20130614 Ver 1_Application_20130611

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
FEDERAL EXPRESS
Eastern Federal Lands 21400 Ridgetop Circle
Highway Division Sterling, VA 20166 -6511
JUN _, ®i
In Reply Refer to: HFPP -15
Ms. Karen Higgins
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater Compliance and Permitting Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Archdale Building, 91h Floor
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Project NC ERFO FSR 2011 -1(1), Repair of a Bridge and Six
Croatan National Forest
401 Water Quality Certification
Dear Ms. Higgins:
2 0 1 3 0 6 1 4
JUN 1 1 20113
tlVAl1 =R �U
-
►ak,..._.. ti ALiTY
The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service - Croatan National Forest, proposes to replace six
culverts and repair a small bridge that were damaged during a storm event in September 2010 in
Carteret, Craven, and Jones Counties. Approximately 0.04 acres of pine flat wetland and
approximately 0.095 acres of pocosin wetlands would be impacted. Below you will find a
description of the work for each site.
At Site 1, located at milepost 3.953 along Middle Little Road (35 °0'2.90 "N, 77 °3'49.18 "W) in
Craven County, the existing three 18 -inch culverts would be replaced with three 36 -inch
culverts. Riprap would be placed at the outlets of the culverts and the road would be resurfaced
with gravel.
At Site 2, located at milepost 3.517 along Middle Little Road (34 °59'41.35 "N, 77 °3'42.39 "W) in
Craven County, the existing bridge abutments would be reinforced by constructing new concrete
toe walls in front of the existing timber walls. Riprap would be placed in front of the new toe
walls to prevent scour.
At Site 3, located at milepost 0.100 along Brown Road (34 °57'28.19 "N, 77 °0'31.93 "W) in
Craven County, the existing two 24 -inch culverts would be replaced with three 60 -inch culverts.
Riprap would be placed at the culvert outlets. The road would be raised a maximum of two feet
for a distance of approximately 350 feet on each side of the culverts, and the road would be
resurfaced with gravel.
At Site 4, located at milepost 0.630 along Black Swamp Road (34 °53'55.85 "N, 77'6'18.48"W)
in Craven County, the existing two 60 -inch culverts would be replaced with three 84 -inch

N
2
culverts. Riprap would be placed at the outlets of the culverts. The road would be raised by a
maximum of two feet for a distance of approximately 350 feet on each side of the culvert, and
the road would be resurfaced with gravel.
At Site 5, located at milepost 4.076 along Black Swamp Road (34 °51' 11.79 "N, 77 °7'29.90 "W)
in Jones County, the existing two 60 -inch culverts would be replaced with three 66 -inch culverts.
Riprap would be placed at the outlets of the culverts and the road would be resurfaced with
gravel.
At Site 6, located at milepost 7.300 along Millis Road (34 °44'9.43N, 77'3'12.40W) in Carteret
County, the existing 60 -inch by 42 -inch oblong culvert would be replaced with a 78 -inch culvert.
Riprap would be placed at the outlet of the culvert, and the road would be resurfaced with gravel.
At Site 7, located at milepost 0.394 along Petiford Creek Road (34 °44'0.59 "N, 77 °2'44.70 "W)
in Carteret County, the 87 -inch by 63 -inch oblong culvert would be replaced with two 66 -inch
culverts. Riprap would be placed at the outlets of the culverts, and the road would'be resurfaced
with gravel.
The FHWA respectfully requests certification of the proposed improvements. Please provide us
with your response within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this letter. In order to assist with your
review of this project, enclosed you will find seven hard copies of the Pre - Construction
Notification Application Form, one hard copy of the wetland delineation, one copy of the
Categorical Exclusion, and one hard copy of the project plans. You will also find six CDs which
contain an electronic copy of the Categorical Exclusion, project plans and wetland delineation.
A check for $240.00 for the permit fee is also enclosed. A Pre - Construction Notification
Application Form with supporting documentation has also been submitted to the Washington
Field Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If you have any questions concerning this
matter, please contact Ms. Lisa Landers, Environmental Protection Specialist, at
Lisa.Landerska dot.gov or (571) 434 -1592.
Sincerely yours,
Kevin S. Rose
Environmental Compliance Specialist
Enclosures
cc:
Ms. Rachelle Powell, Croatan and Uwharrie National Forests, USDA Forest Service
Mr. Cliff Northrop, National Forests in North Carolina, USDA Forest Service
Mr. Lynn Hicks, National Forests in North Carolina, USDA Forest Service

