE -L- 31+00.00 SEE SHEET 6
?J '11
I
11
r- ° o
1 °
Nw \ / 1
1! '1r (f
r 4.1 I x> r 5
( x
As
NAD 83
rn?
a
m m.0
m ?o
a
y
O
2
ti
?z
-c
?ro
r
l?
r R
6ppp l?
'a 4
?n
REVISIONS
REVISIONS WERE MADE TO OWNER NAMES ON PARCELS 7,8,8A AND I3. ROW AREA WAS REVISED ON PARCELS 8 AND ll. REVISIONS WERE MADE TO THE TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON PARCEL l3. PJP 8-26-09
4 I D
6
\...
\cof d\b3682?06.p5h
MATCHLINE A- 31+00.00 SEE SHEET 5
o?
r ^
I i
M rl( ? '>? I f
I?=1 1 I
r ?? I
\ m
\ g I
\
h e I ? I
/ ? m 1
a
? r
I A \
I I '' - I
-c r
I oil, (cm
lo.0 s .
2 IE L

c? AA I
r
? C.I I I P ?
Vl
x

f ?
`ra
a
II a m,?

? a

?? Q O N?a ?gp° I
r I

b I
n
nz I ?d I
f ?
s. p ? I
g I
R
`?" Q Q m
Q
QQQ ? ?? m I

a ? E; 4
a r
N
(D
W
rn
CD
tJ
w
0
i
O
W
I

3m ??
r
I I
I L4
I
?m
N 6nlA'06=E r
1
31
c$$? /
MA
mf- O
r 888=? /
I
Ntr 70
r A
o
Z
bQ
N I
r
t
, X, ? ,, '-'\
.9Z'g2N > -3Tor-
a ?Y -?
ut
?? +tiII bum
? ttF?HNO

m°
O
in VI`
uuiTS-
i
.A VpN a \ \
"' l.u
D-. 'a I% r
V A IvC 4Y 1 ry
rYj??///Q c N
\ f7/ ??(n
\? 4i35 a to/
P /
\V? (JI o
PT51 15 79
N, o
i ti e oA
m?,o -irOPb
it It It ° u
_?v o
t? t4 A
N r
r
1 .evu N r N ? i o I N ? ? \\? \ ? ? / /
I I
I C \
m ? W
N?
to
I
?a
I?
Im Jf.7
I ? O
I I ? "+
? q g? O
I O
pp?li I O
I .1 I
I ?? 1
m
4 I ?
I g
At Z
I -n
t D
Ig
I I
V° n r [1
I N
I ?
I
I r {Q N
rn4, CA)
r I
I. I
J

I V

r
1
II
t
a o
I ??? $ r ? r I
?
m lal
Yg
,I
a t?
m
u,
$ 100.00 SE
r Mp,TCH1-1NE -L-
Vl I L7
nO ?? es? r
\ a ?
1?
I ? y \
\ A

-I F I
-1
0 \
\

co ca
(A)
Z
y o
\
O N -f- P s
$
a , r?i
O O O
`g b ,n tynm N
?
- 0 v 9 °Dm
~ p y?
93FjS
(
I 1
r- cl >
I R
r
" ?
m U Z
t Ny
o'mn
' y
> u0?
y
O
m I l
'
i
y $ ,, x Cf

4 a s

0 m m

m

?

_y

0

0
z O o y t
0 0,

T ;
D > =
m I
A m
?
-u 0 -u
a
0
a. m 0 I
m m
17 s
9 Y
m c

N
N 0
g _
I g
(A)
t7T
CW.) y
N 3
I
4 N'
N wp,u
° t• ?' ?a m
u o0
w p
I ?r'- m
N N A. o 00000 +?tn
° '` I om-4
?' y y.j y NCn
= O Nr..
_ 0 0 o yF
i
s s"
y I
o
N q?
N •-?
O O"O n
? y
3iy

0.5'Yh
I= r r o g:; ; -' LO'1bc

NAp 83
W
0o
gg

N N
N8
a a

r
1

-Y-

NIN
om
•a a
t
I L2
A
M
y
m
g
R°
i
m ???oD
u r M ? 11 u1n
RNI nCA r!
8
b
g ?
?r
az
az
1.1
or
`z
8/17/9
91,
mIU
a
m?
REVISIONS
THE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT WAS REVISED ON PARCELS Y AND 13. THE ROW MARKER LOCATION WAS MOVED ON PARCELS BAND 14. ROW REVISIONS WERE MADE
ON PARCEL Il. THE OWNERS NAME ON PARCEL 13 WAS REVISED. THESE WERE DIV REQUESTS (7-23-04). PJP 6-Z6-04
23-NOV-2004 10•
ri\hAdr...?\co• \b3682a07.pah -
MATCHLINE -L- 44+00.00 SEE SHEET 6
A'r ? I I
A
• ?? ?' 1 I n PSI
- • 0-0 = I I
p?z ° t !
\ mW-4 I I
`? W T I PAn
y U
-1 o y 1 y? -1 \
V 1 ;
I \
r`
rrA \
SOS ? S1.M N \?
w
4\ '
I ` O\
Q '?5i•y `Cf
p a 4 ? ° ? o ??1
A
y.l aZ y61 ??
? = 4 / isra
r
a > v ,y be i' I
an
o S u ? Oj ?
?i U t o > ; s
2 r
o? x
° F
R
or r
r r Z ? o
ri ? y'g9 . es a: rrl
T y »,2?.90.22N ..
O o , O'6SI
4
C7l
?r
I
Ln ..
r
I
r
I
\
1
\
\r
v o
A r) $
? r
I
t
9 v Y - - - -i - - - _- - 7] u9,u
m .p W I
y `"? ACA k k k ? O f? I
N ? 1
>> i i z c [[? ? ? I
U N?? C N? d
0 0.° i^ kY ? k \ ? ?? m I
? .. ,. ,"n '^ as m ! Q
r ? o a4? .',. v. h? o> m N
F Y y Y9! o o _° I- Orrin\ / it I
00
'^?.? f 11 J I
tc7c
k I ?I
« N
80 k
? r O s_-" k g 0
1 \\ Q? µ !
\ \ a 1\
p \1
1 1 '? k '?` O
1
CA ^, , II
m
m
fA
7"
m
(.J
O
i
T
-0
U
47
0
I
I
x x
N
A

r
1 g?

?
O

og
\a ;? I
1 ?A
A? b `D
r I
? r
I
\ g M
1A 11 r
I
13
A
45
}Qn I I
V ?+
r
I
II G' 'r

i I
cz,

Q / o
` m
Q
1 ?? ?` I I
I ? )
I
I
I rn
?
c.
g A ?
O ?

?; o g
r L

1 •
Y /
V
z
X
11 II 11 II 11 M N
mw??wo? 1
??Q?oAOI 1
i O ?ts
m:0 -Ir-op v
? II II 11 II ? ?
InvNl`y(+o'
Rl Ol ly.Ln? 't'!l`71
8
N
Nqp 83
55
vl m
a ?/ A
0 (A
m?A
• ` N L
8/17/

