19941037 Ver 1_Complete File_19941107

JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
.?o
Ma.
9q io3?
401 ISSUED
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
October 26, 1994
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
RECElV'
S ?! S?L?1Y'aL?e 7 PA. ate. ?k&.?1,s'k.++T
Subject: Pitt County, Replacement of Bridges No. 59 on
NC 33. Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-33(2),
State Project No. 8.1221601, TIP No. B-2855.
Attached for your information are three copies of
the project planning report for the subject project.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in
accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose
to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with
33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991,
by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section
330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No.
2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project,
and are providing one copy of the CE document to the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management,
for their review.
M
.. . ! _V A , t
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Mr. Doug Huggett at 733-3141.
Sincerely,
. J 0 Qui , PE
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/dvh
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Lekson, COE-Washington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NCDEHNR, DCM
w/out attachment
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program.Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. G.R. Shirley, Jr., PE, Division 2 Engineer
Ms. Michele James, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
!? • ,

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2855
State Project No. 8.1221601
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-33(2)
A. Proiect Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.)
THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN PITT COUNTY OVER PARKER CREEK.
BRIDGE NO. 59 ON NC 33 WILL BE REPLACED IN ITS EXISTING
LOCATION WITH A 2 @ 10 FT. X 9 FT. PRECAST CULVERT AT THE
EXISTING LOCATION. DURING CONSTRUCTION, TRAFFIC WILL BE
DETOURED ONTO EXISTING AREA ROADS.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need:
BRIDGE NO. 59 HAS A SUFFICIENCY RATING OF 22.6 OUT OF 100
AND AN ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE OF 12 YEARS. THE BRIDGE
IS POSTED FOR 25 TONS SV AND 30 TONS TTST. BECAUSE OF
ITS DETERIORATED CONDITION, BRIDGE NO. 59 SHOULD BE
REPLACED.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which
apply to the project:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing,
restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding
shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.,
parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and
Reconstructing pavement (3R and 4R
improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding
through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge,
auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets,
and drainage pipes, including safety
treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than
one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement
projects including the installation of ramp
metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
r ?_A
Ob
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey
type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or
upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation
and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channel i z i ng traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements
including removing hazards and flattening
slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and
motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including
bridge rail retrofit
3O. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or
replacement or the construction of grade separation
to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing
bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no
red lead paint), scour repair, fender systems,
and minor structural improvements
dO. Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest
areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or
for joint or limited use of right-of-way, where the
proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or t ransportat ion purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and located on or near a street with
adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and
support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail
and bus buildings and ancillary facilities where
only minor amounts of additional land are required
2
T i ,
4 I
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
and there is not a substantial increase in the
number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open
area consisting of passenger shelters, boarding
areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity
for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective
purposes, advance land acquisition loans under
section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a
particular parcel or a limited number of parcels.
These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE
only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which
may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
D. Special Proiect Information: (Include ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMITMENTS)
ALL STANDARD PROCEDURES AND MEASURES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED
TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
NO WETLANDS WILL BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. A
NATIONWIDE PERMIT IS LIKELY TO BE APPLICABLE FOR THE
PROJECT.
AS OF JULY 8, 1994, THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS)
LISTS THE TAR RIVER SPINY MUSSEL AND THE RED-COCKADED
WOODPECKER AS FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES FOR PITT
COUNTY. THE PROJECT AREA DOES NOT PROVIDE SUITABLE
HABITAT CONDUCIVE TO THE TAR RIVER SPINY MUSSEL OR THE
RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER. NO IMPACTS TO THESE FEDERALLY-
PROTECTED"SPECIES WILL OCCUR AS A RESULT OF PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION.
ESTIMATED COST:
3

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
CONSTRUCTION - $ 200,000
RIGHT OF WAY - 19,000
TOTAL
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC:
1994 - 4500 VPD
2016 - 8700 VPD
$ 219,000
TTST - 2%
DUAL - 3%
THE DESIGN SPEED IS 60 MPH.
SCHOOL BUSES MAKE A TOTAL OF 10 CROSSINGS EACH DAY.
NC 33 IS CLASSIFIED AS A MINOR ARTERIAL.
THE DIVISION OFFICE, THE CITY OF GREENVILLE AND THE PITT
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR CONCUR WITH THE PROPOSED
PROJECT.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved with the project,
the following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact F X
on any unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened x
species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary ?
wetland taking less than one-third x
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
r s 1
4