of W A rF9
o`' pG Office Use Only:
2 0 1 3 0 6 1 4 Corps action ID no.
o < DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre- Construction Notification (PCN) Form.
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:.
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below.
0 Yes ❑ No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
NC ERFO FSR 2011 -1 (1)
2b.
County:
Carteret, Craven, Jones
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Croatan National Forest - Swansboro, Newport, New Bern
2d.
Subdivision name:
n/a
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
n/a x
3.
3a.
Owner Information
Name(s) on Recorded Deed: USDA Forest Service Lq
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
n/a
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Kevin Rose, Federal Highway Administration JUN t 1 7013
3d.
Street address:
21400 Ridgetop Circle WFi - GlIATEFI U
3e.
City, state, zip:
Sterling, VA 20166"'
3f.
Telephone no.:
571 -434 -1541
3g.
Fax no.:
571 - 434 -1577
3h.
Email address:
Kevin. Rose @dot.gov
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner,.) ,
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
Kevin Rose
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Federal Highway Administration
4d.
Street address:
21400 Ridgetop Circle
4e.
City, state, zip:
Sterling, VA 20166
4f.
Telephone no.:
571 - 434 -1541
4g.
Fax no.:
571 - 434 -1577
4h.
Email address:
Kevin. Rose @dot:gov
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
n/a
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
5c.
Street address:
5d.
City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f.
Fax no.:
5g.
Email address:
Page•2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
n/a
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
I Latitude: Longitude:
1c.
Property size:
2,250 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
White Oak River, Petiford Creek, Brice Creek
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
SA, NSW; SA, HQW; SC, SW, NSW
2c.
River basin:
White Oak
3.
Project Description
-3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The area surrounding project sites in within the Croatan National Forest and is undeveloped vegetated area.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The project will replace damaged culverts.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project includes the replacements of multiple culverts, and the repair of a bridge abutment.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown
Comments: The draft wetland delineation is attached.
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency /Consultant Company: Aquaeter
Other:
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
El Yes ❑x No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes Eg No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3of10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X Wetlands ❑ Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact `
(acres)
W1 P
Culvert
Pocosin
No
Corps
0.06
W2 P
Fill
Pocosin
Yes
Corps
0.02
W3 P
Culvert
Pocosin
Yes
Corps
0.01
W4 P
Culvert
Pocosin
Yes
Corps
0.005
W5 P
Culvert
Pine Flat
Yes
Corps
003
W6 P
Culvert
Pine Flat
Yes
Corps
0.01
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.135
2h. Comments:
W1 =Black Swamp Road - MP 0.630, W2 =Black Swamp Road - MP 4.076, W3= Millis Road - MP 7.30, W4= Petifor Creek Road - MP 0.394, W5 =Brown
Road - MP 0.10, W6= Middle Little Road - MP 3 953
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 -
Choose one
- l
S2 -
Choose one
-
-
S3 -
Choose one
-
S4 -
Choose one
-
-
S5 -
Choose one
-
-
S6 -
Choose one
-
-
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01
Choose one
Choose
02 -
Choose one
Choose'
03 -
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required ?.
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑Catawba E] Randleman ❑Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet )
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
61 -
Yes /No
B2
Yes /No
B3
Yes /No
B4 _
Yes /No
B5 -
Yes /No
B6
j Yes /No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Culverts will be replaced in same location as the existing culvert, and were sized for the same hydraulic capacity after accommodating sinking them a
foot below the substrate level per NCDWQ
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Sedimentation of adjacent wetlands will be minimized through the use of silt fence. The area to be dewatered for construction was minimized.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑. Mitigation bank
❑Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
S. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. If yes, then identify the,square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
' 6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes 0 No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
The project will replace existing culverts and the total ground disturbance is approximately 0.26 acres. No
new impervious area will be created by this
project.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
DWQ
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
n/a
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
El Yes ❑X No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a.
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
E] Session Law 2006 -246
❑Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
'5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

