19970572 Ver 1_Complete File_19970626

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
ATM?IFFA
44
10 ftwooftft"Woft
1:3 FE 1=1
August 5, 1997
Halifax County
WQC 401 Project #970572
DOT TIP No. B-2981
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to fill in 0.19 acres of wetlands or
waters for the purpose of bridge replacement at Burnt Coat Swamp, as you described in your application dated 16
June 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3107. This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 23 when it is
issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you
go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater,
Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the accompanying
404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change
your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If total wetland fills for
this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition
which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and
binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
Sincerely,
'on Kw, Jr. P
970572.1tr
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/100/9 post consumer paper
1
a... STA7[
STATE OF NORTH CAPOLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 16, 1997
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:
RECENEO
auN 2 0991
??ON ?NTA-SOIENCEB
970572
Subject: Halifax County, Replacement of Bridge No. 150 over Burnt Coat
Swamp on SR 1210, Federal Project No. BRZ-1210(3), State Project
No. 8.230070 1, T.I.P. No. B-2981.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 150 will be replaced at its existing location with a triple barrel
reinforced concrete box culvert, with each barrel measuring 3.0 meters (10 feet) by 2.4
meters (8 feet). Traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads during construction.
Construction of the proposed project may impact approximately 0.075 hectares (0.190
acres) of jurisdictional wetlands. The dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
supplemental survey described in the CE was performed resulting in a biological
conclusion of No Effect.
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 Appendix A (B-23). 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 a 401 General Certification 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 Water Quality, for their review.
9

2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerel ,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Don Dupree, P.E., Division 4 Engineer
Mr. William Goodwin, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer
K
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.: B-2981
State Project No. : 8.2300701
Federal-Aid Project No. : BRZ-1210(
A. Protect Description :
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 150 on SR 1210 over Burnt Coat Swamp in
Halifax County. The bridge will be replaced at the existing location with a triple barrel
reinforced concrete box culvert, with each barrel measuring 3.0 meters (10 feet) by 2.4
meters (8 feet). The approach roadway will be 6.6 meters (22 feet) wide with a 3.3 meter
(1 l feet) travel lane in each direction and shoulder widths of at least 1.2 meters (4 feet).
Shoulders will be increased to at least 2.1 meters (7 feet) where guardrail is warranted.
Traffic will be maintained on existing secondary roads during construction. (See Figure 1).
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 150 has a sufficiency rating of 29.5 out of 100 and an estimated
remaining life of 5 years. The deck of Bridge No. 150 is only 5.8 meters (19.1 feet) wide.
The NCDOT Bridge Policy calls for a bridge 7.8 meters (26 feet) wide for these design
and traffic conditions. The bridge is posted at 9 metric tons (10 tons) for single vehicles
and 16 metric tons (18 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers. For these reasons existing
Bridge No. 150 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 driveways 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
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. Channelizing 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
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation 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
Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
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 transportation 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 and there is not a
substantial increase in the number of users.
2
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 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 Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. Surveys for the endangered dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) will be
completed before project construction activities begin. (See part F. for details)
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 250,000
Right of Way $ 44,000
Total $ 294,000
Estimated TrafIric:
Current - 300 VPD
Year 2020 - 500 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach roadway will be 6.6 meters (22 feet) wide with a 3.3 meter (I 1 feet)
travel lane in each direction and shoulder widths of at least 1.2 meters (4 feet). Shoulders
will be increased to at least 2.1 meters (7 feet) where guardrail is warranted.