N oo Ir \ (p r `n n
r (t

a Cc
a
0 fP'?. - ,q
r
• V -Ni ? y
t7
+
V 8 1 r
. oo
N/
N
N ; o
IL
?n
58+0p
M.9i.2 6?? ?r Z
.0p
???t zz
o
1
-
c'n .
so
REVISIONS
THE PROPERTY LINE ON PARCEL 19 WAS REMOVED. PARCEL 22 AND ITS OWNERS NAVE WAS ADDED TO THE PLAN. THESE WERE DN ROW REOUESTS 0-28-041. PJP 8-26-04
2 NOV-2004 10:36
rs.\hudr eu??\codd\63692s08.psh
0ooo
=LCC
1/.N NN
-1y-1y
f ' p44
00
DOO?
~~~ ~
0000
00~
-1ti-1-1
a a»
wm:o
•.
oggo
?r-r-rl
rP7JD
p
O
N
D
3
gi
O'
N
O
-yi
>
O
0
-1
p TDE--??

? rp '
Ag
rl
t r IN
co
W N
9 o y
[
l J4
? t?
a ai
P
t
i -+
?w
r
p ? m
r I
I
m
d $S
Sr61 84
W
f!
I
m 1
O
O
r
n 1A
C. o
0 ? ? y
m m
I?
1a
lTl
r
I+
cn

V1
W
V/
S
W
rt
0
i
i
-v
0
0
\
cn? P
O
---? 0.09• wiw TO
.aL
s?
1 g
m
? ? 9 \ ? 00 SEE SNE? 9
b
1: SIP,
90
m:7-Trop b
r
4Nb3
v
Nq p 83
95
?rn?yropv
C]u""r r"r ILI
In
b
E
M V
?z
a;:v `
W ??
3682,09.psh
cyp
coo
"iVIN
I I' 1=
a
A
O
L
N
-1
O
0
0
s
0
I
? A A
C t
j j
,o
30?
? -1 1
1 O ?
C a N
-1
a
I
=rte
,
f
CA
m
N
S
W
0
-o
0
+1
m
REVISIONS
PARCEL 2I WAS REVISED TO PARCEL 19. THE OWNER NAMES WERE REVISED ON PARCELS 19 AND 26. THESE WERE REOUESTS BY THE DIV ROW (7-28-04). PJP 8-26-04
8/1
g
00• r
qbx ? O
SAP \ it L4
NAD 83
\ +' Ln
A
.p Lf ? v?, r
4 Ol + F \ \ 1
u ? O
------ "_ - zraa? c0
- - - - _ _ _ - _ N? + 2 co ??Iv
o- 0
L A'
?? ? ( I
? rn?tiropb
V ? ?? l? $,? II p 4 II II "N
pTSra. po+? ' ?, ? ' I ? g
Ln $ g ? $ g? I w r
M w
Ir 1
c .e1.o 5 ? s I A. 1 Ioe.,e'
5 ry59 ?•2 9• N • • ` ? _ ` ? I II ` A __ _\
5 !'06'19•, Y ,
.}, 125.37'
V v r
? g m N IP N1. p
Ml I A I p m C
a a' ? ? I ?. a s
i? X r g $? v, W4
9• Q1
y ?/ ?1 ?ay.IJI I ?\C (? g
)YC
lwc
_ s 7•57,13.M` 1 - r
175.961 . I .. ?,` I.) EIP? N m
bo O O O o.s ?, ,o p 1. I NoO?X N 9' 9,o•E
A M ti
?wN? ar- ? p i I t°O
as = co g f P
o
a??O Q g I I Al fn 1 a
? ? ? ? •?? 9p {( 6 _x•51' I'! 'WD
5 gl?'!5• pR? EIP,1.? 1p,
K /W
/? / 251.62' m I '? ? I Zr>? `F
I k 1.09 (R, W ??f o
X K Q Q * w Elp! I `? o O
f
E
rag, LX?I ?, ° I / I as ' m
Q n? I?
Y?g I g g / m f4
< ? ? I l o
aaa' ? _ ok' r m .._.
o I o, ?' h ( Xg
m,
0
a A $I °a?
I T /' A IC) I &g
10
9 ? r
XOO
00
7O
?z ?
?k of
W ??
REV SIONS
ADDED TDE ON PARCEL 34 AND J5 rREDUCED TCE ON PARCELS J3 AND 35 PER HYDRO REQUEST. 10-20-04 TCC
4 l VdG
\co d\636©2e10.p,h
E- 9
'p0 SEE SN
MA.?CHEINE 4 Sj.... 1 ,? ?' s blo
0
09+""
1 p}
Q
T +1 w
_ _
N N N
00 ?o
o "'oo 0
0
?1H,r-I
>y?q
00 0
?r
,
_°
IA N
H ?
ey
O O
O
~ y
00
00
>>
O O
rr
yr
v ~
»
.p N
4 4
N O
uo
?r
y
N
>
m ?
O
O
=r
rt
O
i
-o
a

RRp
1 ?
$ , iao

$
r o g ,

N ?
(A

O 4a V
v r
I
s$ r
I
I
I
1 ?.
v
1 '
w
?3p
V
4 p
RR
I ?
u, Qvg
418 l O
S7
r
-1 I$?
I
J-.9 r ? 1 I 1
Zl?
- _ rcyr
h
I
oV
4r )
7 Lq
? o
1A
;
a
ncy'E ? 1,
4a s
g
f
s? ? I o I
Cl $ ,
r??GRA. f - ?1
I
r
V A
+ VAi c
y ?Ib ? fn? 1' ? II ? II ? r
11
! ' 00 SEE SNE?
s? E, SSp`'
WGN?'11yE
120
r
O
v
? rn?-1?op v
ruullu"?
ybw rL
w
It t o o k 11o„ t`ly(4o
°i iNwcq
??NN?+toU,? r
w
E
i
?y
?z
[b
zz ??
REVISIONS
THE PROPERTY AREAS OF PARCELS 41.41A AND 418 WERE REVISED. THE OWNERS NAME WAS REVISED ON PARCEL 45. THE ROW MONUMENTS ON PARCEL 46 WERE REMOVED.
PARCEL 46 WAS REMOVED. THESE WERE REOUESTS MADE BY THE D/V ROW (7-28-04). PJP 8-26-04
2004 10:36
ou. L\codd\b36©2sl l.poh
AAx'A
N
N
I-1
-
iy
sari
o
$ ? ?
m
oo
o ?
oo?o ? I a
??
N
>
Goa
A>
>

aaoa
00 0
?? r o
A Y
raiV+a

\ ?? x

c
?
H q
r
>
= M G.4 m
u ? 4
}O p ti
r O
T
ti y

.'k4rcy`jN?
X0000
lylke
??? 9. ,» Il 70

A ? rM
I 30
?-1

1
O ?

u nj
r is d
Y
RR?R +? y

8
Y I

Ul
0

QQ ]a?
$ 10.00' 15• M ? N 1'
? 79, >
--?? IMia?31oro
?a
C57 qq
rNwol,
1
I
?J t I
?I Rx?
II a?
? 1I I
II ? Q
\ \ II
11
II I
s
O `? Q
0
N \\
o \ \ /
=r 4°u o \ \
0? \ \
"7 i \ \
s \\

o
g II
os w A
LOOOV+ c? c? ?
r+y
I
r
I
I m
C)
m H
Ir? s:
I

T?•
Jf P
\ ?g
8
I
r
I
n I nI?
V
? I
o
W
\ o
t
W O
,CrF?p I
r
I
1
i
A
M 4
N
?V N
+ V
O f
O O
OR
O O
I O
I?- I
r?
Z v
D
-a
2
m ?
O
m
n
W
N p
47 tl1
N ....
y
uu"u?4
6 NO ?? q I
``44 r

8 1?'i'J f

I Rr~ 'F

1I ? ?r Z?

NAD 83
W
O N
O
O O -'
O N
O W
O A
O lh
O
N
A r m p r °
N
fll
N
of
N
V
N
co
N
W
W
O
w
r
w
N
CA)
W
CA)
A
W
W
w cn
CD:
m
to
S
A
I
D
u
o
14 o:
C1: i
^O
?i
W.
co
GJ N
O O
Lt? 1 n

n z
Pl -24t50IJ00 ? 2
o
n El -/762 \ ?e a g
x
*
?S
li 4 II
° r
i x

g
-00 t.
o
? rn
g
c
~ O I
n Q Zs
5+50
i P/ =2
4j El - 1462

r g II

I?
.J
I?

1 r
I

1 V
1
1 m
1 r
I
?
?

M
c?
s
x
g
r r
I
n
w
r
(r
O
r
I
a
a
r
r
?o
1
2
n a
x
m g r
" m a
II
V
I
r O
D
m i
y
°
y ? g
SIR ° ?
O

r r „ U
V /340
?
1 b
O
y
'N
0)
Q) m
I
i 1

g 1
1

1
1 /8.83

r o ' 1
m I

D ;I
O ?
I I ??ms
N r7 ' I r

m
o
m
A

1 I K L4 t?, C4
oo m
? I
n
x Oo
?" 1
I
293
PI =34+00
g I E/ - 2/93

m I, I
1 ?
c,1
11 ^? PI -34+50
' I 2297 El = 2247

I
I 2259
I
23D9
2
0
Z
g
m
'I
I
II
I
?I
I
I1
1
I?
C$
I ?
I Zi 2177
II M M II
U?
2440
p O O O O O O
N
W
A
w
r 2
I ?
A n
? O
m x
r
11
? m
r-
L,1 n
to ?
? r
w
L. V

1
w
1
l
?
I
I I ?
I ?
1
J
1
1
1
1
1 ?
I
1
I
I

V '
1
I i
1
I
I ?
1
w
1
1
1
Pl= 18+00 '
co
EL= 20.33

$ I

I
W
N

Pl =1!
Cl) ?r t` R1
C " 1 Z
Ln
b
C
O
G7
rn
Q)
`2
S
m "P" -
? II II
n r II
.a m
Z
O
rm
ti n
D
'I r r 'I
x
k
a
r
V f?
, yl
(D r r „ II
r n ,?
I n
A r?
?n
?x
E- AAp
II m ??r
V II r r 11
w?
E/ - !/JL
o Pl -19 NO N Pl -19+00
El - 16.40 ' I cl - OAQ
Q
'I
I,
PI =19+50 r 17.84
El = 17.84
I

?
o 1

1 1 1
I I?
I
i I\

N , m
-? r I I
I I
' o I
?
n O I
n
x I
? g I I
N
N
O
O
O N W
O O A W
O O
IL o r
I C) 1
N 2 ) 2 r 2
l*n
O
f?
D n
o rp o
T
n bo Ao A?

D
g
0
BII n
ti g
N m

II I
N A
a I11 '
1
i 97. TF,
N
W
R' m I I
a ? i I
N?
A
O
1
11
1
2045
O O O
11 ,1 I, 11
In??
r
I
n
r
A
i
0
i

O O
y

?
n
7 ?
2
rn rn
I
1 I

-I: -Immix a
Z
x r,, lq
m n'
Y II r.'Y II M II' Y M 2?'.
tib?bb`taob??
ul
rv
Z y
mprn
rn
x
o
N'
5/2
L O N w A U)
O O O O O O
vl 24612676 PI =52+00
N L El = 24,61
.I ?
?I

Pl- 53+00
w II EL - 2551

I PI =53+50
I
.I El - 245%
w
II
PI =54100
A
I El - 2454
I
Pl =55+00
Coll t EL= 2376
w
0%
PI =57+00

`4 El - 23J6
I
2061 ''
o
I
I A ?
I `? z

I g
?
1 II ?
?
1
1
0
1
i

0% i
I
0 1

o. 1
1
I

o• I
i
N I
I
w I
I

m
I
on
T
C
i
A
<v.
o
I
o
.
4
w
I
I

a I
1
P
p O
No (i
O O C
O O
X op?
r r
N N
u II u
R?
xn P -0 1
u n it r ?I rti
8 ??g
Cl
0
I
tr?
x a ?
In
mpm..
rn-
ml
I, _N
O O O O w A
O O U
O
w P4M
00 N? $ 23J8
I
a ?' 1 Pl =38+50
El - 2.40 >t c) ?
11
r II
?
*
II p
a
w Pl -39+00 u
) ?,
10 I El - 2223
N
0

2 I

r n o i
?A ? I
I i
'

m
r
r c?
a
g I b
I ?
I N
I
M ;
I

A ? ?

~
1
I

N I
II
1
I
I
1
Pl =42+50 I I
El = 2078
1
i

A 1 I ?
' I b
'

CA) y
? N
I
i
?t 18.41
mfr
° m I-! 0.83
? I 0

A Qw i Ln
g
? I
u ?

w c?
y
V

A
w
-b-
0%
A
14
A
W
A
10
' 24.38
r
I I

n I ;.
la
I Ln

? I
I
w
N I
I?
i I
I
1
PI-49+50
El - 2378 ,

r

o ?
a
o
? I

)
= Pl -50+50

?
22 U0
g El=
rn
/
)
El - 2226
i Pl -51+00
El - 24.61
C 88
w PI -52+00
N 24 12676 El - 2481
O O O O O O
0
Y u II It
N ?
2
0
??Ig

ED
0
W
oobmrnzxz?
_9 rn
?Er??Qmi r
mo'?I mz? ?nm.
m c
Y II Y Y IL Y It It Y ?:.. C
r\l
M- o
Y
rorr
? ? -
t.n?
It w

n?

* r 1 20,
g:
I

rnp?
N
? L
6?N
m
A

0 LN
n
i
Y r r to r
ly . A Y
)
)
a
I
P?pl :p X.
r q II Y b '.,
Pl =50+50
El - 2556
PI =50+87
I
I
? i
1
1 ,
I ++? rn
i
I
1 1
m ??Q$???rnl?
c? M nI M cn ?n ?n g
2 : y 9-4 o' I M t 2
L
c? i'z'tQ?`?jrnA 2
Z c?ci?KCnrn?oA
rt,
y?rn?1 4
a:.
11 II Y V '. r II II r'. II ? "

p
O O +O N
O w
U
I u
? O
I
Aga

g ? I ag?a?a?ar
R g I ?p??

"?Aa
o•uai
NMIr9S ?
1
- ?$?;e
?$??
N a- JaM
'
1 p
1
1
1

M?CNHO 1
1
1
?
O • S[Y
0
A

p?6.69 rr ..x.n
P V
„ $. I G

a• uo ,1 ^?Aa a
.1 sa -

d

, t
-.

a
l q
i
l
.
I
7
a.
? a • x+s
I
? I
1
a•?Y,OI ,
•N ?
R
;g f
s Q
u ? Y f
0 O O O O
p N G ?. u
p U O U O U
P
0
Y
??Aa V
P
zi
d
>s ?
P

p N G ? U
O O O O O O
O
I
1 ,
r
I
5/21
J -+ N W A. tli
o O O O O O
O
00
O
I
I
I
Oro
co
N
00
W
OD
A
co
w
co
of
O
V
00
co
0o
10
-0
0
?o
J
to
,0 m'
N EA
S
c:
D:
OD
O
n:
'O
W 13::
'i
?O
A
J
O
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r r I
I
C;l
ggi
? y I
A
i
'
?rI co

r
u ? ? C II
rz)
U)

32.!96 n
Ol O

PI -84f50
;
El - 3097 , v

" r 1 11
C
-rl
PI =84+95 V

El - 3056 I G7
I
I
I ?
1
I I

1
I
I
PI -86+50 r m
El = 3/.02 PI =86+50
'
- =j 2
-I
El
=III
,
n
PI -86+69 I PI =8667
El a 3/97 El - 3IB0 rn ?
t- I Pl -87+00 g
4 I El = 3/95

PI -87+50 I
El - 33J0 r

' I *
I ?

?J3A5 r z xn??
(
I
p p r 1
r
s
y
'
D
rz) pp
pp
I

O
g
r
1 (?
?l
'I W
I t
?I
PI =90+00 a
I u,
El = 3656 ' I
uu
? Q°

I
;I
II
I
PI =91+50 ' 14
El - 3521 '
I I
1 I
1
I
0
r
t
I
1
c
i
I
0
O
A
g
N
O
35.44
? rn
Z
A p
?g
r rn
A
A
r
I
D

r r " II

l 3469 ?o
3455 3797
_
W .+ CJI
O O

I
N?
U"
2
O
Z
m

J - N W A Cn
O O O O O O
O
0•

O• I

I
I

0% I
I
I
V
I
I

a I
I
co
I
I
I

0• I
I
I
?o
I

V I
I
O I
I

1 f
I
I

V I
I
I
N I
I

w I
I
I

V I
I
A I
I

14 I
to I
I

a I
I
I
I

V I
I
I
V I
I

V I
I
I
GC
I
I

V I
I
I
'O I
I

00 I
I
O

0 0 0 0 0
0

o

i z

m Z

I n

I
5/21
I? O J
O
O
O O
J

O
co

a v

; a

Pl -108+60
El - 2730
10?9 7. 3
\\
o P/ =/09+00
•o El= 3083
\