f
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94

(5) Will the project require the use of
U. S. Forest Service lands?
F-1 X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by ? X
proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified
-
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or F
1 X
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated ? X
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or ? X
hazardous materials sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly ? X
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier F-1 X
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be ? X
required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification ? X
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ? X
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
5
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts ? X
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of X
any family or business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of ?
right of way, is the amount of right of way X
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in F X
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent F-1 X
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or F-1 X
community cohesiveness?
YES NO
(21) Is the project included in an approved D
thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation X
Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in
conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an a X
increase traffic volumes?
(23) Will traffic be maintained during ?
construction using existing roads, staged X
construction, or on-site detours?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social,
economic, or environmental grounds ? X
concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, ?
State, and local laws relating to the X
environmental aspects of the action?
F +?
6
4

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
CULTURAL RESOURCES
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on
properties eligible for or listed on the ? X
National Register of Historic Places?
(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks,
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl F X
refuges, historic sites, or historic
bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in,
across, or adjacent to a river designated ? X
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E
should be provided below. Additional supporting
documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
7
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2855
State Project No. 8.1221601
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-33(2)
Project Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.)
THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN PITT COUNTY OVER PARKER CREEK.
BRIDGE NO. 59 ON NC 33 WILL BE REPLACED IN ITS EXISTING
LOCATION WITH A 2 @ 10 FT. X 9 FT. PRECAST BOX CULVERT.
THE LENGTH OF THE CULVERT SHOULD BE ADEQUATE TO
ACCOMMODATE A 24-FOOT PAVEMENT WITH 8-FOOT USABLE
WITHL8EFOOT USABLEPSHOULDERS. DURBINGACONSTRUCTIONEMENT
TRAFFIC WILL BE DETOURED ONTO EXISTING AREA ROADS.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
C7 _ s. 9'1:? C?;,( V, 4ea?
Date 404- H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
9- z-
Date Wayn Elliott
Project Planning Unit Head
q- 2_9y
Date Mic ele Jam
Project Planning Engineer
8
r
-yv , rmeic
Bethel \
f 30
' Stokes
=lklan _ 11 y `t
/IT
' Bruce 3 30 1
Fountain _ use
Toddy Id !r 9 Paaolus
Gre nville +
•?-? -3 Bell Art ur
vl - 1 son- NS
3 Grimesland 33
P. I T T
s Wmtervdle Cnocow
Black Jer
C ountree

Colvory Pent.
Ch.
al
Pitt-Greenville
Airport
1531
1603

?l
I 1
1
> I
I 1
1
e? I 1
157
\ Carson Mem. r5e3t
Pent. Holiness Im M
d c
lq ??py Emmanuel o°, •06 0
Holiness .06
AU dhp-o Ch. r ^o
t3
33
Porkers Cho
F.W.B. Ch.
1 lSe6,
E-" 0 0 STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
1417 ?Q Rouse
r? I
. I
y to
I
r
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 33
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER PARKER CREEK
BRIDGE NO. 59
PITT COUNTY
T.1. P. NO. B - 2855
0 mile 1/2 FIG. 1
r?
r.
?e ~?A
Y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GovERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 8, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Lane Sauls, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resource 'technical Report for
Replacement of Bridge No. 59 on NC 33
over Parker Creek, Pitt County; TIP No.
B-2855; State Project No. 8.1221601;
Federal Aid No. BRSTP-33(2).
ATTENTION: Michele James, Project Manager
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides
inventories and descriptions of natural resources within the
project area, and estimations of impacts likely to result
from project construction. Pertinent information on wetlands
and federally-protected species is also provided. Please
contact me if you have any questions, or need this report
copied onto disc format.
cc: V. Charles Bruton,
M. Randall Turner,
Fi 1e B?-"2855
Ph. D.
Environmental Supervisor

Replacement of Bridge No. 59 on NC 33
Over Parker Creek in Pitt County
TIP No. B-2855
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-33(2)
State Project No. 8.1221601
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2855 .
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
LANE SAULS, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
AUGUST 8, 1994 .
t ?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................1
1.1 Project Description.. .......................1
1.2 Purpose .......................................1
1.3 Study Area ....................................1
1.4 Methodology .................................. ''
2.0 Physical Resources ..................................2
2.1 Water Resources ...............................2.
2.1.1 Best Usage Classification ............ 3
2.1.2 Water Quality ........................3
2.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....... 4
2.2 Soils and Topography ..........................4
3.0 Biotic Resources ....................................5
3.1 Terrestrial Communities . .....................5
3.1.1 Floral Communities ...................5
3.1.2 Faunal Communities..... ............6
3.2 Aquatic Communities ...........................7
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................7
4.0 Jurisdictional
4.1 Waters o
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.2 Rare and
4.2.1
4.2.2
Topics ...............................8
f the United States ...................8
Anticipated impacts to Waters of
the U.S ........ .....................9
Anticipated Permit Requirements ...... 9
Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation..9
Protected Species ....................9
Federally-Protected Species .......... 9
Federal Candidate and
State Listed Species .............12
5.0 References ..........................................13
Appendix A: Comments from Resource Agencies
r