Design Speed:
Based on initial design, it appears that the horizontal design speed will be
approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
Functional Classification:
SR 1210 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
Division Office Comments:
The Division Office recommends SR 1210 be closed during construction and
traffic be detoured over SR 1211 and SR 1216.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in 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 on any ?- 1 X
unique or important natural resource? J
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? CIJ
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? F X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of (--
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than X
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated ? _
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? -I X
4
A
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely r J X
impacted by proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters X
(HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States I
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? _J X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? C 1 _ x
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any F] X
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act resources? F-1 X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required ?
C -l X_
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? E- X
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? 11 X
5
r
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?
X
X D
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property? L] X
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? E] X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? I X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X C,
6
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for I- I
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl L- X
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 as a component of or proposed for X
inclusion in the natural 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.)
(1) Response to question 2 on page 4 - Endangered Species
The dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) is found in the Neuse
and Tar River systems in North Carolina. The dwarf wedge mussel has not been
found in Burnt Coat Swamp and the project site does not contain typical habitat
for this species. However, this species has been found in Rocky Branch
approximately 6.5 km ( 4 mi. ) west of the project site. Burnt Coat Swamp and
Rocky Branch have similar atypical dwarf wedge mussel habitats. Therefore,
surveys for the dwarf wedge mussel will be completed in late Spring or early
Summer 1996. If dwarf wedge mussels are found at the project site Section 7
Consultation procedures will be initiated at that time. Until the dwarf wedge
mussel issue is resolved no design work will be initiated on the proposed structure.
G
CE Approval
TIP Project No.: B-2981
State Project No. 8.2300701
Federal-Aid Project No. : BRZ-1210(3)
Project Description :
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 150 on SR 1210 over Burnt Coat Swamp
in Halifax County. The bridge will be replaced at the existing location with a triple
barrel reinforced concrete box culvert, with each barrel measuring 3.0 meters
(10 feet) by 2.4 meters (8 feet). The approach roadway will be 6.6 meters (22 feet)
wide with a 3.3 meter (11 feet) travel lane in each direction and shoulder widths of
at least 1.2 meters (4 feet). Shoulders will be increased to at least 2.1 meters
(7 feet) where guardrail is warranted. Traffic will be maintained on existing
secondary roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)
,A GAP, pZlt
?p•Vc?L s/0?••9
%
a? BE!1 9l s =
44 2'07
.
Approved
1-3-Y6
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
/• 1- 9"6 PA h e- moo/;- ,
Date Project /Planning Unit Head
Date Project Planning Engineer
For Type II (B) projects only:
Date Foil Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
as an an an an

• 1606
IJ •
1210 • 16/2 N
FAS r•2
1210 is
Heathsville !o ?
00
8ur?
1?-
•
•
A ?
4 C
1213 a 1210\
•6
1216 .?
1211
l4?ket
b?
1204
b
Q
U `b

q FAS
Beaverdam
ti 16 `r I
1236 1205
234
a
1206
N
N •l
N 1208
d Me

E en t• 1237
Ch. ?.?b
s
a .t i2o? ? C/)
1207 A
t onn TS'
1.2 r,
1201
-7tf'
1210
1
UN
i
Studied Detour Route
NORTH CAROLINA DEPART?NT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
.. BRANCH
HALIFAX COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 150 ON SR 1210
OVER BURNT COAT SWAMP
B - 2981
FIG. 1
X,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
0 C ;
May 31, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 150 on SR 1210 over Burnt
Coat Creek, Halifax County, B-2981, Federal Aid
Project BRZ-1210(3), State Project 8.2300701, ER
95-8933
Dear Mr. Graf:
ruo 0 S 1995
trt? OF
A'1'S
On May 31, 1995, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any arphaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
addressed our comments. _
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
?o
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??
Nicholas L. Graf
May 31, 1995, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
a v iB rook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw

Preservation Officer
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
?. I
a.. AAtt o?
r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRFfARY
20 November 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott. Unit Head
Project Planning U91t
FROM: Dale W. Suite' I Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Proposed replacement of bridge number 150 on SR
1210 over Burnt Coat Swamp, Halifax County, NC.
T.I.P. No. B-2981; State Project No. 8.2300701;
Federal Project No. BRZ-1210(3).
ATTENTION: Bill Goodwin, Project Manager
Project Planning Unit
This report is to assist in the preparation of a
Programatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) and addresses water
resources, biotic resources and jurisdictional issues such as
wetlands and federally-protected species.
This project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 150 on
SR 1210 over Burnt Coat Swamp. The existing right of way (ROW)
of 18.3 m (60.0 ft.) will be increased to 20 m (65.6 ft.). The
only alternative involves replacing the bridge in the existing
location. This will require closing SR 1210 during the
construction of the new bridge.
WATER RESOURCES
Water resources located within the project study area lie
in the Tar-Pamlico River Drainage Basin. Burnt Coat Swamp
originates approximately 6.5 km (4.0 mi.) northwest of the
project site and flows into Beech Swamp, Fishing Creek and
eventually the Tar River. At the project site, Burnt Coat Swamp
is approximately 9.1 m (30.0 ft.) wide and 30.5 cm (1.0 ft.)
deep. Burnt Coat Swamp has slow flow, dark colored water and a
sandy bottom.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by
the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The best usage
classification for Burnt Coat Swamp (DEM Index No. 28-79-30-2)
is Class C Sw NSW. Class C refers to waters suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation and agriculture. Burnt Coat Swamp has also
,•r
2
been assigned supplemental classifications of Sw and NSW. The
Sw classification refers to swamps or waters having low
velocities and other natural characteristics which are different
from adjacent streams. The NSW supplemental classification was
assigned to Burnt Coat Swamp because the stream contains
Nutrient Sensitive Waters. Because of this designation, the DEM
has placed limitations on nutrient inputs to this stream.
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 project study area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by the 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 fixed
monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and
overall biomass of these organisms are reflections of water
quality. BMAN information is not available for Burnt Coat Swamp
(NC DEHNR 1991).
Point source dischargers throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register
for a permit. One permitted discharger is located on an unnamed
tributary of Burnt Coat Swamp approximately 0.3 km (0.5 mi.)
west of the project site. This unnamed tributary flows into
Burnt Coat Swamp approximately 0.16 km (0.25 mi.) downstream
from the project site. Pittman Elementary School is permitted
to discharge 0.0096 mgd of wastewater into this tributary.
As will be the case in this project, replacing an existing
structure in the same location with a road closure during
construction is almost always preferred. This alternative poses
the least risk to aquatic organisms and other natural resources.
Impacts will be most obvious at the point of the bridge
replacement. Since aquatic communities are sensitive to minor
environmental changes, biological impacts are most likely to
occur downstream from the area of disturbance. These impacts
are difficult to measure.
Project construction may result in:
- increased sedimentation and siltation and/or erosion,
- changes in light incidence and water clarity due to
increased sedimentation and vegetation removal,
- alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions
and/or additions to surface and ground water flow from
construction,
- changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal, and -
increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway
construction and toxic spills.
f
e
Precautions should be taken to minimize these and other
3

impacts to water resources in the study area. This can be
accomplished by protecting stream bank vegetation, installing
silt fences as well as other erosion and sedimentation controls.
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.
Provisions to preclude unnecessary contamination by toxic
substances during the construction interval should also be
strictly enforced.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
The entire proposed right-of-way consists of a disturbed
community. A Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest dominates
the natural areas outside of the current right-of-way.
Disturbed or maintained areas are located along the roadside
throughout the project site. The southeast side of Burnt Coat
Swamp is mainly made up of elevated roadside shoulders and a
powerline ROW. The dominant vegetation of the disturbed area
includes the following herbaceous species: greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica), Joe-Pye
Weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), larger buttonweed (Diodia
virainiana), goldenrods (Solidago altissima and S. nemoralis),
dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) and various species of
grasses (Panicum spp.). A few woody species including shrubs,
vines and young trees were also found in this disturbed habitat.
Winged elm (Ulmus alata), green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica),
sweet gum (Liauidambar styraciflua), climbing bittersweet
(Celastrus scandens), wild grape (Vitis sp.) and blackberries
(Rubus spp.) are scattered throughout the project site. Of
these, the more xeric species were found on the southeast side
of Burnt Coat Swamp while the northwest side of the stream
contained more hydrophytic plant species.
Avian species that may be found in the forests and forest
edges of the project area include: American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), red eyed
vireo (Vireo olivaceus), northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), ruby throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris)
and American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis). Animal species that
most likely live in the adjacent Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwood Forest but visit this disturbed area for foraging
include: white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virAinana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and
hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus).
Terrestrial communities found in the study area serve as
nesting, feeding and sheltering habitat for various wildlife.
Habitat reduction concentrates wildlife into smaller areas of
refuge, thus causing some species to become more susceptible to
disease, predation and starvation.
Project construction will result in the clearing and
degradation of portions of this community. Estimated impacts
4

