20011364 Ver 1_Complete File_20010911

? e
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
!0-% roopm,
NCDENR
mm?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
November 7, 2001
Franklin County
DWQ Project No. 011364
APPROVAL OF 401Water (Naaf ty Cer fimtion and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS and Tar-
Pamlico River Buffer Rules
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E_,
Planning and Environmental BTawh
North Carolina Department of Tm nspOrtafiam
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-L548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, as deal in yourmplication dated August 29, 2001, and in accordance with the
attached conditions and those lEEind below; to place permanent fill material in 0.198 acres of jurisdictional
-wedands- 0-239 acres of juris3iciaml >?edan6s, perform mechanized clearing in 0.272 acres of
,juuisdictional wetland, and i?pa 15, 299 sgaare feet of protected riparian buffers. The purpose of the
Ixaject is the replacement of BdjBmNumber-0 on NC 39, CI'IP B-3172) in Franklin County. The project
shall be constructed in accord== with your 2pplication dated August 29, 2001. After reviewing your
application, we have decided dad Ais film iE covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3197.
Certification 3197 correspon & ttm iiile Permit Number 23 issued by the Corps of Engineers. This
approval is also valid for the Tw o3Eizerbuffer rules (15A NCAC 2B .0259). In addition, you
should acquire any other fedczdLs ar<kwA permits before you proceed with your project including (but
slot limited to) Sediment and F=65m Ca =4 NQn-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
Ibis approval will ewe when fijaccorrigam4ing 404 permit expires unless otherwise specified in the
Cv meral Certification-
This approval is valid solely frwfic pnzpKs-_ mad design described in your application (unless modified
below). Should your project effirnm, yuu mum notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the
poperty is sold, the new owummust be 46a= = copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby
responsible for complying wiiigill tlc di 6 _ If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future)
exceed one acre, or of total IUD (now or is the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatpry - - -
n igation may be required as wed im 95ANCAC 2H -0506 (h) (6) and (7). ). This approval shall
expire_wi the corresponding am6& Pmt expires or as otherwise provided in the General
Crrtification. For this appromg "be vmSd, 3W must follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additiosel vmffi6omfesmid below
L Stormwater shalt be d reeftb ib atnonenosave velocities through the protected stream buffers.
- Upon completioa of the , t= T shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of .
Completion Foci to no4*DWQ whm A work included in the 401 Certification has been completed.
The responsible party sliaS t be afiached form and return it to the 40UWetlands Unit of the
Division of Wan= Quafity'a C.4 6 of the project
! cd2ndsN01 Unit - - 101 Mad Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telep? jM-?33-1Cr? FAX [phone]
An VaalOppmandry AffimmfocAcdon 50% recycled/I 0% post consumer paper
r
' r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources 0
Division of Water Quality
Malmo
Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENR
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
3. The NCDOT shall strictly adhere to sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices as
described for High Quality Waters entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC
04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project.
4. For the impact sites resultant from the temporary on-site detour, the area shall returned to its original
ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed areas should be seeded
or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species. If possible, when using temporary structures the
area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or
other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate
naturally and minimize soil disturbance.
5. None of the existing bridge deck or substructure shall be dropped into surface waters.
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 Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
in ely,
e J. Thorpe, 'P D.
c n Director
Attachment
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center. Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
NOV `2 8
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 15, 2001
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Project Coordinator
Subject: Bevis d Permit Drawings for TIP No. B-3172; Franklin County; Proposed
Replacement of Bridge No. 43 over Cedar Creek on NC 39, Federal Project
BRSTP-39(1); State Project 8.1360801; NCDOT Division 5
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
As you are aware, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has
requested authorization from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under a Section 404
Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 to replace Bridge No. 43 over the Cedar Creek on NC 39 on
August 29, 2001. The project has a let date of April 2002. Revised drawings were submitted to
the USACE on October 15, 2001. These drawings had corrected north arrows per your request.
An error was made and an out of date set of drawings were submitted. Attached are the most
recent permit drawings illustrating the workpad, wetland, stream, and buffer impacts. Please
note that the impact summary sheet has not changed and the calculated impacts remain correct.
We apologize for the confusion concerning the permit drawings. If you have any
questions or need any additional information concerning this project, please contact Ms. Jill J.
Holmes of my staff at [phone], extension 332.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/j h
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. - - FAX: -919-733-9794 - TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - - 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET -
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH. DOT. STATE. NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Y
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington .
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Ken Pace, P.E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. Jon G. Nance, P.E., Division 5 Engineer

r
D MAP

..

END
1702 % PROJECT
1 ?

J
O BEGIN
\ PROJECT,
r
ove
1605

l
DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
C
N
.
.
HIGHWAYS
DIVISION OF
FRANKLIN COUNTY
1000 0 2000 PROJECT B-3172
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE N0. 43
CEDAR CREEK
ON NC 39 OVER
I'=2000'
1
(H

* 0 QW.
_ ,^
V?y
U
aN W
ZU
- F
cr-.< 0<
z
0-
ZO=
M
2 C,
?laF
O
QS?J m mU'
* OJ ~OJ `O

O

Ll-
O
Z W

0O j

ZO
2
F? V) cc 0 M fn

- -? 0- 5;
UJ
p0 - w
U U
QZ

* J
Z Q-Z
?O

o
? co
25.00

I co
m
f
I

m
J
- -
to

m
J

co

- /5+00 03
I m
* 3v '?

Ia ?
co

?
r
I
J

co

J
Z
3 m

zo ?w
- l??HS ??S - 3NI? HOiVA a? Zu
??
N
aiZ r
-- oa

N V) D
CC IAJ
Q 2 U m m U

L3
I i i `
¢

?OZ

U
S
OW
i i OZZ ZO

/5-00 .-<
0- 5; Li- p? w a)
w
oo aZ

Z:f 1
I I
i
Z CL Z
W C

O
LL-
I J m

Q
U I
Q
Z I J
W
T
_ _
w
06
w m

co

a _

-

II

I

o
.4

z CD LC)

/3+00
71
J? O
I?
p N
I

I I
' Lij
I N
'
O

I Z
Ui --d
` ar
z co 3
1 N Z

CU ''i
Z W J
J
'
Z' O N
i. ?!