11
F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
X❑ Yes
❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
X❑ Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
Q Yes
E] No
letter.) Categorical Exclusion is attached.
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
El Yes
❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
El Yes
❑X No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
El Yes
❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
n/a
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑X Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑X Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Coordination with the Wildlife Biologist at the Croatan National Forest and the USFWS.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes X❑ No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑X Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
The project replaces existing infrastructure and improves the hyrdologic connectivity.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Kevin S. Rose
06 -05 -2013
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applica Age s Signature
(Agent's signatur is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

I
Q 1 3 0 6 1 4
Categorical Exclusion Form
Croatan National Forest
North Carolina
Project: NC ERFO FSR 2011 -1(1) Date: December 17, 2012
Project description, including location:
The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service - Croatan National Forest, proposes to replace six
culverts and repair a small bridge that were damaged during a storm event in September 2010.
At Site 1, located at milepost 3.953 along Middle Little Road (35 °0'2.90 "N, 77 °3'49.18 "W) in
Craven County, the existing three 18 -inch culverts would be replaced with three 36 -inch
culverts. Riprap would be placed at the outlets of the culverts and the road would be resurfaced
with gravel.
At Site 2, located at milepost 3.517 along Middle Little Road (34 °59'41.35 "N, 77 °3'42.39 "W) in
Craven County, the existing bridge abutments would be reinforced by constructing new concrete
toe walls in front of the existing timber walls. Riprap would be placed in front of the new toe
walls to prevent scour.
At Site 3, located at milepost 0.100 along Brown Road (34 °57'28.19 "N, 77 °0'31.93 "W) in
Craven County, the existing two 24 -inch culverts would be replaced with three 60 -inch culverts.
Riprap would be placed at the culvert outlets. The road would be raised a maximum of two feet
for a distance of approximately 350 feet on each side of the culverts, and the road would be
resurfaced with gravel.
At Site 4, located at milepost 0.630 along Black Swamp Road (34 053'55.85 "N, 77 °6'18.48 "W)
in Craven County, the existing two 60 -inch culverts would be replaced with three 84 -inch
culverts. Riprap would be placed at the outlets of the culverts. The road would be raised by a
maximum of two feet for a distance of approximately 350 feet on each side of the culvert, and
the road would be resurfaced with gravel.
At Site 5, located at milepost 4.076 along Black Swamp Road (34 °51' 11.79 "N, 77 °7'29.90 "W)
in Jones County, the existing two 60 -inch culverts would be replaced with three 66 -inch culverts.
Riprap-would be placed at the outlets of the culverts and the road would be resurfaced with
gravel.
At Site 6, located at milepost 7.300 along Millis Road (34 °44'9.43N, 77'3'12.40W) in Carteret
County, the existing 60 -inch by 42 -inch oblong culvert would be replaced with a 78 -inch culvert.
Riprap would be placed at the outlet of the culvert, and the road would be resurfaced with gravel.
At Site 7, located at milepost 0.394 along Petiford Creek Road (34 °44'0.59 "N, 77 °2'44.70 "W)
in Carteret County, the 87 -inch by 63 -inch oblong culvert would be replaced with two 66 -inch
culverts. Riprap would be placed at the outlets of the culverts, and the road would be resurfaced
with gravel.

