19950598 Ver 1_Complete File_19950608

a va
?$w
yaSUip°
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR
GovERNOR
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
June 5, 1995
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
G 55 ? 8
4011SSUSD
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
r
?s 3' J1JP?1
SUBJECT: Johnston County, Replacement of Bridge No. 23 over Little River on
NC 231, TIP No. B-2839, State Project No. 8.1311601, Federal Project
No BRSTP-23 1 (1).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
Bridge No. 78 over Hannah Creek in Johnston County. The bridge will be replaced at the
existing location with a slightly wider bridge. The roadway will be closed during
construction, and traffic detoured along existing area roads. This replacement will require
fill in approximately 0.13 acres of wetland habitat.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the
subject project and a copy of the project Natural Systems Report. Notice especially the list
of environmental commitments in the project report's Section D. The project is being
processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in
accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with
33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers.
The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed
in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2734 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing copies of these documents to the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, for their review.
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201

-d •
2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone] extension 315.
Sincerel
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
GEC/plr
Attachments
cc: Ms. Jean Manuele, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. R. Dupree, Division 4 Engineer
Mr. Wayne Fedora, Project Planning Engineer
•? Date: 1/94
w.?
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2839
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-231(1)
State Project No. 8.1311601
A. Project Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.) NCDOT will be replacing bridge
No. 23 on NC 231 over Little River in Johnston Count
(Figure 1). The bridge will be replaced at the existing
location with a bridge approximately 55 meters (180 feet)
long. The new bridge will provide a 7.2-meter (24-foot)
wide travelwa plus a 0.9-meter (3.0-foot) offset on each
side. NC 231 will be closed during construction, and
through traffic will be detoured along existing area
roads as shown on Figure 1.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need: Bridge No. 23 has a sufficiency rating
of 49.9 out of 100.0 and an estimated remaining life of
10 years. The deck is only 7.6 meters (25 feet) wide
The Bridge Policy calls for a bridge 9.0 meters (30 feet)
wide. The bridge is posted 24 metric tons (27 tons) for
single vehicles and 27 metric tons (30 tons) for truck-
tractor semi-trailers. For these reasons, Bridge No 23
needs to be replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which
apply to the project:
Type II Improvements
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
Date: 1/94

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
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 Pro.iect Information: (Include ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMITMENTS)
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS:
1. High Quality Waters Erosion Control guidelines will be
followed throughout construction
2. Existing piles will be cut down to the substrate, or
pulled out in accordance with the HQW guidelines. If
the contractor pulls the piles, monitoring of suspended
materials will be completed.
3. The existing concrete rip-rap will be retained at each
end of the bridge
3
Date: 1/94

ESTIMATED COST:
CONSTRUCTION - $ 475,000
RIGHT OF WAY,- $ 30,000
TOTAL - $ 505,000
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC:
CURRENT (1994)- 1800 VPD DESIGN (2014)- 3400 VPD
2 % TTST 4 %DUAL
PROPOSED TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
Two 3.6-meter (12-foot) wide lanes plus 2.4-meter
(8-foot) wide graded shoulders
DESIGN SPEED:
Approximately 100 km/h (60 mph)
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION:
Rural Major Collector
DIVISION COMMENTS:
The division office recommends replacing Bridge
No. 23 on the existing alignment and detouring
traffic along area roads as shown in Figure 1.
OTHER ITEMS:
NCDOT recommends that a temporary, on-site detour
structure and alignment not be built to maintain
traffic because it is estimated to cost an
additional $300,000, would impact an additional
0.18 hectares (0.44 acres) of wetlands, would
increase potential impacts to the federally-
protected dwarf-wedge mussel, and the division
office recommends not constructing a temporary
detour.
tv
5