O N
U
Y

O
W
Z
Z
w

;

W ?

S, i33HS 33S 3NI? HldW
= z QY
o w
00 "
2
3,/, y? I IN - ?_ ?z oa
'' Z0o' 1n mW i
_ w3 axv m v
UL) P =? ?U- Z W
CY)
Z 3NOZ - Q M w
II '_ F- Nx a Mrh
w
aw o az
Of
a ?= o
a
06,
LLJ
w co
Il\I) I ` ?? `?_`Q
Y
\ I N m °
LL.
LL- ? \ o W
\I o _
\ \ vd I N
LLJ .1%
LLJ
I ?- o
i :t I J I 1 tiQ,?Q co N
(( I I ` / ` co N Z z
I I I I '? ? Q O D J W
n w W w w
Z
16-00 Z w o Q
\ I I I I ? r'' _ °
133HS 3S 3NI? H3-LVH
4Cr W
I I I / o
F- (3 w u
L) F
>??o? I LI I I o ?
=z cli ?d
o
`° I
24 0 N
a=° M
m Cr
m?
I
I' I
I f _ ,c?lnaial X33: o? I o W
+
I I a L I o
Z o ZO
I ¢' I
I - 0
Q
CND pC w o,
wro
I I _ Ld 0 ° °
0 az
J
L) CL Z
d

LL_ I =
LLJ
LO,
i I -
W

t- I I
4 I
I
U
w
yc
_Ccr I
t w I -
I I ? ?

w 21+00 I `?
t
?
i =
II lLJ
?
lJ
i) r
z
: J
D
b
N
C
u

O

N
N
W G
'y' Lei FJ- O
co 3 N
m. N z z
W W =
Z Z _J
O W
O .
N N L'-' ?
N N Ln V.
W LLI N N
O p C
z
Z Z z
uJ LL
WO W o p C
I
LL
b 133HS 33S - 3NR HOiM
L 133HS 13S - IINI? HOiVN
M
O W
C; LLJ
Z
I
Icr O3? CWAQ
/, I I I I _ y=? M CO
LLJ
w Q EE m 03
_ i I I I I _ ???z om
J W ?
?I I I I ? oaz O- WO
°r Z -3NOZ ( l I' N a M
5; U- w
J
'? ,,, . oZ ? I I I I I Z LLJ Z
_
M ? ? II
?rr/rrlr(?3 I I J ?= o
l5{00 ?' I i I I I ?_
w
I\ I ? i
o ?.
a) co
40
d
W Im it
N I I \ ` Y
\? I II z 0
L-Li
CL Q
o
O
I I i
L-Li
LO
? D
w a
LL,
`: \\ lei- Fes" c
?j I I ,,, • , w
CO 3
o ??? ? I I ? ? I? \ m" z
F i2-oo I I I I I I o o
o W ! I I I I _ W W w u
w I-
vt N t f\ I I I I - \` F- O O 0 O C
l xY Z: Z: Z u
Y I 11 ???\? Q o wo
0 or \ yl I O I/ ?. '
W? J
Za
L

J I I ? I -?
swo?? I I a I I _
I ? I I
I I I
I _ 1n9??/1 ?33?/J
I
? I? I
m
yc ; ? I I
( I I
T I
I

\ I -.
m

_
I - c

o+
I
/ I I I I
I
- U U
-
AII
I - U
_CD C
m
a C
CAI I I
- } E -
L4
'1 C? N a Lf1
I 1

I

Y

?

N
C%j
mLL

I
W
w
'too

Y'J I -

Y
LLJ
l
;I I
0]
?. '
w

J 1
'? I I I I
t
_
Lli
fr+00 Ji `1' I I I
1
` I I I
I _ t..
I

.9 133HS 33S - 3NI? H 31M
0 Qw C
H
Q N Ow
Z V

z
r w ?
O
(L=
to z)
M a
cr O
U
ZFcu m 00U

O LL
>
OZ J
Z W
Z0
F-cNm M MLLLJ M
d j LL
w -
? w
U U
? Qz

ci J
w z
z ?O _
W
0
Li
0
wl
w
-z
J
la
O
to
tt
O
N
N
O
4
Lil
L,
? W
LL
LL
co J
F-
3
CD
N
CD " z z
w
z
O W
z0
N
J
EL S
W

W

O
Z
w
p t/1
LJ

O
LL,
p N

OZ
W
p
LAJ
O
Z
W
p
LL
z
O Q M
0
z

03 z a 0
?x o co a. z
?
?
F 0
Z ?
°O oao
U

0z .a

Z H H

A P
W U W
q j G?. W
p, U
? W
q ., a a
?
z ao
I
1? 4i t`u I + p ,
Q J ?-
? ? II
?- I I a
W o 00
m
^7 a
0
cn 'D
4?g ?°-
?W
O
co
w- O0
y
4J
N
IL
? O
? III 4?
~ ? III M ?
oaf ?? II ?
w 3Q
C3
Q W w 4" I rl ? ? ?
rI
cc p
w- Z

N Ln
? U

o x

t0 e
H e
IAJ
C13
W
?p N

d

a
x
a
b
.

w
o 0

N O
W
m
p
41
Q v? z
Zvi o
Q G
03 7 Z v U
( j o Z Z?
2
0049)2
( c
I/jo
J ` .95-57
?9O?J ? ? ? rim
C, \ = 4 ?-
??
/' - •, M C1
z c c
3 \ ?k r <.
r
co '?
Lr)
cr-
Z) C5
QL-
'-? Zz -
°o ?(
N V? ?
J
JJ I
v no

-L-16+00

'?
( 3 02 o
Y
I ? ? m
U

0
41w
d
?