\
I I
Pl =109+50 ;
+
E/ = 33.00

J \
o II 46
r; rn
r
N
CA)
A
w
o?
V
m
0
N
O
N
J
N
N
Q:gg(?ggm°,°,°
?7 -r rn 2
ooo"''?'L{=ko
xx?x?r,
(TI
as 2 C
n
FTI
r' u r r h r n n'' r} ?,
wb.l.lrba?
II ?
y Zl
N-b
r I
77
rvrtl r•I In.cn vl L' .. :70 :yj
rl,mzt2?
Ri?rni?????n m S
[TI: C)
u' r r n ? u r ?'' u? ©.
.h:: V) Ln
PI =116+/5
El = 37.30
b
x{?o
r-q
a g
y'
a.mm ?
ii r n u r u r u u= O
I ?
? x
D ? I
i I
rg I
r
'II
'I I
I
"I
I?
?I I

'I
1

PI -119+22 11
;
El - 4020 I I
'I
I
11
II
I
II

Pl =120+50 I !'
El - 3982
PI -120+965
El - 3550
w
O
O
O
?o
A
tl - JJZU
PI -108-t.36

El -2825 m

rn rn
?a L
xz
? :,; Q 'n
m
?
cc?j'u01if??m ?{
-109foo
?
rn rn s
,o
El z
m4?rnA
-Z yr

° nz.?nrn

z
~ ~ n
?
t
u r q
S
?
Ql??? t't\?z
C?
?
h
j
u r r n r n r r u_? Q
rn
ll ti
)
A
o?
N w 0 V
L
V)

f=
'
m
? o.

I n
to

0 M'
?
D
. Or
?u ,
r
gN?w
=

° r
?
l
? $
r g
rL a m

1
?

p
Ol

j [
om
r? m
r Cl)
r- II
u u
O $
r g '' m
u
w m
? '
`a
n p
x
9
?n
s m

U
w

3697
i
g
r=
n
to
r
II
ti
2
O
n r
g
m
y m
r
V
it
r+?
0
r
r
t`
1
3982 n
N
550 Pl =/2/+00
El - 36DO
M
71, N-D
w
A. F2
b3
PI -122+00 1
El - 3864 3864 4138
:!O:
1

m
x
a
g

Pl =117+00 ,

'
rn
El - 38.00 i O ?e < rn
n ?„ II r

*
? c., ?

m g $
PI -u8+oo h' <m
nr-
El = 3860 ?
N xNw?

1
n
2
O
g

rn
G7
i
ry'
m
2 :-l ]j
-?
11 g
i
Q ?
2
LnN?
rn
I'D m
;x -,< r?
II „ „ II
,o
V
?o
?o
10
0
O
0
O
N
0
w
0
A
0
w
0
O0
v
0
co
J N
O O
P.
i
. 1
r rri
? II

z
m

4.48
I
I
I?
'I
I
li
I.
I
I, I
I,
.I I
I
I
II I
I
I
A
? I\
I
Pi -101+50 r
.
El = 3373 I
I?
I?
Pl =102+06 ?
El = 32.C1J
PI =102+29
EI - 2925
?goooo
-,-,-,rnmz?r
?>G7G?? ?iR1Z?? n 2i R1:
rn o"ri rn Z z n rn
v'??nrna ? ?
o?';?c3~ 2
m n
u u u u u n u r n 2 ?
c ?c mw nN Q D
C', Ln
C., + Zu b 'r, b b A
i
O L4 O
9 3797
\
34J2
I ° , I
n°?I
w? ;I
? ? II
m ;I
N ;I
I I
. I
II

LIT
O
II r II II
?nrn -0
-?rru
Aff??wV
u6`'kQ O
$
t? rn
I ?
cn x
n ?
PI =97+20
El - 37.45
PI -97+50
El - 3686 I, m
v

Pl =98+50
El = 3530

r ?

I

u„„r + J vl

Ul
,
\

Pl =100+50
El - 3470
I
m
" r r ' I

A x ? O $
r

m
r ? `O
r
w ?

PI =103+50
E/ = 3489
r r r r
$
Pl =105+50
El = 38D9
4
C'
m
,o
-O:
0
7
CD
r m
r? x
no
a? ?
?g II
?? ll
'I
;l I
? 1 1
Pi -106+50
El - 37.88
a,
CQ r ?.
ai : i'.
rt, _
`Q I
8
59 y
r
? b
20 Pl =108+00 C
3778 El - 3320
O O O O O
o I
I
I
I
I
I
I rI co ril
I II
N I C4
I cn:]b
I g
I b
I O
W
A
Ul
O?
I N
m.
iiW!IL
b;

ryl N
r rr, ry, In !°q °
?1 ?.? mmA 2 2 2
b b?? A Z p? m ?
c ?c2i?? `?m? 2 Rl.
mg'?r*????4n
nT (?
fl'Il 'r 11 r II II r II ?
. INJI.?:? A ?N4. d ? b. O 0
P ?o
u
?g
m
0

i,
O O -+ N W A
O O O O th
O
N PI -122 t00
41.38
N t
El = 3864 *
3884 ` C) ? m
i i

z

L4 m
1 I

' I

N
A I. I

I I
? ?e ? rn b

° u u r
fir"
I I
' A Q n'
?f 1Xi
N
Ul
N
a
co
N W:
h
`D
-n
Q:
7
V

? Q
`i

Z

?
m Z

m
I

a?
ar
El = 39B3
11
Pl -125+00 i I
8
P/ -125 t00
El - 3962 i I El - 3959

(I I
?
n o
?
I
I I
$
?
x

t I r g
I
Y r
38161 3895
I Z
N O
n
n
41B8
m Z

?g

II ?
i
rtI

?
?lob
N
g
a

I-
. ?TA7',
.ti}
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
September 13, 2004
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Request for the following projects:
WETLANDS 401 cRcup
SER 9 0 200,1
WATER QUAL17-y SECTION
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 3 over Little Northeast Creek, in Onslow
County, Division 3, Fed. Project No. BRSTP-1423(3), State Project No. 8.2261201,
WBS Element 33224.1.1, TIP B-3682.
Proposed widening and realignment of SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road) from SR 1411
(Waters Road) to SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop), in Onslow County, Division 3, Fed.
Project No. STP-1423(2), State Project No. 8.7326024, WBS Element 35052.1.1, TIP
W-3413.
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) provide confirmation that the EEP is willing to provide compensatory mitigation for projects
B-3682 and W-34!3 in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22,
2003 by the USACE, the NCDENR and the NCDOT.
The purpose of roadway improvement projects B-3682/W-3413 is to increase the level of safety
associated with the facility. Roadway improvement project W-3413 is located adjacent to the
proposed bridge replacement project and will be included with B-3682 for permitting purposes. The
current let date for the project is 3/15/05.
The 2.0 mile widening project, W-3413, proposes to improve the horizontal curvature of SR 1423
from SR 1427 to SR 1413 in Onslow County. This project crosses three intermittent unnamed
tributaries (UT) and one perennial UT of Horse Swamp.
The bridge replacement is necessary because Bridge No. 3 has a low sufficiency rating and due to
it's location on reverse curves, it is proposed to relocate it approximately 80 feet south of the existing
bridge. The bridge project, B-3682, crosses Little Northeast Creek, located in the New River and
Tributaries Subbasin 03-05-02.
r" It
RESOURCES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404 AND 401 OF THE CLEAN
WATER ACT.
We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible. The remaining impacts to jurisdictional resources will be compensated for by mitigation
provided by the EEP program. Permanent impacts are associated with W-3413 only. TIP B-3682
only has temporary impacts that do not require mitigation. We estimate that 0.14 acre of
wetlands and 0.05 acre of stream will be permanently impacted with 270 feet of stream channel
impacts. There is estimated to be 0.17 acre of temporary impacts.
The project is located in the Coastal Physiographic Province in Onslow County in the White Oak
River basin in Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 03030001.
• The wetland impacts, summarized in Table 1, total 0.14 acre of palustrine: forested broad-
leaved deciduous wetlands. We propose to provide compensatory mitigation for the wetland
impacts by using the EEP for the 0.14 acre of impacts.
• The stream impacts, summarized in Table 1, include three intermittent UTs and one perennial
UT of Horse Swamp (DEM Index No. 19-16-2-1, 8/1/91). We propose to mitigate for the
stream impacts by using the EEP for the 270 feet and 0.05 acre of impacts.
Table 1 - Summarv of Jurisdictional Imnacts for W-3413
Permit Drawing CE Permanent Wetlands ac Surface Waters S
Station Site
ID Riverine Non-Riverine Fill in SW (ac) Channel Impacts

ft
I P I P
L 19+00 Rt UT 0 0.015 47
L 29+50 Rt WL D 0.048
L 25+50 Rt WL K 0.028
L 51+00 Lt/Rt UT 1 0.018 79
L 102+10 Lt WL 0.05
L 102+30 Rt . UT 5 0.008 39
L 108+50 LVRt UT 6 0.011 105
L 116+15 Rt WL P 0.018

TOTAL 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.01 165 105
I = Intermittent Streams
P= Perennial Streams
Please send the letter of confirmation to Mr. Dave Timpy (USACE Coordinator) at U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, P.O. Box 1890, Wilmington, NC 28402-1890. Mr. Timpy's
FAX number is [phone].
JOW 1
?' I /"??
?U? Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Br,:nch
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be pertormCLI; the NCDWQ requires a
formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the mitigation work
requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests such a letter ofconfirmation be addressed to NIr. John
Hennessy of NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Cheryl Knepp at
(919) 71-1489.
Sincerely,
cc:
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Dave Timpy, NCDOT Coordinator,
Wilmington
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Ms. Cathy Brittingham, NCDCM
Mr. Bill Arrington, NCDCM
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Ms. Jackie Obediente, PDEA Project Planning
Engineer
Mr. John F. Sullivan, III, FHWA
Mr. H. Allen Pope, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Mason Herndon, Division Environmental
Officer
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Ecosystem Enhancement
Michael F. Easley, Governor
October 1, 2004
Mr. Dave Timpy
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office fj'
Post Office Box 1890 - v
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Dear Mr. Timpy:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
OCT 1 2 2009
?1'ER RtV#,CH
At p Mo TORR,VTER BTM
B-3682, Bridge 3 over Little Northeast Creek, Onslow County
W-3413, Widening and Realignment of SR 1423 from SR 1411 to SR 1427,
Onslow County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
proposes to provide preservation to compensate for the unavoidable 0.05 acre of riverine wetland, 0.09
acre of non-riverine wetland, and 270 feet of stream impacts of the subject project in the following
manner:
Wetland Preservation (10:1) in same eco-re ig on (0.5 acre riverine and 0.9 acre non-