are derived using a ROW width of 20.0 m (65.6 ft.). Usually,
project construction does not require the entire ROW width;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
The construction of a replacement bridge on site could destroy
approximately 0.15 ha (0.38 ac) of disturbed area surrounding
both ends of the bridge. One half of this area, 0.075 ha (0.190
ac), is considered jurisdictional wetland and will be discussed
further in the Jurisdictional Issues section.
The swamp is considered a Coastal Plain perennial stream.
Vegetation along the streambank is very sparse and consists
mainly of smartweeds (Polygonum spp.), water willow (Justicia
americana) and water purslane (Ludwigia palustris).
Burnt Coat Swamp contains habitat for various species of
anadromous fish including American shad (Alosa sapidissima),
blueback herring (A. aestivalis) and alewife (A.
pseudoharengus). Therefore, it is considered a valuable aquatic
resource. Since the migration of anadromous fish must not be
interrupted, general guidelines for anadromous fish passages
have been formulated by the NCDOT, Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Marince Fisheries Service (NMFS) with input from
several other state agencies (WRC and Division of Marine
Fisheries). Guidelines include minimization of in-stream
construction work during the Spring migration period (March,
April and May). The installation of bridges are preferred where
practical. Where culverts are necessary, the invert of the
culvert should be set at least one foot below the natural stream
bed. In addition, crossings of perennial streams serving
watersheds greater than one square mile and having adjacent
natural banks utilized by terrestrial wildlife shall provide a
minimum of four feet of additional opening width (measured at
Spring flow elevation) to allow for wildlife passage.
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
Surface Waters and Wetlands
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the
broad category of "Waters of the United States," as defined
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) 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 action that
proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Criteria to determine the presence of jurisdictional
wetlands includes evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation and hydrology. The entire disturbed project area
5
A
northwest of Burnt Coat Swamp is considered wetland. This
involves approximately 0.075 ha (0.190 ac) located on both sides
of the road. The adjacent bottomland hardwood forest outside
the proposed ROW is also wetland. Burnt Coat Swamp contains the
only surface waters in the study area.
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated from project
construction. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the CWA, a permit will be required from the COE for discharge of
dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny
water certification for any federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United
States. This project will require a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the DEM prior to the issuance of the
Nationwide Permit.
Since this is a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion, a
Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) (23) is likely to
be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States
from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed
in whole, or part by another Federal agency or department where
that agency or department has determined pursuant to the council
on environmental quality regulation for implementing the
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
(1) 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 human environment,
and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been
furnished notice of the agency's or department's application for
the programmatic categorical exclusion and concurs with the
determination.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed
Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. Table 1 lists three
federally-protected species listed for Halifax County as of 28
March 1995 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995).
6
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Halifax County.
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedge mussel E
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).
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: March 14, 1990
Distribution in N.C.: Franklin, Granville, Halifax,
Johnston, Nash, Vance, Wake, Warren, Wilson.
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a
distinguishable shell noted by two lateral teeth on the right
half and one on the left half. The periostracum (outer
shell) is olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre
(inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
The dwarf wedge mussel is sensitive to agricultural,
domestic, and industrial pollutants and requires a stable
silt free streambed with well oxygenated water to survive. In
North Carolina, this mussel is found in the Neuse and Tar
River systems.
Biological Conclusion
Unresolved
The dwarf wedge mussel has not been found in Burnt Coat
Swamp and the project site does not contain typical habitat
for this species. However, this species has been found in
Rocky Branch approximately 6.5 km (4 mi.) west of the project
site. Burnt Coat Swamp and Rocky Branch have similar
atypical dwarf wedge mussel habitats. Therefore, a survey
for the dwarf wedge mussel should be completed by Tim Savage
in late Spring or early Summer 1996.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar river spiny mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: July 29, 1985
Distribution in N.C.: Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax,
Nash, Pitt, Vance, Warren.
The Tar River spiny 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).
This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well
7
oxygenated, circumneutral pH water that is relatively silt
free. The stream bottom where the Tar River spiny mussel is
commonly found is composed of uncompacted gravel and coarse
sand.
The Tar River spiny mussel 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.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Burnt Coat Swamp is a slow moving blackwater stream that
does not contain a gravel bottom. Therefore, Burnt Coat
Swamp is unlikely to contain the Tar River spinymussel due to
its flow rate and substrate. This project will not impact
this endangered species. The NC Natural Heritage Program
database of rare species was reviewed and no populations of
this species are known from the vicinity of the project site.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
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 (Pines 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
8
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
There is no suitable habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker
in the project area. The current ROW is disturbed habitat
and the adjacent forests are dominated by bottomland
hardwoods. The red cockaded woodpecker requires mature pine
stands that are not present at or near the project site. The
NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species did not
indicate any populations of the Tar River spiny mussel in the
vicinity of the project site.
Table 2 lists six federal Candidate 2 species and the
existence of suitable habitat for each species in the project
study area. Candidate 2 species are "taxa for which there is some
evidence of,vulnerabilituy, but for which there are not enough
data to support listing proposals at this time." This list is
provided for information purposes as the status of these species
may be upgraded in the future.
Table 2. Federal Candidate Species Halifax County.
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow No
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler No
Procambarus medialis Albemarle crayfish Yes
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) No
Trillium pusillum var. Carolina trillium No
pusillum
Urtica chamaedryoides Dwarf stinging nettle No
The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species
and unique habitats has no records of any populations of these
Candidate 2 species within the project area. Surveys for these
species were not conducted.
I
k
V - ? l r I
E. TnreSnO16 Crittria
If an-,, Type II actions are involved, with the project.
the followinL- evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements. the f0l10\Vin1,' checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL
Y 7S \n
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact ? V/
on any unique or important natural resource'
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federalIy Iisted endangered or threatened
. -7
species may occur'
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish' r7V/
(4) If the project involves wetlands. is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary- ?
wetland takinS less than one-third
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(?) Will the project require the use of ?
U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by ?
proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified ?
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of ?
the united States in any of the designated
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known a
underground storage tanks (UST's) or
hazardous materials sites?
4