I
LU

N
N
N
W
O
O

W.
W

O

I-
W
d.
O

oco
NN.
L;
0

COX
a? o

o

ON
JU
m?

J

O.-C
a?
M~
;

i
T00
ON
v
mZ
W

cr o
?

F--
3
Y
O W
W
O co
Q H Q
J
Z a Z

-j
W
W U
_
Z Z =
3 Z w

O 4z
dS w 06
?-
LEI Oi
_
U

W
I-
F- C)
a
CL. w Q Q
=
O co V
LL' O
0- w ~ Of

Q
J
co
O
Z

? N M
W .

O

Z
O W
_
F-
<N
LU
ZU _
r`
0- =Z
IV)
O
n
r1 pQ

jr LiJ
O
Z
Q=U
co .
mL)
F--- LL- Z
? H
U LL M
0
-J
LL- OzZ
p >
Z0
}-N= ? ?M
n_ j LL.
O? LLJ
UZ
Q
U dZ
O
Z LJJ
-

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 15, 2001
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Project Coordinator
Subject: Revised Permit Drawings for TIP No. B-3172; Franklin County; Proposed
Replacement of Bridge No. 43 over Cedar Creek on NC 39, Federal Project
BRSTP-39(1); State Project 8.1360801; NCDOT Division 5
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
As you are aware, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has
requested authorization from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under a Section 404
Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 to replace Bridge No. 43 over the Cedar Creek on NC 39 on
August 29, 2001. The project has a let date of April 2002. Revised drawings were submitted to
the USACE on October 15, 2001. These drawings had corrected north arrows per your request.
An error was made and an out of date set of drawings were submitted. Attached are the most
recent permit drawings illustrating the workpad, wetland, stream, and buffer impacts. Please
note that the impact summary sheet has not changed and the calculated impacts remain correct.
We apologize for the confusion concerning the permit drawings. If you have any
questions or need any additional information concerning this project, please contact Ms. Jill J.
Holmes of my staff at [phone], extension 332.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/jjh
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone]
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - - FAX: [phone]
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW. 60H. DOT. STATE. NC. US
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
cc: Mr. David Franklin,.USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Ken Pace, P.E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. Jon G. Nance, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
MAP
17°2. / END
PROJECT
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF
FR NKLIN COUNTY HIGHWAYS
PROJECT 8-3172
REPLACEMENT
ON CREEK
OVER CEDAR
39 S
0
l
J?1 .?
nlo,

t
* QW.
W
Qy Z

CO
d3Z
r-
p
-

Nom=
M Q
?W
Q=U po Co (J
* J cr-
U- -
`o,

. LL-Zx
0
OZ
0
W t-a
.
U
` J
O P W

-
133HS 33S
- 3NI?
HO1'dW
LA LLI
of-
f C14 LLI
oa

N a=Z M C)
<=v m mu
' I I Q ?Z
O U °
W
I I_ UZ
Z O

Z

15+00 LI
:..
U.
W>Ll- w
U

I
OO U
4Z
. U
Z d Z
w o

O _ I I ?
o
LL- iJ

0
J
_ I
J
O
tJ { Q
Z - I ~
Q
Z I
'J
Lil
T

dS
d
_

4 _
F-
w
I 075 -
Q
w
? ?
co

O
I
I
? 1l

c
Ir { Q

?:
= 1 I W

O
13+00
1
l?
I 04 I N
?I `
B 6L

I
?
N1 LLJ
I 1
I 1
O
'
?
L Z
W Q
1 I Z m

1 N z
I
1 I
V =1
1
U Q W W J
p J
1
Z 1
1 O ,j LL
1 / 1
1
1 N

~ N N

C) W

i 11

1

1
O
O Z Z
°
W
1
?
?ti
11
LLJ W °
?h
1 11 l
? 11 Il ?
? o 1;

//
- II
11 w '
/ F
1
W 1
I .
?1f ?
S I33HS 33S 3NI? H1dW Z Mx
f o ?W
,?/ I Y aN ZV
20+00 0 I ?? M< N W w
*6 ° 3: Z
,j I x = 1 t NOD rn ?O
ZY Q=0U fn mV
fl = "" FEZ ~ oW
' II c? =m OOZ O Z
W >O
W C
Z 3NOZ ?_, W ? CL mm
QZ
LLJ
CJII co = V 0- Z
/ _ I I II? J z
?C)
'3&J 6va3J \ I •? \ „? -
d -
\ \?rr I w II CO a-
\ \ I N II \ ( \\ `? `' Z m
\ it ?I Lr)
a
0 co
LL- ° p
m?\x ?a
\ I ?0 o
C,
1 J
LLJ
II?I?Ii?:. I I a?
(x Ld -4
TV LL L? 1- 10
LL :D LiJ LLJ
?iM• \ z
LJ I I `^? / •/ \ m N Z
\
LL) LJ S
i I I I \ C> ZO J W
i '\ I I I I` N N W W
16-0 I I I _ C- o o
_?? ZwWZ
% LLI CD C:
133HS 33S 3NI71 H31M
t
24;x'0

I A II ' - A-1-1d.
I ? I p I I
I
0
I I
LLI
?ca
I
I I ?
Z I I
W 21+00
' Z
_ J
d
i
Y I ??
------------
b l-33HS 33S 3NI? HOIVN

ZO Q re)
W u
C

N W
Z U
F
MQ>-
O?Z
CV
Wcr-
Q ?'