Date: 1/94
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is.located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly ? N/A
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier ? X
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be F-1 X
required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification ? X
of any ex isting regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream F-1 X
relocatio ns or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts F-1 X
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of F-1 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-1 X
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent ? X
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or F-1 X
community cohesiveness?
7
Date: 1/94
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.)
*2. Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened
species may occur?
NC Natural Heritage Program records indicate the
presence of the dwarf wedge mussel upstream and
downstream from the project site in the Little River.
The NCWRC has proposed a Critical Habitat Designation
for the Little River in Johnston County. As an agent
of the Federal Highway Administration, the NCDOT
initiated Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
concurs that the project is not likely to adversely
effect the dwarf-wedge mussel if NCDOT Implements
Environmental Commitments 1 through 13 (page 3 and 4)
during construction (see attached concurrence letter).
9
Date: 1/94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2839
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-231(1)
State Project No. 8.1311601
Project Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.) NCDOT will be replacing bridge
No. 23 on NC 231 over Little River in Johnston County
(Figure 1). The bridge will be replaced at the existing
location with a bridge approximately 55 meters (180 feet)
long. The new bridge will provide a 7.2-meter (24-foot)
wide travelway plus a 0.9-meter (3.0-foot) offset on each
side. NC 231 will be closed during construction, and
through traffic will be detoured along existing area
roads as shown on Figure 1.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
TYPE I I (B)
Approved:
Date *f-7C`Managerg
P'lannin & Environmental Branch
/-2 s -gam W Q yj Q. L-71, r CA
Date Projec Planning Unit Head
D to Project Planning Engineer
For Type II(B) project nly:
ate Division Administr for
Federal Highway Adm'nistration
10

T
es
uckh.
Archer - ?z os$ ;0.
r OoQ! ` s
)0 f Clay n c
i j
7 4
s? 0 H 9TM8 ley Z
i b 7 Wi son 3 ill /r 50 -? 17 stthfiel 'ws f '
` P:ne Level
Holt. 3 1 1 70A
to 0 Prr
7
7 Four Oaks S E
301 Ypkvp 1
B g Ro
7 1
101 j
7 to
is
S

di`
y5
} 7/S i.0

/ a. 117]
- ?, S y A
n ,? 2
1 1 N 1 N Itta' v 1
a
" •E e n RS
L?
:i .2l ? 1 ?" C) II
run

4-1
?? ..
O?? I
`
/?Te Y ?i I `4'3 III
?
J
'? I
?
? ? Sr
?
? N / 3t
.a R( I11.f -Lu
^
_
?'lT \ D It f13
'
_ b ?,
t. 14
y :? fAf 1.1
4
BRIDGE NO. 23

1./ 1.61 .. '? ,? 7f `?_.+'
i ?? ? T v? .Q ,. 17
LEGEND
M1, 190, ?
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
111! ?
111E ® I
t
J
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 23
ON NC 231 OVER LITTLE RIVER
JOHNSTON COUNTY
T. 1. P. NO. B - 2839
0 2km 4km
FIG. 1

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
February 21, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
¦
??
PRIDE INS
AMERICA??
SUBJECT: Bridge replacement #23 over Little River, Johnston County, NC; State
Project #8.1311601, Tip #B-2839
Dear Mr. Vick:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your letter dated
January 6, 1995 regarding the above-referenced proposed bridge replacement over
Little River, Johnston. County, North Carolina. Our comments are provided in
accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
We appreciate your efforts to minimize any possible impacts to the Federally-
endangered dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) that is known to occur in
areas of the Little River. We have made three revisions to your list of
commitments (#6, #8 & #10). We request that no herbicides or pesticides be used
for this project; and we have changed the construction prohibition dates to
December 1 through March 31, as we discussed with Mr. Wayne Fedora of your staff
on January 19, 1995. Based on adherence to all the revised commitments listed
below, the Service believes that this project is not likely to adversely affect
the dwarf-wedge mussel.
Environmental commitments from NCDOT include the following:
1. High Quality Waters erosion guidelines will be followed throughout
construction.
2. Existing piles will be cut down to substrate, or pulled out in
accordance with the HQW guidelines. If the contractor pulls the
piles, monitoring of suspended materials will be completed.
3. The existing concrete rip-rap will be retained at each end of the
bridge.
4. If possible, the new bridge will span the entire stream. If it
cannot span the entire stream, steel piles will be used, and silt
y
• curtains will be used in the areas where the new piles are driven.
5. Modification of stream flow will be avoided.
6. All disturbed areas will be revegetated as early as possible.
Herbicides and pesticides will not be used.
7. Stormwater runoff from the new bridge will not be directed into the
stream.
8. A final survey for the dwarf-wedge mussel will be conducted prior to
construction and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be notified of
the results. If any mussels are located, formal consultation may be
required based on the number of mussels occurring and the
feasibility of relocating these individuals.
9. The Service and NCWRC will have an opportunity to review the plans
prior to construction. Immediately before bridge construction is to
begin, the contractor shall contact both agencies for notification
initiation date.
10. No construction work will be allowed in the stream from December 1
to March 31.
11. Removal of the old deck will be from the top, and residue from
sawing will not be allowed to go into the stream.
12. Any equipment along the stream banks will work on stone mats. These
mats will be left in place for erosion control after construction.
Silt curtains will be placed between the mats and the stream edge
during construction.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act 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; (2)
this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this
review; (3) a new species listed or critical habitat determined they may be
affected by the identified action.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Candace Martino
at 919-856-4520 (ext. 30). Thank you for your continued cooperation with our
agency.
Sincerely,
Tom Zrurger
Acting Supervisor
t`
NATURAL SYSTEMS REPORT
Replacement of Bridge # 23
NC 231 , f
Johnston County, North Carolina
(B-2839)
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Prepared by:
Ecological Consultants
3403 Long Ridge Road
Durham, North Carolina 27703