,; ??? Ffarmela
stint //

?Falklan 11
1
?' Br
,F Gun JIM uce 3
1
s Se
Od7 lip p, : + _Pact
aus

ell A, t
so-
Grlm-stand
-?
J
•+a P. I T? T t
-
/ Wmlertrlle Crlocow
Bllch Is(
C Rount7ee

Ayden Snelmertlln•

I V Ca cc
Grlllon !
.S

.06
:; N 11.7

I 133 - 13
-

"at ;:
gg
- 1
[ 1 ft' \
+?? y ?=i ti'--N T
/ I 70
,
144 / l 1171. N • C \1 '

J r`• P lJ
Cawy Ptnt.
'v 1!7{

/
"
Ch.
33
e

' J. 13]3 --?`-
,.. r' ? rs7t

)•`r':. Pif1.G7etnvilk
/+i7ppr7 1 7 ??
a -
sv' • 1, =r,7
C.-m- ? t]

' ?awr. Holiness 1377 7p ?
r ti.
-
r
r lq/ J Ch. ?br Emmawwl o oa
.. Mdine++ °

F.W.a. Ch.
i

TAR

q ..

/Q] , NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
1371 Fifth ,03 / TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND F.NVIRONI.IENTAL
BRANCH
NC 33
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER PARKER CREEK
BRIDGE NO. 59
PITT COUNTY
T.1. P. NO. B - 2855
0 mile 112 FIG. 1
4
1.0 ?NTRODUCTION
The foliowin-2 Natural Resources Teennical Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of a Categorical Exclusion
(CE). This report inventories the natural resources
- occurring within the proposed project area. identifies
environmental concerns, and makes recommendations on
alternatives for minimizing environmental degradation.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for replacement of Bridge No.
59 on NC 33 over Parker Creek (see Figure 1). The proposed
right-of-way is 24.4 m (80.0 ft). Three alternatives are
being considered: (1) replacement at existing location with
road closure; (2) replacement at existing location with on-
site detour (temporary) to the south, including a cast-in-
place culvert and (3) replacement at`'existing location with
on-site detour (temporary) to the south, including a precast
culvert.
1.2 Purpose
. The purpose of this technical report is to inventory.
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely- to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attemps
to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the
anticipated impacts to these resources. Recommendations are
made for measures which will minimize resource impacts.
These descriptions and estimates are relevant only- in the
context of existing preliminary design concepts. If design
parameters and criteria change, additional field
investigation may be needed.
1.3 Study Area
The project study area is located along the outskirts of
Greenville. The area is industrialized with agricultural
fields surrounding these facilities. Very little forest
remains aside from the riparian zones along the creek. The
study- area encompasses the existing bridge, areas 30.5 m
(100.0 ft) upstream and downstream, as well as a 24.4 m (80.0
ft) right-of-way. Bridge No. 59 lies on an east-west axis
while Parker Creek flows approximately north-south at the
proposed project site.
The study area can be divided into four quadrants using
NC 33 and Parker Creels as the main axes. A narrow riparian
zone surrounds Parker Creek as it passes through the project
location. The northwest and northeast quadrants have been
cleared for powerline right-of-way. The southeast quadrant
consists mainly of bottomland hardwood trees. These
bottomland hardwoods, dbh of 15 to 36 cm (6 to 14 in), extend
across Parker Creek and into the southwest quadrant to border
1)
a fallow field.
1.4 Methodology
A site visit was made on July 22, 1994 to conduct
general field surveys, determine natural resource conditions
and confirm published information available concerning the
site. Information sources used in this pre-field
investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Greenville NE), National
Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map, NCDOT aerial photograph of
project area (1:1200) and Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
soil maps of Pitt County. Water resource information was
obtained from publications of the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the
Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Pitt County, N.C.
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state
protected species in the study area'was gathered from the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and
candidate species and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
database of rare species and unique habitats.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using a variety of observation techniques: active searching
and capture, visual observations (binoculars), identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and
burrows). Organisms captured during these searches were
identified and then released. Jurisdictional wetland
determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria
prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Water and soil resources, which occur in the study area,
are discussed below. The availability of water and soils
directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
Pitt County lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Provence. The topography of Pitt County is characterized by
flat areas with little slope and wide interstream divides.
2.1 Water Resources
Project B-2855 is located in the Parker Creek sub-basin
within the Tar River Basin. Parker Creek arises just north
of Greenville and flows into the Tar River in Greenville.
The Tar River basin arises in northern Granville County and
moves southeast across the piedmont and coastal plain,
emptying into the Pamilico Sound just south of Washington.
The basin is long and narrow and is bordered to the north by
the Roanoke River Basin and to the south by the Neuse River
3
Basin.
At the project site, Parker Creek flows at slow-to-
moderate speeds through a relatively shallow channel which
shows evidence of excessive channelization during heavy
runoff periods. A mixed sand and silt substrate was present
at the project site. Refer to Table 1 for a complete listing
of stream characteristics.
TABLE 1.
FEATURE
SUBSTRATE
CURRENT
STREAM GRAD.
CHANNEL WIDTH
BANK HEIGHT
WATER DEPTH
WATER COLOR
AQUATIC VEG.
CHARACTERISTICS OF PARKER CREEK AT THE
B-2855 PROJECT SITE
Upstream
sand/silt
medium
f lat
4.5 m
(15.0 ft)
1.5 m
(5 ft)
20.3 cm
(8.0 in)
clear
green algae
Bridge
sandy/silt
medium
f lat'
4.5 m
(15.0 ft)
4.5 m
(15.0 ft)
25.4 cm
(10.0 in)
clear
green. algae
Downstream
sandy/silt
slow
f lat
6.1 m
(20.0 ft)
2.4 m
(s.0 ft)
20.3 cm
(8.0 in)
clear
green algae
NOTES: Measurements were taken 30.5 m .(100.0 ft) upstream
and downstream from the proposed crossing.
2.1.1 Best Usage. Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Parker
Creek, from its source to the Tar River, is rated Class "C
NSW". Class "C" waters are suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing , wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. "NSW" classifies Nutrient
Sensitive Waters which require limitations on nutrient
inputs.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I
or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the study area. However a WS-I (Water
Supply Critical Area) is located approximately 4.4 km (2.0
mi) northwest of the project.
2.1.2 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM 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