2
:
3 r
M O
O 7
c
>
z
=
Q U m

U
?LL-z
O - r-
U o?
W
OZZ C Z?
f• Dm 0- :2 M
CL j L, W
W - U U
az

U J _
W Z

z O
c .
U
?w
w
z
a
J
b
V7
C
u

O

N
N
co
4
LL,
? W
co
3 Li
LL]
N
CO N Z a
W
Z
N w
Z
N
J
? =
W
to
Ld
O
w
0 N
4J
Z
o N
W
Z
Wo

z
C-
I
LL
L 133HS 33S 3NI? HOiVH
Q W
C5 W
C%j it
?? I I I I _ N=z M CL?
ow ZZTOO C6 MU
i I I °J w >
Y
Z -3NOZ ° N ? UJ a
! r -+''?? `?` I I I - Q
CL 5; Q LL- Q U CL tn
z
J
' ?, ..3 OZ? I I I I I z w CL Z
I
r / ? '. I I I - z
I I 3
I N` I - I
'3t1? t1b037
I?
C> --
C _ J
co 0
tr)
'L
Q
LLJ t
a.
I- o
L -Li
w a
L, F-
73
off' ? •? I I I ?I? ?-`°Wz?
w12ooq {I I III %>zzJ4
i I I ?o 0 0
N LL
LLI oW LI I =I ,? w W wu
0 C>
z?\: ° I
W\ Y i
.0
------------
Y 0-

?p?j I I
I I
?
I I I I
I = ,c?elne?t?l a%??t??
° I? I
ct
I
I
l I I 1
I -
I cam'
? I 0
•
o
I I I
?
I I
I ? •
a
T

•\ 1 _LC
a ` c
C

I 1 I?
_
+ E
+v
/ I I Qmo
Nam
y
yyy??{ 1 N Q +

O I I t'',
w I I -
18+00
W
_s
fir.

I I ' -
co I
W
?I I
?
-
W
S ?I I I
` _

R+00 I
I I I i
I
_ LL

Y ? I I I
9 133HS 33S - 3NI? H91VH
o Qw c
F- O w r
Q N
>- Z V
?a>
C z cv w?
S
NUO M O
?W
QSLU ?
C? mU
0- Z
O
U wo w
?
J
OZZ ? z0
F-NS d >- M
d j LL w
W -
O U U
-<z

U J
WZ .
Z ?O _
W
O
W
i
W
O
u
O
in
N
N

Z
I
W W
Li
co LL Q
J

3

0
N
[D CV Z Q
Z
O J
W

W

C)
Z

W
? <n
LLJ

0
Z
W

p ??

O
Z
W

O N
FLAJ
-
O
Z

C
J
I? ? p H ZV?
c? ''' v, z
AO?
o a o ,? ., a
I
z w
a0 a o wwz
Ai Ct 41
?Q? Iwo ?; W W
?WW
ti 4 ? mw w? ? ? ?
m ? I I ?J wV b ? ? U
GiJ
= Q -. I p vim,
I I N V n
Lij
o I I- -- °?° ~ w a
w-?? I I c?J 0 0?
dim
Jy N
N
c
W z i
i ?§m o
4 ??p
?? I ii ?
i? 3W x ?
Q b.
m C6 ( + m? a
W
oO?i a4cW.? II z?
?Lu o al tiW
QWW 4? I I? W O o
60

Z. U
v, z
2 Q z cn
1/1 02 cr, ?4 z G ?, z
ll 03 7 2 U 4
x ®ut
0 z
"4 U 7-1
0 00 49)2
>
Ilk
.95 7
? ? ac
Q? c - c
?- d
z? z`
W
3 I <
E- p
CL NIA
OL w?
ti~ ?•
I?z
t? I o b
m
-L-16+00 o
C- 4, w
09 LQ
N
J
a
N
Ln
W
Of
M
M
Q

?
Z

0

-
W
O
CL

m

-
rN

av
°

W
a

i
o
ON
>
co'!

w

oN

N
?

-

p

-

ON
v

Z
mZ
W
cc CC

?

3
Y
p
W LLJ
O co
Q - Q
J F-
Z Q F-
Z
LU W
W U

Z W =
Z =
3 z Ld

O aS
°tS
>

d L d co
F- =
a U p
W F' F
CL
w
=
Q

0 co
w O U
CL W ~

Q
J
m
O
Z

F-
? N M
W

O

d

Z rn Y -
O Q' W :
_

Q
O ?
Z U _
F
- >-
W< >- N
N ltJ
OQ
CLXZ
(.D M CD SOW
Z
0
a=L co mU
M LL.. Z
O F-
U LL.. Cr
Oj
-
U-
OZZ LLJ
-3
0
F-0
Z
_O
n- j Lt:
LLJ O D LLJ
U Z
Q
U dZ
Z LJ.J
?
_