Describe the category used to exclude the action from further NEPA:
23 CFR 771.117(d)(1): Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking, weaving, turning,
climbing).
23 CFR 771.117(d)(3): Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction or replacement or the construction
of grade separation to replace at -grade railroad crossings.
Describe any public or agency involvement effort conducted:
By letter dated November 13, 2012 to the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources,
State Historic Preservation Office, the FHWA determined that the proposed project would have
no adverse effect on historic resources. Sites 2 and 5 would be monitored by Forest personnel
during construction. The State Historic Preservation Office responded in a letter dated
December 4, 2012, stating, "We have conducted a review of the project and aware of no historic
resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the
project as proposed."
By letter dated November 13, 2012 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the FHWA
determined that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the red -
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). No construction activities would be allowed on Sites
1, 2, and 7 between April 1" and July 31 s` in order to avoid impacting the red - cockaded
woodpecker during its breeding season. The FHWA also determined that the proposed project
would have no effect on the other Federally- listed species listed for Carteret, Craven, and Jones
Counties. In a letter dated December 11, 2012, the Service, "concurs with your conclusion that
the proposed culvert replacements and bridge repair may affect, but are not likely to adversely
affect the red- cockaded woodpecker. In addition we concur that the project will have no effect
on all other federally listed species."

23 CFR 771.117 Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions which meet the definition contained
in 40 CFR 1508.4, and, based on past experience with similar actions, do not involve significant
environmental impacts.
The proposed action will:
YES
NO
Induce significant impacts to planned growth or
X
land use for the area
Require the relocation of significant numbers of
people
X
Have a significant impact on any natural, cultural,
recreational, historic, or other resource
X
Involve significant air, noise, or water quality
impacts
X
Have significant impacts on travel patterns
X
Otherwise, either individually or cumulatively have
any significant environmental impacts
X
If any box is checked yes, the action may not be categorically excluded and an EA or EIS must
be prepared. If none are checked yes, attach Environmental Screening Form, notes from
consultation with agencies and/or the public, notes of site visits and any other material related to
the environmental impact of the proposal. This becomes the NEPA piece of the statutory
compliance file.

On the basis of the environmental impact information in the statutory compliance file, with
which I am familiar, I believe the project should be categorically excluded from further NEPA
analysis.
Prepared by:
Lisa T. Landers
Environmental Protection Specialist
Federal Highway Administration
Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division
Date
On the basis of the environmental impact information in the statutory compliance file, with
which I am familiar, I am categorically excluding the described project from further NEPA
analysis. No exceptional circumstances (i.e., all boxes in the ESF are marked "no ") or conditions
apply and the action is fully described in 23 CFR 771.117(d)(1):
Kbvin S. R s
Environmental Compliance Specialist
Federal Highway Administration
Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division
1-2-117
Date

Environmental Screening Form
Project: NC ERFO FSR 2011 -1(1) Date: December 17, 2012
Yes
No
Don't
Know
1. Described fully in one of the'list of categorically excluded actions?
x
2. Consultation with any affected agencies or tribes complete?
x
3. Site visit completed?
x
4. Are any significant impacts possible on the following physical,
natural, or cultural resources ?*
A. Geological resources - soils, bedrock, streambeds, etc.
x
B. From geohazards?
x
C. Air Quality, Traffic, or from Noise
x
D. Water Quality or Quantity
x
E. Streamflow characteristics
x
F. Marine or Estuarine Resources
none
G. Land Use, including agricultural lands
x
H. Rare or unusual vegetation -old growth timber, riparian,
alpine, etc.
x
1. Species of special concern (plant or animal; state or federal
listed or proposed for listing) or their habitat
x
J. Unique ecosystems, biosphere reserves, World Heritage sites
x
K. Unique or important wildlife or wildlife habitat
x
L. Unique or important fish or fish habitat
none
M. Introduce or promote non - native species (plant or animal)
x
N. Recreation resources
x
O. Visitor experience, aesthetic resources
x
P. Cultural resources, cultural landscape, etc.
x
Q. Minority and Low Income Populations
x
R. Socioeconomics
x
S. Energy Resources
x