4
fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass are reflections of water
quality.
There are no BMAN sites along Parker Creek at the
present time. However, three sites are located along the Tar
River throughout Pitt County. These sites are located above'
and below the confluence of Parker Creek. A fair rating is
given.to all sites along the Tar River in Pitt County.
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. The NPDES identifies
one discharger into an unnamed tributary to Parker Creek.
The discharger is Burroughs Wellcome. Company (Permit;
NC0001058) with a design flow of 0.0000 which consists of
non-contact cooling water and boiler blowdown. Burroughs
Wellcome Company is located approximately 5.0 km (2.3 mi)
upstream on NC 11 and SR 1590.
2.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction-related impacts include reduced water
quality, increased sedimentation, toxic runoff, alterations
of the water level due to interruptions or increases in water
flow, and the destruction of natural substrate due to stream
channelization. Reduced water quality results from changes
in turbidity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and nutrient
limitation. Precautions should be taken in order to minimize
impacts to water resources in the study area, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control guidelines should be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the project.
With respect to natural resources, Alternate 1 is
clearly the most preferable alternative. It calls for
replacement of the existing structure with a new bridge in
the same location and road closure. It poses the least
impact to all aquatic resources.
Alternatives 2 and 3 call for on-site temporary detours
during construction. These temporary detours will use cast-
in-place and precast culverts. Impacts will be greater
because of increased erosion, blockage of debris and
destruction of natural biotic communities.
2.2 Soils and Topography
The project study area is dominated by the Bibb Complex.
This complex of Typic Haplaquents (Entisois) are poorly
drained, nearly level soils associated with floodplains and
in draws and depressions in the uplands. These soils formed
5
in recent alluvium and in local alluvium. A seasonal high
water at or near the surface can be expected in some areas of
the Bibb Complex. Table 2 provides an inventory of specific
soil mapping units which occur in the project area.
TABLE 2. COUNTY SOILS IN THE PROJECT AREA
Map Unit Specific Percent Hydric
Symbol Mapping Unit Slope Classification
Bb Bibb Complex 0-2 A
Ch Chipley sand 0-2 -
LaB Lakeland sand 0-6 -
Oe Olustee loamy sand 0-2 A
Tu Tuckerman fine 0-2 A
sandy loam
WaB Wagram loamy sand 0-6 -
NOTES: "A" denotes hydric soils or soils having hydric soils
as a major component.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the existing vegetative and
associated wildlife communities that occur at the B-2855
project site. It also discusses potential impacts affecting
these communities.as a result of the proposed actions.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified in
the project study area: bottomland hardwood community and
roadside community. Community boundaries are frequently ill-
defined; contiguous communities sometimes merge without any
transition zone between them; although, in many instances
distinct transition zones (ecotones) are apparent. Many
faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate the
entire range of the two terrestrial communities discussed.
3.1.1 Plant Communities
Bottomland Hardwood. The bottomland harwood forest is
found on floodplain ridges and terraces as well as levees
adjacent to the river channel. The hydrology is palustrine
with intermittent flooding during wet periods. Bottomland
hardwood forests are believed to form a climax forest, having
an un-even aged canopy.
The canopy is dominated by various bottomland trees such
as black walnut (Juglans nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), southern red
oak (Quercus falcata), water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak
(Quercus phellos), American elm (Ulmus americana) and tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Understory trees include
6
red maple (Acer rubrum), river birch (Betula nigra), black
cherry (Prunus serotina), sweetleaf (Symplocos tinctoria) and
winged elm (Ulmus alata). Shrub species observed were
trumpet vine (Campsis radicans), poison-ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), privet
(Ligustrum sinense), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), wild grape (Vitis rotundifolia), winged sumac
(Rhus copallina) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica). The herbaceous layer was heavily populated in
areas of direct sunlight. Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea),
false nettle (Bomeria cylindrica), spotted touch-me-not
(Impatiens capensis), maypops (Passiflora incarnata),
clearweed (Pilea pumila), pokeweed (Phytola.cca americana) and
lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus) were all represented with
strong, healthy populations.
Roadside. The roadside community, a community dominated
by weedy herbs that are regularly maintained by mowing,
includes species such as mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), wild
carrot (Daucus carota.), barnyard grass (Echinochloa
crusgalli), dog-fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), fescue
(Festuca spp.), Japanese honeysuckle, Virginia creeper,
dallis grass (Paspalum dilata.tum), pokeweed and panic grass
(Pa.nicum spp.). Additional woody species include poison-ivy,
red maple, sycamore, trumpet creeper, and dogwood.
3.1.2 Faunal Communities
The development-punctuated landscape is attractive to
numerous species which thrive in ecotonal habitats. The
small riparian zone along the creek provides edge habitat for
many types of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians.
The open areas provide a variety of habitat for bird
species. The bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), northern
cardinal (Ca.rdinalis cardinalis), American robin (Turdus
migratorius), catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura), bluejay (Cyanocitta cristata) and common
grackle (Quiscalus quiscala) are species that dominate the
open areas and edges. Species including red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis) and barn owl (Tyto alba) are the dominate
bird predators within the area.
Small mammals that occur in this area are raccoon
(Procyon lotor), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus),
eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humilus), hispid
cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) and meadow voles (Microtus
pennsylvanicus). Red and gray foxes (Vulpes vulpes and
Urocyon cinereoargenteus) tend to be the dominant mammal
predators in the adjacent areas.
Reptiles observed throughout the area include the :-fiver
cooter (Chrvsemys floridana) and eastern painted turtle
(chrysemys picta.) which were seen basking in the sun along