.J
M
Y
yd ", +a
Gu ?STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR 01 13 6 4
August 29, 2001
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Project Coordinator
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Franklin County; Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 43 over Cedar Creek on
NC 39, Federal Project BRSTP-39(1); State Project 8.1360801; TIP No. B-3172
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) requests authorization from
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23
to replace Bridge No. 43 over the Cedar Creek on NC 39. The project has a let date of April
2002.
Bridge No. 43 over Cedar Creek on NC 39 will be replaced with a 140 foot (ft) long
bridge at the existing location. It will be 32 ft wide with two 12 ft lanes with 4 ft offsets. Work
on the approaches will extend 370 ft to the north and 280 ft to the south of the existing bridge.
The pavement width will be 32 ft with two 12 ft lanes with 4 ft paved shoulders. There will also
be 4 ft grass shoulders. The existing speed is 55 miles per hour (mph) and the design speed is 60
mph. Detouring traffic is not practical because of the volume of traffic on NC 39; therefore,
during construction, traffic will be maintained on a temporary onsite detour to the east. The
detour will be a 55 ft long bridge that is 24 ft wide.
The superstructure of Bridge No. 39 is a 5 inch thick reinforced concrete deck with an
asphalt wearing surface. The wearing surface will be removed without dropping it into the
water. The substructure is composed entirely of timber and will be removed with no resulting
fill. Only the portion of the reinforced concrete deck over the water will potentially result in
temporary fill. The resulting fill could potentially be 46 yd3.
The project has been described in a Categorical Exclusion (CE) Action Classification
Form signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on November 25, 1997. A
revision to the CE was signed by the FHWA on June 22, 2000. The project is being processed
by the FHWA as a CE in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, the NCDOT does not
anticipate requesting a Section 404 Individual Permit but proposes to proceed under a Section
404 NWP 23 in accordance with 61 Federal Register 65874, 65916, issued December 13, 1996.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] - TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT. STATE. NC. US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Changes to the proposed project are described in the revision to the CE, however there
are no changes since the revision to the CE was completed. In the November 25, 1997 CE, the
recommended alternate was Alternate 1, showing the traffic maintained on a temporary detour to
the west. Upon analysis, the Geotechnical Unit discovered the remnants of an old roadbed to the
east of the existing alignment. The June 22, 2000 Revision to the CE recommends Alternate 2
which shows traffic maintained on a temporary detour to the east. This change was made in
order minimize impacts to wetlan'ds;by utilizing the old roadbed. Alternate 2 has approximately
0.10 ac less impacts to wetlands than Alternate 1 would have had. The Revision to the CE also
notes that a temporary rock causeway (workpad) will be required for the construction of the new
bridge.
There will be permanent and temporary impacts to waters of the United States due to the
proposed project. Permit drawings of the wetland, stream, and buffer impacts, and the workpad
are attached to this letter.
As depicted on the permit drawings, at Sitel (A through C on Sheets 3 through 5), due to
approach work and the replacement of the bridge, 0.402 ac of wetlands will be permanently
impacted. Impacts to 0.198 ac are due to fill and impacts to 0.204 ac are due to mechanized
clearing. Permanent impacts to buffers due to fill total 0.117 ac, with 0.05 ac in Zone 1 and
0.067 ac in Zone 2. Additional temporary impacts to buffers due to mechanized clearing will be
0.065 ac.
A temporary workpad is needed in order to construct the new bridge (Sheets 8 of 11 & 9
of 11). The causeway will result in 0.08 ac of temporary fill in surface waters as 600 yd3 of
material will be placed in the stream temporarily. The workpad will also result in 0.04 ac of
temporary fill in wetlands. Upon completion of construction, the workpad will be removed, and
the stream and wetlands will be restored to their original contours. The area of disturbance will
be replanted with appropriate vegetation.
Temporary impacts to wetlands and buffers are also associated with the temporary
detour to the east (Site No. 1 DET, DETOUR A and B on Sheets 6 of 11 & 7 of 11). Temporary
impacts consists of 0.267 ac of wetlands, 0.199 ac due to temporary fill and 0.068 due to
mechanized clearing. Temporary impacts to buffers due to fill total 0.101 ac, with 0.054 ac in
Zone 1 and 0.047 ac in Zone 2. Additional temporary impacts to buffers due to mechanized
clearing will be 0.068 ac. Upon completion of construction, the temporary bridge and
approaches will be removed and the site will be restored to original contours and replanted with
appropriate vegetation.
Written concurrence for 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the N. C. Division
of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is not required for the Section 404 NWP 23. The NCDWQ is
provided written notification of the proposed action by a copy of this Section 404 NWP 23
application. The NCDOT will adhere to all conditions of the general certification for Section
404 NWP 23.
In addition, because the proposed project is located in the Tar-Pamlico Basin, this
application also serves as a request for an Authorization Certificate for Tar-Pamlico Riparian
buffer impacts that will be incurred by the proposed project.
In summary, the NCDOT requests authorization from USACE, under a Section 404
NWP 23, to replace Bridge No. 43 over Cedar Creek on NC 39. Permanent and temporary
impacts to wetlands and buffers, and temporary impacts to surface waters are associated with this
project. The NCDOT will adhere to the general conditions of the 401 WQC associated.with this
Section 404 NWP, thereby not requiring written notification from the NCDWQ. The NCDOT
will require an Authorization Certificate from DWQ for Tar-Pamlico buffer impacts.
If you have any questions or need any additional information concerning this project,
please contact Ms. Jill Holmes of my staff at [phone], extension 332.
Sincerely,
c9'1 A C_ W. D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/jjh
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Domey, NCDWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Ken Pace, P.E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. Jon G. Nance, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
Office Use Only: + Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. D 3 V 4
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
I. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
Section 10 Permit
® 401. Water Quality Certification
® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 23
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is-proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: F
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: N.C. Dept of Transportation
Mailing Address:_ Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
V
Page 3 of 13
III. Project Information
4.
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
Name of project:
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3172
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
Location
County: Franklin Nearest Town: Louisburg, NC
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.):
From US 401 at Louisburg head south on NC 39 towards Bunn The project is at Bridge No
43 over Cedar Creek on NC 39 and is located south of S R I 604 and north of SR 1702
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): N3.6° 02.199', W780 18.049'
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
State highway, forested
7. Property size (acres): approximately 2.6 acres
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Cedar Creek
9. River Basin: Tar-Pamlico
(Note. - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 4 of 13
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Bridge Replacement (public transportation)
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: construction equipment
to replace bridge
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: forested
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
n/a
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application:
n/a
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
J
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
Page 5 of 13
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
Site 1 fill 0.198 yes adjacent forested
Site 1 mechanized clear 0.204 yes adjacent forested
Site 1 Detour temporary fill 0.199 yes adjacent forested
Site I Detour temp mech. clear 0.068 yes adjacent forested
workpad (pp 8&9) temporary fill 0.04 yes adjacent forested

i.ist eacn impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include. but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill.
excavation. flooding, ditching/drainage. etc. For dams. separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM). or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://N„vw.fema.cov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland. beaver pond.
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 2.5 ac
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.402 ac permanent 0.307 ac temporary = 0.709 ac
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
n/a