June 1994

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 . Introduction ..::.........:..:............... ..:... 1
1.1 Project Description .......................................... 1
1.2 Purpose ................................................... 1
1.3 Methodology ............................................... 1
1.4 Project Area .......................... .........:............ 2
1.5 Physiography and Soils ....................................... 2
2.0 Biotic Resources .................................................. 2
2.1 Plant Communities ........................................... 2
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities......... t .............. 3
2.3 Wildlife.. .................... I ............................. 4
2.3.1 Terrestrial ............................................4
2.3.2 Aquatic ..............................................4
2.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife ................................. 5
3.0 Water Resources .................................................. 5
3.1 Waters Impacted ............................................ 5
3.2 Best Usage Classification and Water Quality ....................... 5
3.3 Stream Characteristics ........................................ 6
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources .......................... 6
4.0 Special Topics ................................................... 6
4.1 Waters of the United States .................................... 6
4. 1.1 Permits ............................................. 7
4.1.2 Mitigation ........................................... 7
4.2 Rare and Protected Species .................................... 7
4.2.1 Federally Protected .................................... 7
4.2.2 Federal Candidate Species ............................... 9
4.2.3 State Protected Species ................................. 9
5.0 References ...................................................... 10

1.4 Project Area
The proposed project occurs in a rural area of Johnston County approximately 9 km (5.6
miles) southwest of Middlesex (Figure 1). Landuse is mixed upland forests, agricultural,
floodplain forests and urban/disturbed areas. Floodplain forests are concentrated along the
Little River. Urban/disturbed and agricultural areas are land adjacent to the existing bridge and
road.
1.5 Phvsiogravhy and Soils
Johnston County is located within the Upper to Middle Coastal Plain Province.
Topography is characterized by moderately large areas of nearly uplands with gentle valley slope
relief, resulting in moderate drainage. Elevations in the immediate project area range from 58 m
(190 ft) along the creek bottom to 64 m (210 ft) along the roadside.
The county is underlain primarily sedimentary rock in Johnston County. This is an area
where large amounts of sediments have been deposited along rivers about 130 million years ago.
Local changes in subsurface geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a single
rock type are rare.
Soils in the project vicinity include Chewalcla-Wehdkee Complex Series in the
floodplain areas. Chewalcla-Wehdkee soils are poorly drained, level to nearly level soils of
flood plains. Chewalcla-Wehdkee soils are classified as a hydric soil or have hyrdic soils as a
major component.
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
2.1 Plant Communities
Four distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed
project. Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and physical
characteristics of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.). Communities are described
below.
Floodplain Hardwood Forest
Floodplain Hardwood Forest (Alluvial Floodplain Forest type) are on level areas adjacent
to NC 231 and is a mixture of hardwoods. Much of the this area has standing water or wet spots.
There are several dead pines in areas with standing water. The canopy is dominated by red
maple (Acer rubrum), and river birch Betu a ni a . Sub-canopy trees include the canopy
species plus ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) and water oak ( uercus ni a). The shrub layer is
composed of possum haw (Illex decedu a) and poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix). Vines
present are poison ivy (Toxicodendron Mdicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera 'al ponica) and
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans). Herbs present are false nettle (Boehmeria evlindrica),