riverine - 1.40 acres total)
Wallace Deer Club, Tracts 1-2, Pender County
Stream Preservation (10:1) in same eco-region (2,700 feet)
Wallace Deer Club, Tracts 3-5, Pender County
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The
compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance with Section IX, EEP Transition
Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
[phone].
?fSincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3682/W-3413
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer

North Carolina Department of Environment and
Michael F. Easley, Governor
October 1, 2004
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
Natural Resources
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
B-3682, Bridge 3 over Little Northeast Creek, Onslow County
W-3413, Widening and Realignment of SR 1423 from SR 1411 to SR 1427,
Onslow County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will
provide wetland and stream mitigation compensation for the subject project. Based on the information
supplied by you in a letter dated September 13, 2004, the impacts are located in CU 3030001 of the White
Oak River Basin in the Southern Outer Coastal Plain Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riverine Wetland: 0.05 acre; Non-Riverine: 0.09 acre; Stream: 270 feet
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
dated July 22, 2003. The ecosystem enhancement for the subject project will be provided in accordance
with Section IX, EEP Transition Period, of this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
"a AF??"a
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Dave Timpy, USACE-Wilmington
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3682/W-3413
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program One
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652 NorthCarofiina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/ ;Vaturally
10-08-'04 12:42 FPO11-DE11R EEP 9197152001 T-133 P03 U-311
IV47
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Ecosystem Enhancement
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
October 1, 2004
Mr. Dave Timpy
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Dear Mr. Timpy:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter.
E-3682, Bridge 3 over Little Northeast Creek, Onslow County
NV 3413, Widening and Realignment of SR 1423 from SR 1411 to SR 1427,
Qnslow County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
proposes to provide preservation to compensate for the unavoidable 0.05 acre of riverume wetland, 0.09
acre of non-riverine wetland, and 270 feet of stream impacts of the subject project in the following
manner:
Wetland Preservation (10:1) in stone eco-region (0.5 acre riverine and 0.9 acre non-
riverine - 1.40 acres total)
Wallace Deer Club, Tracts 1-2, Pender County
Stream Preservation (10:1) in same eco-region (2,700 feet)
Wallace Deer Club, Tracts 3-5, Pender County
The subject TiP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The
compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance with Section IX, EEP Transition
Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Nis. Beth Hannon at
[phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3682/W-3413
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1652
Phone: [phone]\ FAX: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer
OCT-8-2004 FRI 12:15 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWO-WETLANDS P. 3
r
WETLANDS / 401 GROUP
SEP 2 0 2004
r a s WATER QUALITY SECTION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
September 13, 2004
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Request for the following projects:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 3 over Little Northeast Creek, in Onslow
County, Division 3, Fed. Project No. BRSTP-1423(3), State Project No. 8.2261201,
WBS Element 33224.1.1, TIP B-3682.
Proposed widening and realignment of SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road) from SR 1411
(Waters Road) to SR 1427 (Grants Creek Loop), in Onslow County, Division 3, Fed.
Project No. STP-1423(2), State Project No. 8.7326024, WBS Element 35052.1.1, TIP
W-3413.
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) provide confirmation that the EEP is willing to provide compensatory mitigation for projects
B-3682 and W-3413 in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22,
2003 by the USACE, the NCDENR and the NCDOT.
The purpose of roadway improvement projects B-36821W-3413 is to increase the level of safety
associated with the facility. Roadway improvement project W-3413 is located adjacent to the
proposed bridge replacement project and will be included with B-3682 for permitting purposes. The
current let date for the project is 3/15/05.
The 2.0 mile widening project, W-3413, proposes to improve the horizontal curvature of SR 1423
from SR 1427 to SR 1413 in Onslow County. This project crosses three intermittent unnamed
tributaries (UT) and one perennial UT of Horse Swamp.
The bridge replacement is necessary because Bridge No. 3 has a low sufficiency rating and due to
it's location on reverse curves, it is proposed to relocate it approximately 80 feet south of the existing
bridge. The bridge project, B-3682, crosses Little Northeast Creek, located in the New River and
Tributaries Subbasin 03-05-02.
Jr
N
RESOURCES UNDER THE.iURISDICTION OF SECTION 404 AND 401 OF THE CLEAN
WATER ACT.
We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible. The remaining impacts to jurisdictional resources will be compensated for by mitigation
provided by the EEP program. Permanent impacts are associated with W-3413 only. TIP B-3682
only has temporary impacts that do not require mitigation. We estimate that 0.14 acre of
wetlands and 0.05 acre of stream will be permanently impacted with 270 feet of stream channel
impacts. There is estimated to be 0.17 acre of temporary impacts.
The project is located in the Coastal Physiographic Province in Onslow County in the White Oak
River basin in Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 03030001.
• The wetland impacts, summarized in Table 1, total 0.14 acre of palustrine: forested broad-
leaved deciduous wetlands. We propose to provide compensatory mitigation for the wetland
impacts by using the EEP for the 0.14 acre of impacts.
• The stream impacts, summarized in Table 1, include three intermittent UTs and one perennial
UT of Horse Swamp (DEM Index No. 19-16-2-1, 8/1/91). We propose to mitigate for the
stream impacts by using the EEP for the 270 feet and 0.05 acre of impacts.
Table 1- Summarv of _ nrsdictinnal Imnacts for W-3413
Permit Drawing CE Permanent Wetlands ac Surface Waters S
Station Site
ID Riverine Non-Riverine Fill in SW (ac) Channel Impacts
ft
I P I P
L 19+00 Rt UT 0 0.015 47
L 29+50 Rt WL D 0.048
L 25+50 Rt WL K 0.028
L 51+00 Lt/Rt UT 1 0.018 79
L 102+10 Lt WL 0.05
L 102+30 Rt. UT 5 0.008 39
L 108+50 Lt/Rt UT 6 0.011 105
L 116+15 Rt WL P 0.018

TOTAL 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.01 165 105
I = Intermittent Streams
P= Perennial Streams
Please send the letter of confirmation to Mr. Dave Timpy (USACE Coordinator) at U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, P.O. Box 1890, Wilmington, NC 28402-1890. Mr. Timpy's
FAX number is [phone].
P,
'4
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ requires a
formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the nuhgation work
requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests such a letter of confirmation be addressed to Nlr. John
Hennessy of NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Cheryl Knepp at
[phone].
Sincerely,
?U? Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis. Branch
cc:
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Dave Timpy, NCDOT Coordinator,
Wilmington
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Ms. Cathy Brittingham, NCDCM
Mr. Bill Arrington, NCDCM
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Ms. Jackie Obediente, PDEA Project Planning
Engineer
Mr. John F. Sullivan, III, FHWA
Mr. H. Allen Pope, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Mason Herndon, Division Environmental
Officer
a M STAT( o
b .?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Mr. John Hennessy
DENR
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
October 23, 2001
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
?I. (? L'u
i
RE: Agency Meeting: Review of preliminary plans and impacts for TIP Project No.
B-3682/W-3413, Proposed Improvements to SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road), from SR