List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Page 6 of 13
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: n/a
Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number

(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact

(acres)
(if Name p Waterbody
applicable) Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
workpad (pp 8&9) temporary fill in SW 0.08 Cedar Creek stream

Llst each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging.
flooding, drainage, bulkheads. etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): 0 uplands F_j stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): n/a
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): n/a
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
See cover letter.
Page 7 of 13
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must. be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.htmi.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
n/a
Page 8 of 13
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htni. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No n
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Page 9 of 13

G
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes N No F-1 If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
*
Zone Impact
(square feet)
Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 4530.2 3
2 4965.8 1.5
Total 15289Note
T cone i extenas out su teet perpenmcular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Note: There is an additional 5793 ft2 of temporary buffer impacts included in the total due mechanized clearing in both
Zone 1 and Zone 2 (see cover letter and drawings for details)
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0242 or .0260.
Not required: bridge replacement
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Impervious area will be similar to that of current conditions. NCDOT BMP's for the protection
of surface waters will be followed throughout project construction.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
n/a
Page 10 of 13

XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
(271o
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date'
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
f
Page I I of 13

*
*
O
cr-
m
O
*
* J

I m *

* m
25;00 * 3
* I co
*
m

*
?Ce
I
*
m
J
3 CO
5
\
`~
3 * CD

m
J

r
* W
*
* f

*
15+00 a

m
I
*
*
r
CD
I
co
J

*
m
Z
J i co
o
F--
•
a

J

l33HS 33S

-

NI?

OiVN o

F-
rn
'?
w
z
LL
?

i O
Z r 0 LL
a

i
I
II a
= p
LLJ

'
I
I- Q=V m mU
I
::E _
w
? OLL- Z

U

0
LL.
OW

15+00 LJ i I
_
I
?oZ
o
Zp

' o
W lh
* I i I a. > LL.
O Q U

I
I Z
Q z:Y I Z W O
o fI
LL
J
?
? I?
I I
Q = I A
l i O
U ?
Z
Q -
- i
Q
~
z I
dS =. w
' . J 4 -'

t Y
O I m

II I
U
`? II
Z N
O
1 I I =
!-- 0
•
?J
`'-
o

13+00

I?
o
VIS -I I
8' I
J I
I
I ?
I I NI ?
I ?
W
I
I I
?
I
ICI
I
w N
°z
I
I I ? I w -
Zo
J
I I z ? m ? ° a
I I co
I I ZI
v I
I ? a W
I Z I z z
J W 3
I/
/I I I
II I O O W ? Z
?c I n

LJ? W W

- U
W UJ Z
F- F- W
F-
Z F z w

I W
p W
p W LJ W .J
O O U
? l
?
/
1 11 I
o ?;
?
3
` II Ilr ?
I
?
?
Cl- II II ?.
? ?
X I X
?
W LL
l
W 1 I

S 133HS 33S - 3NI? HOiVN
d
20"Oo cc
oZS
I ? - U U
_ ;?? I II ? ? =w
a 3NOZ
z
'kQ11
o ?w
p w
QN
H ZU

O
3
N
N w
w
a
d
Z
iN0= M Ow
?
Q=OU C . m0
t- p J W O j
aZZ W, I-- :>
?Ncr a mM
d j li W
w-
C? UU
QZ
U W Z
z o
w
_I
-/pct
\ ,?, ?: I Ij? II i ?\ C?,
INI w II m \al I \ `? ?y
• ? m
?o W
b C
' I p\ LL
I \ I ???` °
- I
i \
LLJ
U*)
0
N
N
0-1 z
I p ?? LL o°
,::) w w z
2 _j
co I
-- Lj
?O \ o o J w z
N N N N
+ W W W W Z
II? 0 0 0 0 a
t
'\ I I II o?,, w W W wJ
p p O O U
ti;J yC I ' I ? ??'
1IIHS 33S - 3Ni-I H31M

l

6
5
r

\ I I I /- M L.L

I
/ o q- W
LAJ
' ? I
I I I I F-N
?
? zU
LA.
o
' I Q
0 F- N
ti ?
? Q
0
24 I III
I I N ?
=o M
m0
°
I I I i Q m
LLJ oZ L) LL* W
Ilm I = °F4Q jr z
°

?

d-
P

0 W ?

wM

I
I I L
L.
° - a"
I 0 Jz
I I = J z
W

F-
3
]C
m
F-
z
LLJ
2!{00
I
b 131HS j3S - 3NI? HOIVN
I
i k _
? I I
I I I ??
• r I I _
..W I I 1
I
II _
z
i I J
? I
U °
W o
VJ °
N
W
N

z
w
w W <
J N
l
i.
LL
? F
--
W p
Wz
z ?
m m 3 N J
N Z

Q a W
}
Z Z .J U
'
O O J
z
W
r-4 " LL :2
n N N N N U
Z
W W W W
F-
O F-
O F
O F- W
O Q
z z z z W
W W W W J
C)
I cl O

LL O U
Mf
b
S
6
L 133HS 33S - 3NI? HiVH -
I
.
-
M w
O W
ZLLI
`Z3
/// (fir( I
lY// I I N O a cli x
C=Z N ?Q
W _ x CC m y

- Cr
F-OJ U °W
YI I I
Z 3NOZ I I
Y '?
- o o Z C) Z°
~ ?.?? I I
r LL.J
HNC d ?M
>

I
???
0Z? = I I W Q Z
° Q
M
,,
i I
a ?= o - z

15,-00 I _

Oo
? I I ? I' 4 I ??