arrow-arum (Peltandra vir inica) and sedges (Carex sp..p.). _
2
Mixed Upland Forest
Mixed Upland Forest is a transitional area between the floodplain and the roadside
community. The canopy trees include white oak ( uerc s Alba), longleaf pine (Pinus alustris),
sweetgum, and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Sub-canopy trees include sourwood (Oxydendrum
ar oreum) and flowering dogwood (ornus florida). Samplings present are red maple, sasafrass
(Sassafras ilbidum), holly (Ilex opaca) and sourwood. Shrubs and vines include greenbrier
(Smilax UL), grape (Vitis :); poison ivy,-Japanese-honeysuckle, and downy arrowwood
(Viburnum rafinesquianum).
Urban/Disturbed
This community classification includes disturbed areas adjacent to the Little River and
roadside margins in the vicinity of the project. This area is characterized primarily by invasive
grasses and herbs including: poison ivy, Japanese honeysuckle, fescue grass (Festuca ap.), little
barley (Hordeum usn illum), broomsedge (Andropogon s=:), horseweed (Convza cana ensis),
common chickweed (Stellaria media), dandelion (Taraxacum officin e), toad-flax (Linaria
canadensis), and plantain (Plantago sue.). Canopy trees present are loblolly pines.
Agricultural
Agricultural land is found adjacent to the forested areas. The agricultural land includes
soil which has been previously cultivated. No crops were planted during the site visit. Herbs
present includes Carolina geranium ( eranium. carolinanum), plantain, wild garlic (Allium
vineale), cutleaf eveningprimrose (Oenothera laciniata), mouseear chickweed (Cerastium
vulgatum), and five fingers (Potentilla canadensis J.
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system
present in the study area. It should be noted that estimated impacts were derived using the entire
proposed right of way. Project construction often does not require the entire right of way and
therefore actual impacts may be less. The following table summarizes potential plant
community impacts which could result from the proposed bridge replacement.
Estimated Impacts to Plant Communities ESTIMATED IMPACT
PLANT COMMUNITIES
Floodplain Hardwood Forest
Mixed Upland Forest
Urban/Di sturbed
Agricultural
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Perm. Alt. 2 Temp.
0.05 (0.13) 0.05 (0.13) 0.18 (0.44)
0.13 (0.31) 0.13 (0.31) 0.03 (0.08)
0.05 (0.14) . - 0.05 (0.14) 0.47(l.16)
0.02 (0.04) 0.02 (0.04) 0.15 (0.38)
TOTAL
0.25 (0.62) 0.25 (0.62) 0.83 (2.06)
Note: Values in hectares (acres); Perm. ? Permanent Impacts, Temp. = Temporary Impacts.
---- -3
dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), frogs (Rana =.), green frog (Rana clamitans) and
snapping turtle ( hel dra serpentina) and several snake species.
2.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
The proposed action will not result in significant loss or displacement of known
terrestrial plant or animal habitat. Habitat affected by the proposed action include Floodplain
Hardwood Forested, Agricultural, Mixed Upland Forest and Urban/Disturbed. Alternative 2
would require more conversion of Floodplain Hardwood Forest habitat which provides habitat
for a diversity of plants and animals. The hardwood forest areas bordering the Little River will
receive disturbances next to the existing bridge area. The Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by
opportunistic plant species such as greenbriar and Japanese honeysuckle and mobile species such
as rodents, lizards and snakes that can recover quickly from construction impacts.
The proposed action can potentially have substantial affects on the aquatic ecosystem
unless strict sediment control measures are taken. The disturbance of the creek bed and
sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life, (fish, mollusk, and benthic
invertebrates) both at the project site as well as down stream reaches.
3.0 WATER RESOURCES
3.1 Waters Impacted
Bridge #23 crosses the Little River approximately 9 km (5.6 miles) southwest of
Middlesex. The Little River flows east into the Neuse River. The Little River and subsequent
receptor systems are part of the Neuse River Basin.
3.2.1 Best Usage Classification and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing
or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (DEM 1993).
The Little River is WS-V NSW, indicating "waters protected as water supplies which are