Date: 1/93
Re?-ised: 1/9-L
PER`•1 I T S A\D COORD I NAT I O\ YE S N0
(10) If the project is located within a CA`1A ?
county. will the project significantly
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier ?
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S:"Coast Guard permit be I I ?
reauired""T !---J
(13) Will the project result in the modification ?
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ?
relocations.or channel chances?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
7(15) Will the project induce substantia'F'impacts
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of ?
any family or business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of
right of way, is the amount of ,,right of way
acquisition considered minor? F7
(18) will the project involve any changes in
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent
property?
(20) will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or
community cohesiveness?
7
7
17
5

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 09. 1997
Memorandum To: Wayne Elliot. Unit Head
Bridge Unit
Attention: Bill Goodwin, Project Manager
From: Tim Savidge. Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
Subject: Survev for the dwarf-wedge mussel at Bridge No. 150
over Burnt Coat Swamp on SR 1210: Halifax County:
TIP 4 B-2981.
Burnt Coat Swamp was surveyed for the presence of the federally endangered
dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) on October 24. 1996 by Tim Savidge. The
survey was conducted using snorkeling at the bridge site. Water depth ranged between 4
and 6 feet. Visibility was limited: therefore tactile search methods were used. The
substrate of the stream was predominately fine sediments and organic material. which is
generally unsuitable for most mussel species. No evidence of any mussel fauna was
noted.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Based on the survey results. it is apparent that mussel fauna is not present in Burnt
Coat Swamp. It can be concluded that project construction will not impact the dwarf-
wed(ye mussel.
cc: V. Charles Bruton. Ph.D.. Environmental Unit Head
Hal Bain. Environmental Supervisor
Alice Gordon. Permits
File: B-?981
File: Aquatic Issues
6)
w T
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE ^ n,
TO:
?r i ?- CSa?G rK.? REP. NO. OR RO M, BLDG,
FROM REP. OR M, BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO M[ ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND S[E M[ ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
?. PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMRNTS:

.J••' ? STAT(
STAn OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OI: HIGHWAYS R. SAMUIT HUNT III
GOWRNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RAI.LIGI i. N.C. 27611-5201 SWRI 1ARY
April 26, 1995
%
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb y?Fs
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Halifax County, SR 1210,
Replacement of Bridge No. 150 over Burnt Coat Creek,
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1210(3), State Project
8.2300701, B-2981
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 31, 1995 at 10:30 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 Bill Goodwin, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842, Ext. 238.
WTG/pl r 6 )6,15
Attachment
7U
M
r