I
'3610 yvL7_7j
?
I = Y
` co
o
>
ti
L

II L
II
)
w
Of
w II
II
?
?
i
I
I `
y
~ I
w I
' o
\, J a
V)
? \ to I I I \ I ? J'ri ? >- !n
e I O?
I `?? \ ?' LLo W LO
_ I N o
Y I ILD
I
I
(
?
( 1 1 O
I c(_
O ?--- N

I? (? I I I (' ? I I? I I 1? l I I I

=. CJ ? \ W "J ®r
J
U
I

w ?yj -
ns LOL, Z
co
_j
2
O Wj }j I I - I ` O?
\ (/ N N L
I `?'
H N LJ
I
?
Z W W W W Z

<
0 ~ ~ ~
_
CL V) I I
??o`• Q Z W w W
z?

J = s,
/ a
\ ?
3w Y 1

Z a ! I I / I
°
Y
4
J
O t
U U
`Q O
O
U -
?c
? I L C
Q CC

O W
?o.?j I { ? ?N ZU
I
I I ?° I I _ >-
C3z
r
oa
I N?° M ir-°
I I W I I = lne??1 ????+? Q=° M
I II I -
~OJ
U W
O
I m {
?
I rn
4
1' 0OZ O ZO
I
i -
;m
a ? W O'?
WM
•.
I
I 0-
W ° UU
I
I

? ° Jz
CL Z
- (D z ? O
Y
U
W
Z
W
J
W
2
+0=
E
Qmo
I 1I : a
V) Ul)
ma +-
11 I :? y
L
m C
OL
L? V)
W I I \ ,.y
W I '•t.a.
00
8 4
I { I I? _
f1-,p0
Y?I I ICI =
9 133HS 33S - 3W KiM
W

W
(/7
0
Ln
O
N
N
O

W
W J N
LL ll H p p
W li
m W
3 W z
N J
N Z C
Lai
Z J U
Z
O O . J W Z
N N L? -
N
W N
W N
LJ N
W Z
F- H F- I-- Of
O O O O Q
Z Z Z Z W
Q W W W W J
O O O O U
?
n

7
0
C9 -

m
C9d "?
W
O
co
O co
QJ?,
N
w-
t_
? II
II
I I?
N I II
l
?I y
::z L
I =? 'Il
I
Igo I?
Rua it
I
it
I ?
I
I I
I v v
? u o ?I
QWW ?? Ili
? ?m I II
1 i:z; ` - --7
II? cps
III ?
I
Ir
ti
ZE
1
z
t O -j
ti= &,
tj Q: 4.
O Q3
W(62
O
F
F?
®a z
O
Z? U
O
°0 z
??
A>
UQ
z
M C
C7Zv? a
a0z
IWO
00
GU
C4 UU F
a?a w
W
?O?

b ? a
U

O x
b w o
0
zz > m

O U
c a
x ?
a
LO
b
a

u
co

o

0
N ?

0 41 ti
q M
? ?
I
I Q
p
?

? I
4
-
? ? ?
zz
?C crJ
7 V,
° Cbj

-L- 20+00 !
'03
M
z
=?1 Z ?I Z
?
L
-
CC
E- < = c
= a FJ ?
?R UUZ
00 i
49 2

Ilk -
.95 .37

?
? C:.1 ac Q
-?'
Or- CL
\ as
.
d A L) , a

a W 1 rd,uu _ t3ti ` :4
?o

0 O Q
(n 3 = I ..+
(t U4
\ \\ \
j \
ti

-L-16+00 o
I -LL- o
?
02 ?u3
- o
y
? ?
m
N

- e
LL.
Z M Y
O ?W
F- W -
H

ON p3F- 0Q

T,

p? = Z M 20
Y i ?L'J

IN L) Q SO
U m mu
Li Z F- LL
U O
O
_.J L
>
r
m
p
)
?]LL w
0
o aZ
U J
W Z

CL Z
O
CE:
o'

Ld p

46 cr- 06

LLI
?
CL a
w
CL O
cr- U

0?
h

R

7
N

N
W
p
Q

Z
O

w
O

r N
xo=

mi
°s
oa

o
m U
?
w
°a
ay

MOD
o=

mi
Mir

0
S
f-
3
Y
U ?
LLJ O
? m
Q

Z J F"' Q
Q F-
Z

W U W w
S
3 a =
Z w
o 06

F- C? w m

o m = i

Q
J
m
O
Z

f-
N
M
W

O

.L N Z U
S

ti
?ZZ F-O C:) Z

fn

A
U ?

C (D

O ^ Z

7
° 0 0
U ? U 0
a ?

N
U ^ ^
'
LLl O
f
6
N G
O O
O ?
O
LL
LL
7
m O

o

o

°
v?
o
N O O O "

O
_
N O
C O
Q W
N
cc
-0 ° > F N O Q
I'l
C U
z= 0 m p Q
-
m ¢ O Z U m w

1
C_
U
0 ca
O
F-
LL o y n LLJ Q U
mL
U 0N Q CCF- W
a
w o LL
w 0
a,

c c° O
w c?
U U U
c O
Co
`
o Q Z
z
F
co
:r- n
'x L
a z
p w U w O
Q
a
-
'r LL 3
O.fq U
d O
~
3 C LL
O

w
LL C O A O W
cc a w

y LL
(n

N
c ? ?
A
o
_
LL ?