generally upstream and draining to Class WS-IV waters; no categorical restrictions on watershed
development or treated wastewater discharges are required", and a supplemental classification
for nutrient sensitive waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
This aquatic habitat has been proposed to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NC)ArRC) and the Environmental Management Commission to be designated as
Critical Habitat and High Quality Waters. Currently, no Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas,
High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters
occur within 1.6 km (I mile) of the project site.
. The DEM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) report lists two
sources (Corinth-holders Elementary School and Carver Elementary School) within four miles
upstream of the proposed crossing.
5
values), 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology at or near the soil
surface for a portion (12.5 percent or greater duration) of the growing season.
4.1.1 Permits
Section 404 impacts to wetlands will occur. A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(A)23,
for impacts to surface waters of the Little River, is likely to be applicable if the WRC certifies
that construction of this project will not adversely'affect these waters. This permit authorizes
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or in part, by
another Federal agency or department. That agency or department has determined that. the
activity is categorically excluded from the environmental documentation, because it will neither
individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental effect.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 (1665)
Water Quality General Certification is also required prior to issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
4.1.2 Mitigation
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require compensatory
mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of the Army. However, utilization of best management
practices (BMP's) is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts.
4.2 Protected Species
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988
Amendments). Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned
due to potential vulnerability. The following federally protected species are listed for Johnston
County:
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) - E
Brief descriptions of these organisms characteristics and habitat requirements are
provided below.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides boreali )
Status: E
Family: Picidae
Listed: 10/13/70
This federally Endangered woodpecker is found in scattered locations throughout the
southeast. The bird measures 18 to 20 cm long with a wing span ranging from 35 to 38 cm. The
7
N
4.2.2 Federal Candidate Species
There are nine C2 federal candidate species listed for Johnston County. The North
Carolina status of these species is listed below.
Federal Candidate Species Johnston County
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat NC
Procambarus medialis
Elliptio judithae
Elliptio lanceolata
Fusconaia masoni
Lampsilis cariosa
Lasmigona subviridis
Solida o verna
Tofieldia lg. abra
Trillium pusillum var. usQ illum
Albemarle crayfish Yes W3
Neuse slabshell Yes E
Yellow Lance Yes T
Atlantic pigtoe Yes T
Yellow lampmussel Yes T
Green floater fi Yes E
Spring-flowering goldenrod Yes E
Smooth bog-asphodel No C
Carolina Least Trillium No E
NC Status: W3, E, T and C denote Watch Category 3, Endangered, Threatened,
Candidate, respectively.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there is not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. These species are
mentioned here for information purposes, should they become federally protected in the future.
Specific surveys for any of these species were not conducted, nor were these species observed
during the site visit.
4.2.3 State Protected Species
Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species
Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.
12 et seq.). NC Natural Heritage Program records indicate a record for the Neuse River
waterdog (Necturus lewisi) from 7/31/89 near the subject project study area and the yellow
lance, Atlantic pigtoe, Neuse River waterdog, notched rainbow, and dwarf wedge mussel from
areas downstream of the subject project study area in the Little River.
9