the streambanks. Other repti'_=s thought to inhabit the
project and surroundir.v areas are snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentina)• painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), yellowbelly
slider (Clirysemys scripta) eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), black racer (Coluber constrictor), eastern
kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus), eastern garder snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis) and copperhead (Agkistrodon
contortrix).
Small concentrations of amphibians are expected to
inhabit the bottomland hardwood community and stream edge.
Most of these amphibians live in springs, seepages and
streams throughout hardwood forests. A few species thought
to inhabit this area are marbled salamander (Ambystoma.
opacum), two-lined salamander (Eur.vicea bislineata), slime
salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), toads (Bufo spp.),
northern cricket frog (Acris creptitans), spring peeper (Hyla
crucifer), upland chorus frog (Pseu`dacris triseriata.),
bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) and pickerel frog (Rana
sphenocephala).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, the coastal plain small
perennial stream. community, will be impacted by the proposed
project. Physical and chemical characteristics of the water
body dictate faunal composition of the aquatic communities.
Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also
greatly influence aquatic communities and vice versa.
Parker Creek supports a moderate diversity of fish
species. Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus), sunfish (Lepomis spp.) and chubs
(Semotilus spp.) were observed. Common insects seen were
small whirligig beetle (Gyrinus spp.),.common water strider
(Gerris remigis) and the short-stalked damselfly (Argia
spp.). One species of bivalve was observed, the asian clam
(Corbicula fluminea), which tends to inhabit streams which
have medium to poor water quality conditions.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject 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 area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study
area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 3
8
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire proposed right-of-way
width of 24.4 m (80 ft). Usually, project construction does
not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
TABLE 3. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Community Alt. 1 Alt. 1A Alt. 1B
bottomland hardwood <0.1 (0.2) 0.3 (0.7) 0.3 (0.7)
roadside 0.2 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5) 0.2 (0.5)
Total Impacts 0.3 (0.7) 0.5 (1.1) 0.5 (1.1)
NOTES: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
All impacts to terrestrial and'aquatic communities will
occur during and as a result of construction or road
relocation.
Replacement at the existing location with road closure
(Alternate 1) will result in minimal impacts to natural
resources.
Replacement at the existing location with temporary on-
site detour (Alternates lA and 1B) poses more problems
because of the installation of culverts and the destruction
of additional biotic communities. These two alternatives
create more threats to the aquatic community than the
terrestrial.
No adverse impact to plant populations is expected from
the proposed project. Many species are common throughout the
area and adequate populations of these species exist outside
the study area.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analyses pertinent to two important issues--Waters of
the United States, and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters'of the United States: Jurisdictional Topics
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, 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. Any
9
action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4.1.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No alterations to the Parker Creek channel will occur as
a result of this project, and no jurisdictional wetlands will
be impacted by the proposed project. Only surface water
impacts can be expected. All possible precautions should be
taken to prevent sedimentation, toxic runoff, etc.
4.1.2 Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to waters of the United States come under
jurisdiction of the.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)23 is likely to be
applicable to the project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or
financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency or
department where that agency or department has determined
pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation
that the activity, work or discharge is categorically
excluded from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on
the environment.
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
Project B-2855 involves surface water impacts only.
Under the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Environmental Protection Agency (,EPA) and the Department of
the Army (Army) no mitigation is likely to be required for a
Nationwide Permit. However, final decision rests with the
Corps of Engineers (COE).
4.2 Rare and Protected 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 man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
ammended) requires that any action, likely to adversely
affect a species classified as federally-protected, be
subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Other species may receive additional protection under
separate.state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed
10
Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the.Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
ammended. As of July 8, 1994, the FWS lists the following
federally-protected species for Pitt County (Table 4). A
brief description of each species' characteristics and
habitat follows.
TABLE 4. FEDERAL LISTED SPECIES FOR PITT COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Classification
Elliptio steinstansana Tar River spiny mussel E*
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
*" No specimen from Pitt County found in the past twenty
years (1973-1993).
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar river spiny mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 7/29/85
Distribution in N.C.: Edgecombe., Franklin, Halifax,
Nash, Pitt, Vance, Warren.