1411 (Waters Road) to SR 1413 (Rocky Run Road), replace Bridge #3 on new
location, Onslow County, Federal Aid Nos. STP-1423(2) and BRSTP-1423(3),
State Project Nos. 8.7326024 and 8.2261201
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
Please find enclosed information for the upcoming agency meeting scheduled for
November 8, 2001. The meeting will be held at 1:00 p.m in the Photogrammetery
Conference room at the Century Center, located at 1020 Birch Ridge Road, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27610. This project is not going through the merger process, however, it
is requested that the agencies to review the preliminary designs for these projects, and
provide comments.
General project information and preliminary mapping for the subject project are enclosed.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone] or by e-mail at
jyobediente a,dot.state. nc.us.
Yours truly,
Jackie Obedicnte
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch - NCDOT
Enclosures
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: lM44V. DOH. DOT. S TA TE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Agency Meeting
TIP Project No. B-3682/W-3413
Federal Aid Nos. STP-1423(2) and BRSTP-1423(3)
State Project Nos. 8.7326024 and 8.2261201
Proposed Improvements to SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road), from SR 1411 (Waters Road) to
SR 1413 (Rocky Run Road), replace Bridge #3 on new location, Onslow County

November 8, 2001 at 1:00 p.m. .,,I
Century Center
Photogrammetry Conference Room
Purpose of Meeting:
This project is not going through the
merger process, however, it is requested that the agencies to review the preliminary
designs for these projects, and provide comments.
Agenda for Meeting:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Project Development Engineer:
Project Purpose and Need
Project Description
Wetland and Stream Impacts
Section 4(f) Concerns
Comments and Questions
Jackie Obediente
919-733-7844 ext. 228
jyobediente(a,dot.state. nc.us
Agency Meeting
TIP Project No. B-3682/W-3413
Federal Aid Nos. STP-1423(2) and BRSTP-1423(3)
State Project Nos. 8.7326024 and 8.2261201
Proposed Improvements to SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road), from SR 1411 (Waters Road) to
SR 1413 (Rocky Run Road), replace Bridge #3 on new location, Onslow County
1. Project Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed project is to-increase thel safety associated with the
facility by upgrading the roadway to AASHTO standar s improving the roadway's poor
horizontal curvature at select locations, and replacing Bridge No. 3, a structurally
deficient bridge that lies within the project limits.
According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance records, the bridge's sufficiency rating is
19.9 out of a possible 100.0. Because of this low sufficiency rating, and because of the
bridge' ocation between reverse curves?l it is proposed to replace Bridge No. 3 and
- cate )it approximately _80ft soutFi 6Tthe existing bridge. ,
ups , t There were 38 total accidents reported along the project section between July 1, 1995
and June 30, 1998. The overall accident rate during this period was 505.2 accidents-per ?o,npn-o?
100 million vehicle miles (acc/100MVM) compared to the statewide average of
6 262.01 acc .100MVM for urban two-lane secondary routes. Further review of the accident
data reveals that 68% of the total accidents were ran-off-the-road accidents. Also, 46%
of the total accidents occurred at night. Because the accident rates along this facility are
high, the proposed improvements will straighten these curves, therefore reducing the
accident potential. ?? "'?'
II. Project Description
The proposed improvements include providing additional pavement width along
SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road) from SR 1411 (Waters Road) to SR 1413 (Rocky Run Road)
at select locations, and improving the horizontal curvature of the roadway where the
design speed of the curves is inconsistent with the design speed of the overall facility.
The existing roadway will be upgraded to current AASHTO standards at certain locations
within the entire project limits. Because SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road) is a designated
bicycle facility, the proposed improvements will be designed to accommodate bicycles as
well. The project is anticipated to require additional right of way, however, no relocatees
are anticipated.
1

2

n z_

-v
0
a
N
1 ?1
C
The existing roadway, which is a two-lane paved facility with pavement varying
from 18-21 feet, is characterized by tangent sections with abrupt transitions to sharp
curvature and "broken back" type curves. The existing horizontal and vertical alignments
are poor. In some cases, the curvilinear alignment conforms to the criteria for a 35 mph
design speed or less, versus its statutory posted 55 mph speed. The bridge is located
between reverse curves with a 7 degree +/- on the west side and an 11 degree +/- on the
east side. A slight downgrade exists at the approach of the bridge over Little Northeast
Creek from the west side, and a slight upgrade leaving the bridge on the east side.
Because of the sharp curvatures and abrupt transitions at the bridge approaches, it
is proposed to relocate the new bridge approximately 80 ft south of the existing bridge
(existing centerline to proposed centerline). Traffic will be maintained on the existing
bridge during construction, therefore no temporary detour bridge will be required.
III. Wetland and Stream Impacts
A. Total Stream and Wetland Impacts
Please refer to the attached figures to view the preliminary design and the stream and
wetland impacts.
Total stream wetland impacts are summarized in the following tables:
Table 1: Stream Impacts
Stream Name Impacts- ft (m)
Little Northeast Creek 0(0)
UT 0 25(7.6)
UT 1 78 (23.8)
UT 2 75 (22.9)
UT 5 54 (16.5)
UT 6 90 (27.4)
Total 322 (98.1)
A total of 322ft (98.1 m) of streams will be impacted by this project.
3
F,
A
T
A- z
c
-a
0
F V

1y
iJ
F
Table 2: Wetland Impacts

Wetland
*
Impacts -'
Impacts Under Bridge -
Name
Wettand Rating ft (acres) fts(acres)`
Wetland K 42 1165(0.03) 0(0)
Wetland L 59 0(0) 637 (0.0146)
Wetland F 24 0(0) 0(0)
Wetland D .33 2600 (0.06) 0(0)
Wetland E 33 0(0) 0(0)
Wetland A 59 0(0) 1500 (0.034)
Wetland B 29 0(0) 435 (0.01)
Wetland }1 42 0(0) 0(0)
Wetland M 39 450 (0.01) 0(0)
Wetland N 39 155 (0.0035) 0(0)
Wetland Q 40 660 (0.015) 0(0)
Wetland P 40 600 (0.014) 0(0)
Total 5,630 (0.1325) 2,572 (0.0586)
* The DWQ rating scale gauges wetland quality using a numerical rating system
(1-100 with 100 being the highest value).
A total of 5,630 ft2 (0.1325 acres) of wetlands will be directly impacted, while
shading impacts resulting from the proposed bridge are 2,572 ft2 (0.0586 acres).
Anadromous Fish - Little Northeast Creek is listed as an Anadramous Fish Spawning
Area 2.43 km (1.5 mi) downstream from Bridge No. 3. Anadramous fish are those which
spend most of their life in the ocean but return to their natal freshwater streams to spawn.
Little Northeast Creek converges into Northeast Creek 6.2 km (3.8 mi) south and
downstream from the bridge. Approximately 1.9 km (1.2 mi) downstream from this
point, Northeast Creek becomes a Fish Nursery Area. Anadramous Fish Guidelines will
be adhered to avoid potential impacts to these fish.
Best Usage Classification - According to the DWQ, the best usage classification of Little
Northeast Creek (DWQ Index No. 19-46-2, 8/1/91) is C NSW. Class C waters are
suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation,
and agriculture. The supplemental classification NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Water) are
waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs. No water resources classified as
High Quality Waters (HQW's), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW's) are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area.
CAMA - The subject project is located within a county that is under the jusridiction of
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). The North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management (NCDCM) visited the project site on November 21, 2000, and determined
that the subject project would not be under CAMA jurisdiction.
4
1. Impacts from Bridge Demolition
r Removal of Bridge No. 3 may cause impacts to water resources. The
superstructure for Bridge #3 is composed of a reinforced concrete deck and deck