y „a SPATE
*aa
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
February 24, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
401 ?SSUPU
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
Wayne Fedora
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 23 on
NC 231 over Little River, Johnston County, B-2839
The Planning and Environmental Branch held a scoping meeting on 19
January 1994 to initiate the subject project.
The following is a list of those in attendance:
Wayne Fedora
Claudia Walsh
Don Sellers
Brian Williford
Robin Stancil
Ray Moore
John E. Alford
James E. Speer
Tom Tarleton
Danny Rogers
Eric Galamb
James H. Hoskins
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Right-of-Way
Hydraulics
DCR-SHPO
Structure Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Location and Surveys
Program Development
DEM
Division 4
The participants decided on two alternates for replacement: replace at
existing location with road closure and detour along NC 96, SR 1723, and
NC 39 north of the project area, and replace at existing location with a
temporary on-site detour to the south of the existing alignment. The
replacement structure will be a bridge approximately 55 m (180 feet) long
with a 9 m (30-foot) wide travelway. The detour structure would be a bridge
approximately 30 m (100 feet) long.
The estimated construction cost of Alternate 1, replace in the existing
location with road closure, is $475,000. The estimated construction cost of
Alternate 2, replace in existing location with an on-site temporary detour,
is $775,000.

February 24, 1994
Page 2
In terms of historic architectural resources, NCDOT architectural
historians will need to survey the structures in the project area and submit
the information for review by SHPO. The SHPO requires more information
before commenting on a survey for archaeological resources.
Little River is classified Water Supply V, Nutrient Sensitive. This
classification requires Type A erosion control measures.
According to the Geographical Information System map of the project
area, there is a Natural Heritage Point in the vicinity of the bridge.
The planning document is currently scheduled to be completed in July
1995. Participants of the meeting discussed accelerating the completion date
to February 1995 to facilitate improved construction scheduling. Mr. Fedora
will coordinate with Mr. Rogers and Mr. Alford to accomplish this.
Right of way acquisition is scheduled for 17 May 1996 and letting is
scheduled for 17 June 1997.
WF/plr
Attachments

9
. BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 11/03/93
REVISION DATE: 2/21/94
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING:
PLANNING: • X
DESIGN:
TIP PROJECT:
STATE PROJECT:
F.A. PROJECT:
DIVISION:
COUNTY:
ROUTE:
PURPOSE:
DESCRIPTION:
COMMENTS:
B-2839
8.1311601
BRSTP-231(1)
FOUR
JOHNSTON
NC 231
REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
NC 231, BRIDGE #23, JOHNSTON COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER LITTLE'RIVER
USGS QUAD SHEET: FLOWERS
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. 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 X
IF YES. BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) 1 (o)

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 1,800 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 3,400 VPD
TTST 2 % DT 4 %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 51 Meters WIDTH 7.6 Meters..
171 Feet 25 Feet
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 55 Meters WIDTH 9 Meters
180 Feet 30 Feet
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH X Meters
X Feet
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 30 Meters
100 Feet
OR
PIPE - SIZE Millimeters
Inches
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..... ALTERNATE 2..... $ 775,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ...TIP ESTIMATE.... $ 25,000
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $ 800,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 475, 000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 25, 000
SUB TOTAL ........................................... $ 00, 000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 500,000

_ 7

t 7 1
_
- CQ1 „..6 . Archer6 9 os?5 0.

-
-

70 is. Clai odes
2
n
3 ?
?•
6
{ I
-

s 7 O H' \ 9 T

9
eidh
.
7
- B ley
M
6 7 Wi sons ill !
6 1 . II /.
•
+
l '" ' 6
S
ithfi
°f '
m
e
17
9 7
?
21 Ptine level
• 1 Hr>fr.. ' 7 1 0 70A PNt
10 Lakg
3
7 F
O
k
6 7
our
a
s
•? 301