* Insert the word "none" in the "no column" if the reason that a resource is not impacted is
because the resource is not found in the project area.
This form is meant to be annotated with relevant information, such as notes of site visit,
personnel conducting the site visit, agency officials contacted and their responses, etc. A site
visit is required to complete this form, and so is required to categorically exclude a project (sec
3 -4), prepare an EA or prepare an EIS.
If the answers to questions 1 -3 are yes, and all answers to number 4 are no, complete the
categorical exclusion checklist. If any of the answers to question 4 are don't know, complete an
EA. If any are answered yes, either a mitigated EA or EIS is required.
Yes
No
Don't
Know
T. Other agency or tribal land use plans or policies
x
U. Resource, including energy, conservation potential
x
V. Urban quality, gateway communities, etc.
none
W. Long term management of resources or land/resource
productivity
x
* Insert the word "none" in the "no column" if the reason that a resource is not impacted is
because the resource is not found in the project area.
This form is meant to be annotated with relevant information, such as notes of site visit,
personnel conducting the site visit, agency officials contacted and their responses, etc. A site
visit is required to complete this form, and so is required to categorically exclude a project (sec
3 -4), prepare an EA or prepare an EIS.
If the answers to questions 1 -3 are yes, and all answers to number 4 are no, complete the
categorical exclusion checklist. If any of the answers to question 4 are don't know, complete an
EA. If any are answered yes, either a mitigated EA or EIS is required.

United States Department of the Interior E -
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ; t_
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
December 11, 2012
Kevin S. Rose
Federal Highway Administration
Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division
21400 Ridgetop Circle
Sterling, VA 20166 -6511
Subject: HFPP -15; NC ERFO FSR 2011 -1(1), Culvert Replacements and Bridge Repair in
Carteret, Craven and Jones County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Rose:
This letter is in response to your letter of November 13, 2012 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the .biological.conclusion of the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) -that the replacement of six culverts and,thexepair of one bridge within the Croatan
National Forest may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered red -
cockaded woodpecker (RCW, Picoides borealis). In addition, the FHWA has determined that
the project will have no effect on all other federally listed.species. These comments are provided
in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531- 1543).
According to information provided; existing culverts at six locations will be replaced with new
culverts with increased hydraulic conveyance. All work will be conducted within the existing
roadway prism. At one site, a bridge will be repaired by constructing new concrete toe walls in
front of existing timber walls.
Based on information obtained from Rachelle Powell (Zone Wildlife Biologist at Croatan
National Forest), some minor pine tree removal will occur at each site. Some of the pine tree
removal will occur within the foraging partitions of the following three active RCW clusters:
CNF 1, CNF 35, and CNF 38. However, most of the trees are less than 8 inches in diameter at
breast height (DBH). While RCWs may forage in the pine trees larger than this, the small
number of trees 8 inches DBH or larger to be removed is inconsequential since they are loblolly
pines (Pinus taeda). The U.S. Forest Service's desired condition for the stands containing these
three active RCW clusters is longleaf pine (Pinus palustris).. Therefore, the U.S. Forest Service
is actively managing to eliminate the loblolly pines for the benefit of RCWs.'
Based on your submitted material and other available information, the Service concurs with your
conclusion that the proposed culvert replacements and bridge repair may affect, but are not likely

to adversely affect the red - cockaded woodpecker. In addition, we concur that the project will
have no effect on all other federally listed species. We believe that the requirements of Section
7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in
this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this
review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by this
identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 856 -4520 (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Electronic copy: Tom Steffens, USACE, Washington, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Rachelle Powell, USFS; New Bern, NC

l
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Banos, Administrator
Beverly Caves Perdue, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Croon, Deputy Secretary.
December 4, 2012
Kevin Rose
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
21400 Ridgetop'Circle
Sterling, VA 20166 -6511
Office of Archives and 1-listory
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re:. Culvert Replacements and. Bridge Repair; HFPP -15, Carteret, Craven, and Jones Counties, ER 12 -2140
Dcar Mr. Rose:
Thank you for your letter of November 13, 2012, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments arc 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 CFFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919- 807 -6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above - referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
i
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 Fast Jones Street, Raleigh NC: 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Alail Service Center, Raleigh NC. 27699 -4017 Telephone/ Fax: () 19) ft07- 6570/807 -6599