?r girders. The substructure is composed of timber piles with masonry abutments.
Primarily, the deck over the water will contribute to the temporary fill resulting from
bridge demolition debris. The resulting temporary fill will be approximately 14 cubic
yards. Conditions in the stream will raise sediment concerns and therefore a turbidity
curtain is recommended. Due to the possibility of anadramous fish in Little Northeast
Creek, bridge demolition is classified as a Case 2, which allows no work at all in the
water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval
recruitment into nursery areas.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface
Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project. The NCDOT, in
cooperation with the DWQ, has developed a sedimentation control program for
highway projects which adopts formal BMPs for the protection of surface waters.
Because Bridge No. 3 is being removed, NCDOT's BMPs for Bridge Demolition and
Removal shall be used as well. These practices were developed in coordination with
the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Wildlife Resource Commission
(WRC), and the National Marine Fisheries Service in order to establish a consistent,
environmentally sound approach to the demolition and removal of bridges on North
Carolina's public road system.
VI. Section 4(t) Concerns
No 4(f) properties exist along the project corridor.
VII. Comments and Questions

1.
?N
E

-? 3
N 4-
R-
--? -i
s :r
O
.a -C, O
fD
O N
tn ?- (D
fD N
?No
N s
3:v o 13
'a
o s o
CND
N C2-
CD O S
Q
f1 T
0 O
3 C
CL ...r
CA S
Q C
3
fD ?
.0 v a
o Q o
N ? A
.1 (D
CD U T
CL
s
m
a
i
I ?. A
-w-
?I, i s
I
S'! ??
' V --' Ng4y5
1 `; J s
v
Ate'' 1

co
. M.1.

S
10
N
.•Y
i
{ o
F '•5 I N
X21 ? t

,_0
C•
n
N

W
OS
00
N
Q
Q.
W
W
?
8
. ';
;;
m n
o

?b ar
?r z
? J•
? y i

'll ZZ
zF Z
T
.ro

a; a
H

uT
7g w
0.8

S/
- 3r111H?1?
'00+61 -
V
133HS 33S 00
S ?ll , 1'n

. r. r.

.
r.. ......
...
.
I. ..
---- --------

1
, i
--- ---------------- J
?.. ,.N I.

I ---- - ------- -------
I II
I
I
I I I
-.-
t r Y,
I
-?.
I __ I
? ?' ? I I
I ?11? I

Co _?ad?
II
I ICI' 'itihi•?
til II II ,I II 11 11 tl '
II ,
II II 1 II Il 1?11,?
I?II? ' Irl
1 1 1,1 f.II 1•
I," II II II II II
II II 1 I 11
u I ?, ? I <
I '1 • I ?
- I \
I
N n•?R'nR•N 7 11. TO N•JWI
_ ------------
II
'I' •I i.i
II in
I
I
I
I
I

------- It, :1(1/ N

Cl)
N
I O
N 0.
N 1{-?
I G [a
W
aw
?o
a
I W
N
I Z Z
1
CIO Im
I J ?I
IjII I I
O O
I O O
I ;
t -
1

I •

v3

' o
N ? A I
II ,I _
I

°

3

1
1'1
1
1
II ? 1 ? I _
I- I

\V V\
V ?J
'I1
V -
O •,
?c
? G
V
?j

? Z
N
1

O
f?.
.J
\\
`i
?•?f_r`
O;?•-
NAD ? 83
j o -r?o va,
J o3
I I I ' j / CL
t`
LA if
3 ro ` II Ij w ^`
o J !' it II II I' I l i „•: ` Ix C `-
? I i I
0 1 m i ? S% c?> i? a?
C) r ?o
?, w Z
I
ET
-
34+00.0o SEE SHE
3 ? NIATCHLINE - ? 1 i -
o s Z5
q? %?'
II r^ I _. ..i a O
I
I-----l

I
I ?
Z
I?H?1
p -- yt' -l- 3N
0
01
Z , Z -
- , HS 33S p0
- 133
BI Z
I

?
oW
oo
? I
I
.
II
IG I: '' oZ ?g
I l8'?? I I
I I
I
1111.
lo ?? < I 11,, ,I i .., ,..
,I
I

CIVN
1
1
lt?rr '155' 11
II I

1
1 I )1 r ?;'- i` '
II 1 ? Ill I ,.? .
-.._
'l l
it ' I .1 ! ? I
•
r
, J
I ,
O M
N N

N I

w N
N
I
N I

m 10 m
C14

l CY) ?.

I

I w
O
I
u

-
V)

f

I

,
L,
a

G

- pia
o lL o
CL
Q I
..,
t
D' O
W W fm'• a I • '?, n

Z! Z

O O
O O
ca m
03
- O O
t
M,• M 0.0
I
o'O
t
i
' fl 1

NIN - _ .. _

'
.. I _
1
1 i I 1 III _, t ry ?..
i

(
1__l
a

I
i I I i I
i
i

I 1 1

r
I
I .,
i
f.
-
C
c:
O >
I
I

I v

0

L11 ?;I
I ?
I ? o
° ° w

mZ E
a-
l;
I'. Ili 3'? 0 0

9 133HS 33S 00'00+ lE -l- 3NIIHD1VW

MATCHLINE -L- STA. 44+00.00 SEE SHEET 6
I

I I I ?
I
' II
c
I?
Ir.I
?I
? J f

f Y?' It
I
i
f
?

I
I.
; I .
.
I
II III
I
I I ?Ii
I• % I ?I
/
I I ?.
•

'?
, • ?I II j• ,

.
' ? '
? •
a ?
II? ?. I
? l
I
1
I '? 'I! II ?
N v ?
II
°
? ,
?

O
p
?
o II CL
I i !
_ I: j
I
? V
N

II CA

-1

m
oA? ?
?•• ' (ra
i,.. I l? f ??a
N? ?
1 Z
m o

:r
0
O
.

f1
N f f N
1111
1 ? 1
O
. .
' 4ArC
-L
- STA.
8+00
.00
_
v?
V _
NAB i83Z.?,,l

!
of
I ?? I,
<
.`J S ? tz1 ? ? it
yr so mo ?i ,

i m ?
z
? ar; ???I m
z
1 .

a

I J'! 'rn? An l ?' l
I I io
'
I
I
I
Z+ F ?
?; o

- 0.1 t

p
I•
1

?
[V ? r.1
N
`?.O
Z 1
11
I ? W.r
as zy
-
•
G I
?' '< Ux
Ig w8
CI ?
' ? ?
1
I
I
I
I,,i - i?li ?nlll
I'il I'11\II ?'?I
111 I II II
II ?' 1 II II ti\?11
a Njjv oo
+96.?LS
1??NS S
--------
y i,i l.nl '1 M'Ili M1II'i1
------------- --------------- ------------ ---
--- ----- -- --

II 1.11 1 n1
II 'll J '\I h?, 111
I 1 I
II fir. II II
?\ , X11 t,l
\ N I - ',?
1--- J-

1
t_.I

I I I? l 1 17
1
/ \ I O
m
l? I III
I i
/ I
I
00 .00
I
J
0
0
0
t
Ln
co

i
0
00 ? -
'x
9b ,
SAP'
ll,ll /
NAD ' 83
0?
4 ? II
1
I N
-- _
I I I I? 1
I
I
I Y I
I

I r
I t
I 3

?
I
, v

I
I.. I I ? I •

I_ I I II'
?
- ? - - ' I ?
I I
I

i. t ? rl?r ?
III I „I,
? I

?
I _
r I
l ` l o
?- _
• Y
ry .
_i

v .. I . i

0'
i 00
SF
F
l
sy?F
1
T - _ _
10
2 $'
II
O?
O

I
?I
I
I
I
I
i
I
1
i
1
I
I ,.
L,
I
I
I
I
I

I o
?
S
tT j z
? so mo
s r
I ?
? Ay
o ? y
y
ar' '1
'
?
I y
? n

m
IO

n
l
i = I ? o

t ?
F
o Y it

?
r'a
.j sW ?

cv?
diS ?` ?N??H?i?. __
S 3S ?0. QD + lZ? ,?? ? ? ,
H ,
'? I ?I Ali I I
?'h •11!! I I i ? `'
;;I I
I?I ,ICI ?' '? 'I
I i i q, III; ?I? I I
II C
II, f ?y??l?;ij' I
• !;? I ul jl '
I I?
4i
i
I I ly?,j? ? °o 0
i
I? ???;;I ? onol
? I
II??? vt
I '; I j I l a
ivy-
'
i-t I 116 ?y1f II • •I i ,
I ?II i i
1a' l' I I ;
'` on
1'I ?I 1I. ',1?i
30
is
60 7i
S 3-'S 00. ?? +

4f,qrCtit?HF
0
0
00 SF?
10
t ?
i ,
,
? ,. ,. I?y ICI / I ?I
1 1
1 .
{ i
t, r _ 11 I I ' I?'I I .ti .
?f I hr i I !;I I
? I' I ? I I rl
I I I1' '
iN,ll r, 1 Ill' S '' ?I III I I
i - - ? rr1-,l II I II
1 I r . ?:, _? 1,
vA { V A '`I 1' ?,I?_
1
D D
V V
O O
?o ?o
l+ la
P P
I
r
v v
"m
D D
v M
W M
Q m
A V
N G7
G) N
O.
O
A
NAD 83
0
4

?ro
?
z o% I

s.• Sr
SST ?????
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
December 14, 2001

G?'>>/c;L-U

LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
TO: Meeting Attendees 2
FROM: Jackie Obediente
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: B-3682/W-3413 Agency Meeting Minutes
An agency meeting was held on November 8, 2001 at 1:00 p.m., in the Photogrammetry
Conference Room in the Century Center. The following were in attendance:
Jackie Obediente Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch (PD&EA)
Eric Midkiff PD&EA
Jill Holmes PD&EA
Ron Lucas Federal Highway Administration
Bill Arrington Division of Coastal Management
Cathy Brittingham Division of Coastal Management
David Cox North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Beth Barnes Division of Water Quality
Cynthia Perry Roadway Design
Tim Goins Roadway Design
Tom McCartney US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
Chris Militshcer USEPA - Raleigh
Mason Herndon Division') - DEO
Joe Blair Division 3 - DCE
This project is not going through the merger process, however, the purpose of this
agency meeting was to present and review the preliminary designs to determine whether
any changes need to be made, or whether any permitting problems are anticipated.
Below is a summary of the topics that were discussed:
• The current project schedules are as follows -
B-3682: Categorical Exclusion - December 2001
RW - August 2002
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX. [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
LET - January 2004
W-3413: Categorical Exclusion -January 2002
RW - January 2003
LET - January 2004
CAINIA - This project will require a CAMA Major Permit. This permit must be
applied for 3-4 months before LET date. Utility relocations will be addressed and
included in the CAMA permit. Conditions of the permit will be coordinated during
the permitting process.
Anadramous Fish Moratorium and T&E Species- Because this project lies within
an anadramous fish spawning area, Anadramous Fish Guidelines will be followed.
There is a possibility that this moratorium period may be the longest period, which
lasts from February 15 to September 30. We will look into coordinating the LET date
around this moratorium period. T&E Species survey report will be included in the
Categorical Exclusion (CE).
Bridge Demolition and Construction - For purposes of the environmental
document, PD&EA is required to calculate a worst-case scenario concerning amounts
of bridge demolition debris that have the potential to fall into the water. It is assumed
that the worst-case scenario would involve the entire concrete deck falling into the
water during removal. In accordance with any CAMA permit, NCDOT is aware that
no debris will be allowed to fall into the water during the removal of the bridge.
Bridge removal methods will be discussed in the CE.