9
7 6
,
Ro
e
6
701 L?
w
7 lU
r? 16 Mnrm.;B
/
?
Ban' 9.
9 ?
7
I ?
5 ?
7
c- .6 1. 1126 11
p ? O? ? T
!3 1N V• 111 ,.a 11
_ A e
Y MODUM
fif n RS MOB - is ?Or. s 7
%0U211
1118 ?.
1 O? \. G 7 1 Y Y ??
19,
p 111 b IIII
d 1 ?? ll,s
\ r 4 ??
b o 'mss w \? ?C ? r/ } ,? .d ? ? a Yr?1 ? ??•• It,
4?i / D J
a' i
.1 a ' 1 .6
'04,f .3 8
P •Q iu ?:
.7 _-
Q
d. c ?
BRIDGE NO. 23 d
11
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 23
ON NC 231 OVER LITTLE RIVER
JOHNSTON COUNTY
LEGEND
T. I. P. NO. B - 2839
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTES 0 2km 4km FIG. 1
n ??^ / / `/ ti !• /1? II 1
Emi = ,BM 299
An
r5 j. !` j ?I / n ? :/)fir // ?? t lot
1716 9 312+41 ? oa
as ?\ e !%r 17 o
200
- .-_ J 253 ?/n1 \ 89
290, 1 'Grav I\ -? \\ I ??_ r I
Pit 11? - :jam _ I I Y ??:.
294
° 283. ;. ' 1700
280 9M 287
LAI
250 26
27 .
-- _ 7738. `1;1 ^a0? Ir o= J \,1 `•: / t\ " / ?,/ //?J
1231r - -U
` N / J•'
r
251
e0o
- •? ? \ \ ?? ? - ter. -\\ -?'??? 1 / ?' r
1731
,;' (` t ` i U ° ?? .e \ `.. :O\? \?• ?? -243
1 . \ A
rYr J/-
r f"
•_ _ _?. - ._ 'i1 1.\ .'i I;
T cv \
I
1
i
P6 SfAlpv
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GowmoR
Iw
December 15, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
VSA
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 January 19, 1994, at 9:30 A. 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 Wayne Fedora, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-3141.
WF/plr
Attachment
t U4-

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
y Ur 77 ?" ??
DEC 17"
W ANDS G
ER UtiLITY SECTIOP?
Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacing Bridge No. 23 on
NC 231 over Little River, Johnston County, B-2839
s

P /L t ?? Vk 5 J ;?
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
C?
?r

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 11/03/93
REVISION DATE:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING:
PLANNING: X
DESIGN:
TIP PROJECT: B
-2839
STATE PROJECT:
F.A. PROJECT: C?
?? - 231 l? CS?"
DIVISION: FOUR
COUNTY: JOHNSTON
ROUTE: NC 231
PURPOSE: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION: NC 231, BRIDGE #23, JOHNSTON COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER LITTLE RIVER
LIV
COMMENTS: u
2-0 1
0,6
0/,
A 01, 451r
UGS QUAD SHEET: FLOWERS
d` ?LL
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. 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 X
IF YES. BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($)
, (%)

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR VPD
TT ST /% DT %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 51 Meters WIDTH 7.6 Meters
171 Feet 25 Feet
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH Meters WIDTH _ Meters
Feet Feet
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH x Meters
x Feet
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH Meters
Feet
OR
PIPE - SIZE Millimeters
Inches
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... S
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION)................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. S
TOTAL COST .......................................5
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 475,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 25,000
SUB TOTAL....... .................................. $ 500,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 500,000
It*

4*,
o? ?1
c-
0 ? .
€N f (!?
o i c RS
z 1o
Ala

1-1
1l -?- ly ?*
LEGEND
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTES

110
• 70 Cis
7 4 1
,s O HI
708
6 7 - Wi son
9 7 17 Smith,
1
H..
\ 10 1 L5
7 four Osks
`? ? 301

rv
Level
h
RD
e...ron.;l1 ?
V NORTH CA
ROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 23
ON NC 231 OVER LITTLE RIVER
JOHNSTON COUNTY
T. 1. P. NO. B - 2839
0 2km 4km FIG. 1
waiki
pi.
286 1 kcY H6cutt'
er?
_? ` ?,2, Hocutts i '231 - z _? .
11161 BM 312+ w 1 _?iFSSSroads 111 - - ?_? 1 ?. \\a? ?\ ??? \: \ 1'
,7mkin Holder
,ii h_Sch $rlrith 17
ern:
200
-Cem „ &iinth \ 250
?,• ' ,\ %/ ?--?, r / l ' ?? ..~1.?.;. \?-°_
290,
253
Gravdl
/ Pit,\ / -
294
o
° - - 283 __ ':•'••. Cl? _ „?: , ?, ?? \ v====
29
II ? 252 /
!\\ ? - O
-'Y
iii
t 1 ,
I 2?
y
=°
251
-
?? -- -_ C
r _
r
Eason - /
e. Cem _
41242
t ^ \ ?L\\\\ P.-'rte' \ ?_ y _ i /