((,-+,f? -L, J
r
'? Ke-,) -- Y- /
0

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
4/24/95
TIP PROJECT: B-2981 DIVISION: Fourth
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1210(3) COUNTY: Halifax
STATE PROJECT: 8.2300701 ROUTE: SR 1210
DESCRIPTION: Bri c No. 150 over Burnt Coat Creek on SR 1210
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Darlington N.C.
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: local route
CONSTRUCTION COST (mcLUD1NG ENGDjEmwa AND coNrENGENCIE3) ............................. $ ?,??0,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (WCLUDING RELOCATION, UT'IIMES, AND ACQUMMON) ................... S ?,??0,000
TOTAL COST ................................................................................................................................ $ ?,??0,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ........................................................................................................ $ 200,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ........................................................................................................ $ 15,000
PRIOR YEARS COST .................................................................................................................... $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................................................ S 215,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS,
OR OTHERS? YES OR ®(CIRCLE ONE)
IF YES, BY WHOM?
WHAT AMOUNT? $
OR %
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR VPD
TTST % DUAL %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section
PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE ------------------ ------------------
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR ----------------- -
3. RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE -------------------------------------------------------- ?
4. OTHER ----------------------- ?
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 14.0 ERs WIDTH 6.13 METERS
46 FEET 20.1 =
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: LENGTH 141EIF S WIDTH 1AME tS
FEET FEET
¦¦ ¦o ¦¦
? 158 w I ¦ ?
Li?ueton oanoke Rapids z - , a ¦ ¦ ¦ n o
, No
I
• •
• •
lend Neck '-Z ??
Le*ts ??
ih
P n yr ? ??
?
bf
•?• 1606
IJ •
1210 001-602 N
FAS 1i1•?
1210
Heathsville !o '•,
8ur? 1 0
•
•
a
•4 C
1213 ?, 1210
b
Q
V ?.
u-
.9 FAS 1204
Beaverdam
16
9 ?? 1236 1205
1234
a
LL-
1206_
N ?
c?; v
1208 M t
1.0
`' 8 1 1207
1207
---
6 N -- 7
1216 - 1.209
1211
fQCkef .5 1.2
1 Vs
1210
l+?
1.1
Eden e . 1237
Ch.
1b
y* ?
1206
T
1
0
1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
44, BR,. BRANCH
HALIFAX COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 150 ON SR 1210
OVER BURNT COAT SWAMP
B - 2981
FIG. 1
?:'JJJJey?? ..
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JP_
GovERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
S1 ('M IARY
RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
Project File
July 10, 1995
Bill Goodwin 'W
Project Planning Engineer
JUL 12 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
?o?. ,.u
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 150 on
SR 1210 over Burnt Coat Swamp, Halifax County, Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1210(3), State Project No. 8.2300701,
TIP No. B-2981
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on May 31, 1995. The following
persons were in attendance:
David Cox NC WRC
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Betty Yancey Right of Way
Tom Kunstling Traffic Control
Darin Wilder Program Development
Ray Moore Structure Design
Betsy Cox Structure Design
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Brian Williford Hydraulics
John Alford Roadway Design
Jim Speer Roadway Design
Bill Goodwin Planning and Environmental
The following is a summary of comments made at the scoping meeting and through
correspondence prior to the meeting. . 0.
This project will be designed in Metric units. The design speed will be 100 km/h (62 mph);
a steep grade west of the bridge on SR 1210 may make attaining this design speed difficult.
Roadway design will review this situation and advise Planning and Hydraulics if project
modifications are required.
R *426
Possibilities for utility conflicts will be moderate on this project. There are power
transmission lines approximately 12 meters (40 ft.) south of the existing roadway centerline, and
underground telephone lines approximately 9 meters (30 ft.) north of the existing roadway
centerline in the project area.
The approach roadway will have two 3.3 meter (1 l ft) travel lanes, and a graded shoulder
width of at least 1.2 meters (4 ft). Shoulder width will be increased to 2.1 meters (7 ft.) in areas
where guardrails are warranted.
Ms. Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated that there
are no known architectural or archaeological sites in the immediate project area, and no unknown
sites are likely to be discovered. Therefore, no architectural or archaeological surveys are
required.
Mr. Eric Galamb of DEM indicated, by telephone prior to the meeting, that Burnt Coat
Swamp is classified as Class C, Swamp. Implementation of standard erosion control measures was
requested. Also replacement in-place with road closure was suggested. Mr. Galamb asked that
there be no weep holes in the bridge deck over standing water, if a bridge is the chosen
replacement structure. Mr. David Cox of NC WRC indicated that he agreed with Mr. Galamb's
recommendations.
Mr. Brian Williford of the Hydraulics Unit indicated that the replacement structure will be
a three barrel reinforced concrete box culvert, with each barrel being 3.0 meters (10 ft.) by 2.4
meters (8 ft.). The culvert elevation should be set such that the roadway elevation will be
approximately the same as the existing roadway. If an on-site detour is considered, 3 pipes 1800
mm (72 in.) in diameter will be required. The temporary structure can be approximately l meter
(3 ft.) lower than the existing bridge.
Only one alternate will be evaluated for replacing bridge number 150 over Burnt Coat
Swamp.
Alternate One - SR 1210 will be closed to through traffic while the existing
structure is removed and replaced with a new structure. Traffic will be detoured along
SR 1216 and SR 1211. One structure along the detour route has a sufficiency rating
of 41.6 and is posted at 6.4 metric tons (7 tons) for single vehicles and 11.8 metric tons
(13 tons) for truck-tractor semi trailers.
A construction cost estimate for this project will be provided to concerned parties as soon
as it is available.
Since this project can be completed using road closure and replacement in-place it is
eligible for processing as a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion.
The current project schedule calls for right of way acquisition to begin in December 1996
and construction to begin in December 1997.
WTG/plr
Attachment
cc/att: Scoping Meeting Participants