Avoidance and Minimization of Wetlands - descriptions concerning avoidance and
minimization measures taken will be included in the Categorical Exclusion. These
minimization measures include the implementation of 2:1 slopes at the bridge
approaches, and avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands at curves and
along the roadway. Descriptions will include justification of why the curves and the
roadway could not be designed differently to avoid wetland impacts, and how 2:1
slopes at the bridge approaches were implemented into the design.
If you have any questions concerning the meeting, or the meeting minutes, please call me
at 919-733-7844 extension 228, or email me at jyobediente cr dot.state. nc.us.
cc: David Timpy, USACE
Allen Pope, Division 3 Engineer
John Hennesy, DWQ
Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries, HCD
Jimmy Gooodnight, Roadway Design
f4 ,
e„a FArl .
S 4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 18, 1999
1 ? 2 I- 0
WFTI-MMS cR(' ;,
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR -Ira
FROM: William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for SR 1423, from SR 1411 to SR 1413,
Onslow County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1423(2) and
BRSTP-1423(3), State Project No. 8.7326024 and 8.2261201,
TIP Project No. W-3413 and B-3682
Attached for your review and comments are the Scoping sheets for the subject project
(see attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review
procedure is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be
performed and thereby enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for March 17, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. in the Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with your
comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Edwin A. Peters, Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 228.
WDG/plr
Attachment
D
f
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP #s W-3413 and B-3682
PROJECT 4s 8.7326024 and 8.2261201
F.A. PROJECT #s STP-1423(2) and BRSTP-1423(2)
DIVISION: #3 COUNTY: Onslow
ROUTE: SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road)
Date: February 17, 1999
Revision Date:
Project Development Stage
Programming
® Planning
Design
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Rural Minor Collector
LENGTH: 3.1 miles
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: The purpose of the proposed project is to increase the level of
safety associated with the facility by improving it's poor horizontal curvature in
conjunction with the replacement of a structurally deficient bridge which lies within the
project limits.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (INCLUDING SPECIFIC LIMITS) AND MAJOR
ELEMENTS OF WORK: The proposed project includes providing additional pavement
along SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road) from SR 1411 (Waters Road) to SR 1413 (Rocky Run
Road) and improving the horizontal curvature of the roadway at select locations where
the design speed of the curves is inconsistent with the design speed of the overall facility.
Additionally, Bridge No. 3 over Little Northeast Creek will be replaced on new location
in conjunction with these horizontal alignment improvements. This project is anticipated
to require additional right of way.
TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT TO BE PREPARED: Environmental Assessment
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY SCHEDULE: EA due June 2000
FONSI due December 2000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? Yes F] No
IF YES, BY WHOM AND AMOUNT: (S) , or (%)
HOW AND WHEN WILL THIS BE PAID?
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TYPE OF ACCESS CONTROL: Full[:] Partial F? None
NUMBER OF: Interchanges Grade Separations Stream Crossings 1
TYPICAL SECTION OF ROADWAY:
Existing: SR 1423 is a two-lane roadway with varying pavement
width from 18 to 21 feet and 3 to 4 foot grass shoulders
Proposed: A two-lane roadway with 22 feet of pavement and 4-6
foot grassed shoulders is proposed.
TRAFFIC (ADT): Current (1997): 1500
Design Year (2020): 2700
% TTST 1 % DUAL 2% DHV 10
DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABLE: AASHTO ® 3R
DESIGN SPEED: 55 mph (89 km/h)
CURRENT COST ESTIMATE:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) ....................... $ 1,650,000
Right of Way Cost (including relocation,
utililities and acquisition) ...... ............ $ 83,000
Force Account Items ........................... $
Preliminary Engineering ......................... $ 75,000
Total Cost ................................... $ 1,808,000
TIP COST ESTIMATE:
Construction .................................. $ 1,093,000
Right of Way .................................. $ 83,000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE .................. $ 1,176,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
LIST ANY SPECIAL FEATURES, SUCH AS RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT, WHICH
COULD AFFECT COST OR SCHEDULE OF PROJECT:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
® Pavement:
®Surface ......................................... $ 76,117
®Base ........................................... $ 172,048
? Milling & Recycling ............................... $
? Turnouts ....................................... $
? $
? Shoulders:
? Paved .......................................... $
? Earthern ........................................ $
® Earthwork ............................................ $ 195,207
® Fine Grading ........................................... $ 35,830
? Subsurface Items ....................................... $
® Subgrade and Stabilization ................................ $ 37,125
® Drainage (List any special items) ........................... $ 137,400
? Sub-Drainage ......................................... $
® Structures Width x Length
? Bridge Rehabilitation x ----- .......... $
? New Bridge x ----- .......... $
? New Bridge x ----- .... $
? New Bridge x ----- .......... $
? Widen Bridge x ----- .......... $
® Remove Bridge 24' x 70' .......... $ 13,440
® New Culvert: Size 2(a,12x10 Length 60' .......... $ 137,400
? Culvert Extension ................................. $
? Retaining Walls .................................. $
? Noise Walls ..................................... $
? Other Misc. Structures ............................. $
? $
? Concrete Curb & Gutter ................................. $
? Concrete Sidewalk ..................................... $
? Guardrail ............................................ $
? Fencing: W.W. ? and/or C.L.? .......................... $
® Erosion Control ....................................... $ 19,200
? Landscaping ........................ ................ $
? $
? $
? $
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
? Lighting ............................................. $
N Traffic Control ........................................ $ 36,000
? Signing:
? New .......................................... $
? Upgraded ....................................... $
? Traffic Signals:
? New .......................................... $
? Revised ........................................ $

? RR Signals:
New ........................................... $
? Revised ......................................... $
? With or Without Arms .............................. $
? If 3R:
? Drainage Safety Enhancement ........................ $
? Roadside Safety Enhancement ........................ $
? Realignment for Safety Upgrade ....................... $
N Pavement Markings:
Paint .......................................... $
® Thermo ......................................... $ 12,260
? Markers ......................................... $
? $
Delineators ............................................ $
NOther clearing,grubbing,mobilization,misc ...................... $ 572,373
Contract Cost Subtotal ................................ $ 1,436,000
Engineering & Contingencies ................................. $ 214,000
Preliminary Engineering Costs ................................ $
Force Account ............................................ $
CONSTRUCTION Subtotal: ..................... $ 1,650,000
Right of Way: (TIP)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: 60'
WILL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY CONTAIN IMPROVEMENTS?
Yes ? No N
N New Right of Way Needed: Width (Varies) .......... $
? Easements: Type Width .......... $
$
? utilities: ..............................................