The Tar River spinymussel is endemic to the Tar River
drainage basin, from Falkland in Pitt County to Spring Hope
in Nash County. Populations of the Tar River spinymussel can
be found in streams of the Tar River Drainage Basin and of
the Swift Creek Drainage Sub-Basin.
This mussel requires
oxygenated, circumneutral
of uncompacted gravel and
relatively silt-free. It
freshwater fish to act as
larvae.
a stream with fast flowing, well
pH water. The bottom is composed
coarse sand. The water needs to be
is known to rely on a species of
an intermediate host for its
The Tar River spinymussel is a very small mussel. This
mussel is named for its spines which project perpendicularly
from the surface and curve slightly ventrally. As many as 12
spines can be found on the shell which is generally smooth in
texture. The nacre is pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white
(posterior).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Parker Creek does not provide suitable habitat condusive
to the Tar River spinymussel. Fast flowing, well oxygenated
11
water and a substrate of uncompacted gravel and coarse sand
does not exist. No impacts to the Tar.River spinymussel will
occur as a result of project construction.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham,
Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Duplin,
Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford,
Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir,
Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover,
Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico,
Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson,
Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne,
Wilson.
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 200 hectares (500
acres). 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 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-
15.7 m (30-50 ft) 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
The project site does not provide any contiguous stands
of mature pines. Therefore, it is very unlikely the red-
cockaded woodpecker exists in the study area.
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of
uncommon and protected species also revealed no recorded
12
occurrence of federally-protected species in or near the
project study area.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are three federal candidate (C2) species listed
for Pitt County as of July 8, 1994. Federal Candidate
species are not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject of any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. C2 species
are defined as organisms which are vulnerable to extinction
although no sufficient data currently exists to warrant a
listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered or
Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by
the North Carolina Heritage Program.list of Rare Plant and
Animal species are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 5 lists federal candidate species, the species'
state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence
of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the
status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
TABLE 5. FEDERAL CANDIDATE/N.C. PROTECTED
SPECIES FOR PITT COUNTY
Scientific Common Name NC Suitable
Name Status Habitat
Ammodramus Henslow's sparrow - N
henslowii
Procambarus medialis Albemarle crayfish - Y
Fusconaia masoni* Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) T Y
NOTES: Population not documented in Pitt County in the
past twenty years.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review
of the database of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program Rare
Species and Unique Habitats revealed no records of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project
study area.
13
5.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of.Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, "Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Martof, Palmer, Bailey, Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University
of Nor.th Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1980. The Audubon Society
Field Guide to North American Trees Eastern Region.
Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Society
Field Guide to North American Wildflowers Eastern
Region. Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Society
Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians.
Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993 Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to Waters of the Tar River Basin.
Raleigh Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: *Benthic Macroinvertabrate
Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality, 1983-
1990.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources,Commission. 1991. The
Fresh Water Fishes of North Carolina. The Delmar
Company, Charlotte, NC.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The Univ. N.C.
Press.
Robbins, C.S. B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to
Field Identification Birds of North America. Golden
Press. New York.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classifications of
the Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. NC Nat. Heritage Program, Div. of Parks
and Rec., NC Dept. of Envir., Health and Nat. Resources.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service..
1984.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1974.
Soil Survey of Pitt County, North Carolina. N.C.
14
Agriculture Experiment Station.
Webster, Parnell, Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virgina and Maryland. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
R.F.V. 10/92.
:
TIP NO.
UNIT PRIORITY NO.:
DATE : & -,F
MEMORANDUM TO: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Environmental Unit Head
FROM: c l oiP_ ?
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Environmental Input
Please provide environmental input for the project
described below. Information concerning the proposed project
is provided to assist your staff in their investigations. If
you will be unable to meet the schedule shown below, please
let me know.
ENVIRONMENTAL INPUT REQUESTED
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ARCHITECTURAL/ HISTORIC RESOURCES
NATURAL SYSTEMS
WETLAND MITIGATION (PERMITS)
LAND USE.AND FARMLAND
SOCIOECONOMIC
TRAFFIC NOISE/ AIR QUALITY
ALL OF THE ABOVE
OTHER:

?C. PROJECT INFORMATION
COUNTY
TIP NO.: G 855
IzRS1"P -
STATE PROJECT: ,J'. IZ?l6D/ F. A. PROJECT:
SCHEDULE: RIGHT OF WAY - FY - CONSTRUCTION - FY
DE,j CRIPTION: & &el 1020•
DATE NEEDED: 9' 5?-
ENGINEER: JerYI t.s
UNIT HEAD: 94 1//4/7 4-
DOCUMENT TYPE: A;;4" (-/? 4»
CONSULTATION TYPE:
FUNDING: --""STATE 'FEDERAL
REV. 10/9?
PROJECT LENGTH:
TIP NO.: F) -2 86-15
UNIT PRIORITY.NO.:
DESIGN INFORMATION
EXISTING R/W.:
POSTED SPEED: MPH
EXISTING X-SECTION:
PROPOSED X-SECTION:
STRUCTURE TYPE:
YEAR BUILT:
TRAFFIC
CURRENT( ) ADT: DESIGN YEAR( ) ADT:
TTST: % DT: % DHV: % DIR:
0
ADT REQUESTED: ADT DUE BY:
* Traffic will be forwarded when available
.9P[LE?-CIAL INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS
• l ? V/?/.57WlG /?C.?7!%lY1 Y??//1 <P?viP.??" -- riO r ?, e- _ _ ,.