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Re-- iced
7/6/95
TIP PROJECT: B-2981 DIVISION: Fourth
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1210(3) COUNTY: Halifax
STATE PROJECT: 8.2300701 ROUTE: SR 1210
DESCRIPTION: Bridge No. 150 over Burnt Coat Creek on SR 1210
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Darlington, N.C.
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: local route
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND CON'TENGENCIES) ............................. $ ?,??0,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTI.ITIES, AND ACQUISITION) ................... $ ?,??0,000
TOTAL COST ................................................................................................................................ $ ?,?"0,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ........................................................................................................ $ 200.000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ........................................................................................................ $ 15,000
PRIOR YEARS COST .................................................................................................................... $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................................................ $ 215,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS,
OR OTHERS? YES OR ®(aR= ONE)
IF YES, BY WHOM?
° WHAT AMOUNT? $ OR %
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 300 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 500 VPD
TTST 1 % DUAL 2 %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section
PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE -------------- ----------------------------
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR -------------= !!t------------------------?
3. RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE --------------------------------------------------------- ?
4. OTHER ----------- -------------- ?
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 14.0 rrrERs WIDTH 6.13 mum
46 FEET 20.1 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: 3 A 3.0 In (10 ft.) by 2.4 m 8 ft.) reinforced concrete box culvert
L it
158 Littleton oanoke Ra i`ds r7 ` ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ¦ ¦ _ _
1 6 heasvi I 4 T z o ???
J 125
le
4 n 56
„
4
A,rhe 48 Halitaxi
v<Mrn 4 F , \ _I<onn,ke--?
%r. v-k Brmkleyville 561 1 4
/
561 4 r Brya
A Heatfiswlle ? c1 4 Tillery
,Holbsle, 1 5 6 301 25 5 4a1 561
RinRwood H A L I F X 5
6 2 5 Sprung Hill -?_
I Glenview V Enfield Ip 258
- 1 ;F 5
N VA
! r • 6 ' , Scotland Neck ee
Lewis ee
• ?- ° 6 Woodilili
+• )neath A26 p Gyr-
ea ee
• • ?' 6 Hob ee
• • 97 s ee
yO
• •
!? • 1-606 -
clo

- q FAS 1204

1210

, +?

%
1602
•
•

Beaverdam
FAS •1.2 160

,1210 ??•
?`? 9
?1
1236
1205
Heathsville !o • 1234 a
??'tt • 0
1 1
>? 2
? 1206

a
4
C ?
-? N
- `?

1208
Eden Met. 1237
1213 ?y 1210 Ch.
1.0
.8
a 1 1207
.7 ^ 1207
1216 1209
---- 1211
--
.5
Jq-c- kel 1.2 1206 ?r
?T
1210
l+j
1.1
i;
A
I?
UN
i
NORTH CAROLINA DEPART:VI7 OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
13RANCII
HALIFAX COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 150 ON SR 1210
OVER BURNT COAT SWAMP
B - 2981
F i?. 1 '