RIGHT OF WAY Subtotal: .................................. $ 83,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 1,733,000
Prepared By: JRA Date: 1-28-99
THE ABOVE SCOPING INFORMATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED
BY:
INIT. DATE
INIT. DATE
Highway Design Board of Tran. Member
Roadway Board of Tran. Member
Structure Dir. Plan. & Prog.
Design Services Dep. Admin.-Preconst.
Geotechnical Chief Engineer-Oper.
Hydraulics Secondary Roads Off.
Loc. & Surveys Construction Branch
Photogrammetry Roadside Environmental
Prel. Est. Engr. Maintenance Branch
Planning & Envir. Brid--e Maintenance
Right of Way Statewide Planning
R/W Utilities Division Engineer
Traffic Engineering Bicycle Coordinator
Project Management Program Development
County Manager FHWA
City/Municipality Dept. of Cult. Res.
Others Dept. of EH & NR
Others Others
Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for handling.
IF YOU ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSED PROJECT OR SCOPING,
NOTE YOUR PROPOSED REVISIONS BELOW AND INITIAL AND DATE AFTER
COMMENTS.
- ------------
"IJ
f `! _ r =,.,,. ?,.,w• ,••^' ? ? ' ? r ?, '?, It j 2 YY
10,
r •p % f
W i
r
q
t w ?:rt
ye3° s
a
cn
O ?7 'O o z

? <10
l • Er
• O
o _? _-
O
z ?
w h
o
Cn -o 0 cn Q T R
?Er
O Gw
M =r
=3
C_ :0cn
0 s.? O

O : ?-0
c
3 w
(D
CA) ? c(D
O f I) 5
? cn 03 0
U
1
=
W
r
W N
0
_w
r-+
0
0
z
r
O
::E
C)
O
C
Z
--I
lv ?# .^ ±
A t
`.
XI'
:w
z
?
r
1"?
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
March 17, 1999
File
Edwin A. Peters 6a 2
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: SR 1423, from SR 1411 to SR 1413, Onslow County,
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1423(2), State Project No.
8.7326024, TIP Project No. W-3413
A scoping meeting was held for the subject project on March 17, 1999 in the
Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room. The following people attended:
Edwin A. Peters Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Eric Midkiff Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Tom McCartney U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
David Cox N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission
Donnie Huffman District Engineer, Division 3, District 1
Warren Wethington Assistant District Engineer, Division 3, District 1
Patrick Riddle County Maintenance Engineer, Division 3, Onslow County
Dale Privette Area Traffic Engineer
Dan Duffield Hydraulics
Derrick Lewis Programming and TIP
Lawrence Gettier Traffic Control
Lisa Sharp Traffic Control
Bob Deaton Bicycle and Pedestrian
John Wadsworth FHWA
Jason Moore Roadway Design
Jimmy Goodnight Roadway Design
Tamra Shaw Statewide Planning
Doug Petrey Stucture Design
The meeting opened with a general description of the project. The purpose of the
project is to increase the level of safety of the facility. The proposed improvements
include providing additional pavement width along SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road) from SR
1411 (Waters Road) to SR 1413 (Rocky Run Road) and improving the horizontal
curvature of the roadway at select locations where the design speed of the curves is
inconsistent with the design speed of the overall facility. Also, bridge No. 3 which
crosses Little Northeast Creek will be replaced on new location in conjunction with the
shifted horizontal curvature.
r4
Purpose and Proposed Improvements:
Dale Privette, the Area Traffic Engineer explained how the purpose of the project
was based on accident data and that justification for the project was deduced on a cost
benefit ratio as a result of these accidents. During the period from July 1995 through
June 1998, there were 38 accidents reported within the project limits and from December
1990 through November 1994 there were 80 total accidents. 75% of these accidents were
ran off the road type accidents which can be reduced with the recommended
improvements. The improvements that were recommended (based on The High Accident
Location Report, completed 11/94) include:
• Selective upgrades of the alignment to develop horizontal curvature that is
consistent with the overall design of the project. Some minor relocations will be
required to achieve a minimum design speed of 45 mph.
• Replacing the bridge in conjunction with the relocation of its approaches. The
existing approaches exhibit sharp curvature and abrupt reversals in alignment.
• The western approach to the bridge will include widening for left turn lanes to
accommodate turning movements at Morton Elementary School.
• At locations where improvements will be done, the existing cross section will be
widened to a minimum 22 foot pavement with 4-6 foot soil shoulders. Superelevation
rates in curves will be upgraded to current AASHTO standards and raised pavement
markers will be installed to enhance nighttime visibility.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations
The NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation commented that
the studied portion of SR 1423 is part of a designated bicycle route in Onslow county, the
"Jacksonville City To The Sea", bicycle route. Therefore, bicycle accommodations will
be considered for the subject facility. According to AASHTO standards the facility
should incorporate 1.2 m (4 ft.) wide paved shoulders along both sides of the subject
roadway. In addition the bridge replacement portion of the project should incorporate a
rail height of 1372 mm (54-inch) and the bridge deck should continue the 1.2 m shoulder
width across each side for bicycle safety.
Typical Cross Section
According to Dale Privette, the Area Traffic Engineer, the original safety study
had recommended the facility be upgraded from a typical width of 18 feet and 3 to 4 foot
grassed shoulders to a pavement width of 22 feet and 4 to 6 foot grassed shoulders. It
was noted by John Wadsworth, the FHWA official, and agreed upon by the NCDOT
officials present that the facility should at least be upgraded to AASHTO standards which
requires 24 feet of pavement and 8 foot shoulders. Also, to accommodate bicycles 4 foot
paved shoulders will be considered.
Structures
Bridge No. 3 which carries SR 1423 (Old Thirty Road) over Little Northeast
Creek, will be replaced as part of this project. That bridge has a sufficiency rating of
19.9, but will be capable of providing service until the construction of the proposed
improvements to Old Thirty Road (fiscal year 2003). The current cost estimate calls for
replacing this bridge with a culvert. However, a bridge will be constructed to minimize
impacts to the stream and it's associated wetlands. According to Dan Duffield from
Hydraulics, a preliminary structure length of 90 feet should be considered. A bridge
length which spans the wetlands will also be considered.
Summary of Design Recommendations
Typical Section: 24 feet of travel lane pavement with 8 foot shoulders (4 foot paved).
Design Speed: 50 mph
Structure Length : Approx. 90 feet (bridge spanning wetlands will also be considered)
Environmental Input
Cyndi Bell from the DWQ commented that the Little Northeast Creek was a class
C NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Water) and that it would be good to retain as much vegetated
buffer as possible in the vicinity of the stream. Also she stated that it might be a good
idea to bridge the wetlands within the project area. David Cox from the NCWRC said
that Northeast Creek was a primary nursery area and that the existence of anadromous
fish was probable. He stated that the existing fill causeway should be returned to
wetlands. In addition, the surrounding forest land should be surveyed for threatened and
endangered species. David as well as Tom McCartney from the USFWS agreed with
Cyndi Bell's comment favoring the bridging of the wetlands.
Project Schedule
Citizens Informational Workshop - June or July, 1999
Environmental Assessment - June 2000
Finding of No Significant Impact - December 2000
Right of Way and Construction Schedules
Right of Way: FFY 2002
Construction: FFY 2003
Post Meeting Coordination
Updated cost estimates will be requested reflecting the proposed improvements
(ie. wider typical section, new bridge) discussed at the scoping meeting. The cost of the
bridge will be separated from the cost associated with the safety project. The purpose of
this preliminary estimate will be to verify that the cost benefit ratio of the proposed
improvements will not endanger funding.
Based on a conversation that Eric Midkiff had with Ray McIntyre, the bridge
project and safety project will be kept separate for funding purposes but both projects will
be addressed in one document.