Vicinity maps (8)
Aerial mosaics (7)
USGS Quad Maps (8)
Design Plans (7)
<
PROPOSED R/W:
PROPOSED SPEED: MPH
ATTACHMENTS
35 mm photos ( )
Agency Input letters

z
f
aNST?T!'o
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
401 ISSUED
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
April 5, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacing Bridge No. 59 on
NC 33 over Parker Creek, Pitt County, B-2855
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 May 5, 1994 at 2:00 P. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). 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
Michele James, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
MJ/pl r ?,,' c? ?' C /?S ??? 2x?
Attachment
-0 ao/ 6/e
-?- (0-r6 Ger.
4
e4
K
BRI lx3E
PROJECT SCORING SHEET
DATE -a-! R4
R.EV I. S I ON DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SWAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING -- - .-- -_x-... - -
DESIGN
t8-55 _-
TIP PROJECT Fi-2
STATE PROJECT
F_A_ PROJECT
DIVISION
1?IT..._.__
COUNTY
ROUTE ------
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 33, BRIDGE #59. PITT COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER PARKER CREEK
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
I_ EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE .
2_ EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3_ RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($)
(%)
mr
Bd IDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR -1044- VPD
TTST _
-- DT
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH at-j_. METERS; WIDTH METERS
FEET f]- FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH METERS
FEET FEET
OR
CULVERT - METERS
FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH METERS
OR F'EET FEET
PIPE - SIZE MILLIMETERS
INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) --------------------- $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISI'PION)------------------- $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS----------------------------
TOTAL COST --------------------------------------- $
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST --------------------$ 280,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ------------------------------ $ 20,000
SUB TOTAL---------------- ---------- 300,000
PRIOR YEARS COST--------------------------------
TIP TOTAL COST ----------------------------------- s 300,000
'ir
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS :
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
THE PR0,1ECT NUMBERS, HYDRAULIC 'l"";-FC-)9 iATl0N,
AND 1'R.AFF'IC ESTIMATES WILL BE PROVIDED AT
THE SCOPING MEETING.
PREPARED BY: tIICHELE JAMES
DATE: 3-31-94
;vl

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP oATe, '
TO:.
C
M REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG..
er
l
°
?'?
E
?,?A
2, ??? n- TX
HNR
?
'
FROM: ,
REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLOC.
?(_4 ELL
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
?. NOTE AND RETURN TO ME, ?PER YOUR REQUEST
" ?. RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS. - ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWF-R ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ?. SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
Mtl?
9 ION
N?
VI13
dn0
«nr
?f s?,

r

"A
r 1
,?,qq?? ?,e. SUTF a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 15, 1994
401 ISSUED
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Michele L. James
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 59 on NC 33 over Parker Creek,
Pitt County, State Project 8.1221601, F. A. Project
BRSTP-33(2); B-2855
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held on May 5, 1994 at 2:00
P. M. in Room 434 of the Planning and Environmental Branch.
The following were in attendance:
Jerry Snead
Dave Cochran
Steve Drum
Don Sellers
Gerald White
David Cox
Michele James
Kenney McDowell
Hydraulics Unit
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Right of Way
Structure Design
NCWRC
Planning & Environmental
Planning & Environmental
Attached are the revised scoping sheets which include additional
information provided at the scoping meeting.
Based on available information, it appears the subject bridge should be
replaced in its existing location with a precast culvert. Traffic should be
detoured along existing area roads.
An estimated cost for the preferred alternative is $170,000. The
estimated cost contained in the TIP is $300,000.
The alternatives to be studied are as follows:
Alternate 1 - Replace the bridge in the existing location. Traffic
would be detoured along existing secondary roads during
construction.
i
2-0 10
June 15, 1994
Page 2
Alternate lA - Identical to Alternate 1 except the bridge would be
replaced with a precast culvert.
Alternate 2 - Replace the bridge in the existing location with a
culvert. The traffic would be maintained on-site with a
temporary detour.
David Cox of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission recommends the
design of the culvert to allow for fish passage.
Archaeological and architectural surveys will not be necessary.
'The Division office recommends road closure.
MJ/wp
Attachments
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 3-31-94
REVISION DATE 6-15-94
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING X
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B-2855
STATE PROJECT 8.1221601
F.A. PROJECT BRSTP-33(2)
DIVISION
COUNTY PITT
ROUTE NC 33
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 33, BRIDGE #59, PITT COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER PARKER CREEK
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE X
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) 1 W
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 1700 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 3400 VPD
TTST 2 % DT 3 %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 24.1 METERS; WIDTH 8 METERS
79 FEET 26.1 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH METERS
FEET FEET
OR
CULVERT - 2 @ 3 X 2.7 METERS
2 @ 10 X 9 FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH METERS
FEET FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE
MILLIMETERS
INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $ 150,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $ 20,000
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $ 170,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 280,000 +
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 20,000
SUB TOTAL ....................................... $ 300,000 +
PRIOR YEARS COST ................................ $
TIP TOTAL COST ................................... $ 300,000
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
PREPARED BY: MICHELE JAMES
DATE: 6-15-94