CE: -0
cQ
G N O
C C O U
O
CD
n
G L w N N
0 O
0 Cl!
0
O
)

F' U
a c m
O C

U >
(-°
d

o
cc
?v
z
a w
-?
w

3
C
LL
??

o
E
w
c
o
F- c
N
C C
00
co
W
O
u N O O WC70
Q

W O CO
Q F w

W
W z
Q J
o o w
H aJ
7
U 'N
0:
cc
7 n co m
0-
O
Q
z
O
O U z< Y
n
0
c
a
N U3

C O
J
O H
Q cc w W
o E °o G
0 a Q i Q

_O 00
o
LL +
0 J d W a
N
c
+ J W
Q w co w
F N F

Lij J
Z
05 0
l
f z

Franklin County
Bridge No. 43 on NC 39
Over Cedar Creek '
Federal Project BRSTP-39(1)
State Project 8.1360801
TIP # B-3172
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Sr O4
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

APPROVED:
z + -7 r) ? ? ?el -V -, A-Z- ?-
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
°r Planning and Environmental Branch
Date 0-holas Graf, P. E.
ion Administrator, FHWA
Franklin County
Bridge No. 43 on NC 39
Over Cedar Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-39(1)
State Project 8.1360801
TIP # B-3172
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November, 1997
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
ON CARO4
.i
V-SS
:•
SEAL < i
022552
q)
• O •. NGINti •• t1•
Date Joh L. Williams, P.E. yN ••.....•-V
Project Planning Engineer 1111"111;1lo ?" \
G'71. V -
Date Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
i - 2q--T) l
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P.T., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Franklin County
Bridge No. 43 on NC 39
Over Cedar Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-39(1)
State Project 8.1360801
TIP # B-3172
Bridge No. 43 is located in Franklin County over Cedar Creek. It is programmed
in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement
project. This project is part of the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion".
No substantial environmental impacts are expected.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 43 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 1 with a new bridge
on the same location. The new structure will be approximately 43 meters (140 feet) long
and 9.6 meters (32 feet) wide including two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes and 1.2-meter (4-
foot) offsets. Traffic would be maintained onsite during construction with a temporary
bridge west of the existing bridge.
Work on the north and south approaches will extend approximately 113 meters
(370 feet) and 85 meters (280 feet) respectively from the existing bridge. The pavement
width will be 9.6 meters (32 feet) including two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes and 1.2 meter
(4-foot) paved shoulders. Additionally there will be 1.2 meter (4-foot) grass shoulders.
Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 100 km/h (60
mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $798,000 including $750,000 in construction
costs and $48,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 1998-2004 TIP
is $503,000; including $90,000 in prior year costs, $375,000 in construction costs, and
$38,000 in right of way costs.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit # 23.
Upon completion of the new bridge, NCDOT will remove temporary fill and restore the
wetlands impacted by that fill.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 39 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Traffic volume is 4500 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at
9100 VPD for the year 2020. The speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge is 55 mph. The
road serves primarily agricultural and residential functions.
The existing bridge was completed in 1935. It is 31.7 meters (104 feet) long.
There is approximately 3.7 meters (12 feet) of vertical clearance between the bridge deck
and streambed. The deck is 7.6 meters (25 feet) wide. There are two lanes of traffic on
the bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 39.6 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted 18 tons for single
vehicles and posted 23• tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Both approaches have good horizontal and vertical alignment. The pavement
width on the approaches to the existing bridge is 6.1 meters (20 feet). Shoulders on the
northern and southern ends of the bridge are approximately 1.2 meters (4 feet) wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch reports that six accidents have taken place within
the last three years in the vicinity of the project. The accidents occurred for various
reasons including wet, dark, icy conditions as well as animal crossings. None were due to
the alignment of the road.
There are six daily school bus crossings over the studied bridge.
Carolina Power and Light has a three phase service along the east side of NC 39.
Carolina Telephone has aerial telephone lines, with fiber optic cable, along the west side of
NC 39.
V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are two "build" options considered in this document as follows:
Alternate 1) (Recommended) Replace Bridge No. 43 with a new bridge on the existing
location. Traffic would be maintained with a temporary onsite detour to
the west during construction. The design speed for the approaches will be
will be approximately 100 kph (60 mph). The design speed for the
temporary detour will be approximately 80 kph (50 mph).
Alternate 2) Replace Bridge No. 43 with a new bridge on the existing location. Traffic
would be maintained with a temporary onsite detour to the east during
construction. The design speed for the approaches will be would be
approximately 100 kph (60 mph). The design speed for the temporary
detour would be approximately 80 kph (50 mph).
Detouring traffic offsite is not practical considering the volume of traffic on
NC 39 and the lack of a suitable detour. The Division Engineer strongly supports
maintaining traffic onsite. "Do-nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of
the road as the existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing
deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical.
VI. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)
Recommended
COMPONENT ALTERNATE ALTERNATE
1 2
New Bridge Structure $ 235,000 $235,000
Bridge Removal 17,000 17,000
Roadway & Approaches 121,000 121,000
On-Site Detour 119,000 119,000
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 160,000 160,000
(30%)
Engineering & Contingencies 98,000 98,000
(15%)
Total Construction $ 750,000 $ 750,000
Right of Way $ 48,000 $ 48,000
Total Cost $ 798,000 $ 798,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 43 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 1 with a new bridge
on the same location. The new structure will be approximately 43 meters (140 feet) long
and 9.6 meters (32 feet) wide including two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes and 1.2-meter (4-
foot) offsets. Traffic will be maintained onsite during construction with 4 temporary
alignment west of the existing bridge (See Figure 2).
Work on the north and south approaches will extend approximately 113 meters
(370 feet) and 85 meters (280 feet) respectively from the existing bridge. The pavement
width will be 9.6 meters (32 feet) including two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes and 1.2 meter
(4-foot) paved shoulders. Additionally there will be 1.2 meter (4-foot) grass shoulders.
Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 100 km/h (60
mph).
The temporary alignment will include two 3.0-meter (10-foot) paved lanes and
1.8-meter (6-foot) grass shoulders. The temporary bridge will be 16.8 meters (55 feet)
long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide with a design speed of 80 kph (50 mph).
Traffic volumes are too great on NC 39 to consider detouring traffic offsite. Both
Alternate 1 and 2 were compared and determined to be virtually identical to one another
in terms of costs, environmental impacts, and utility impacts. With regard to hydraulics,
there is an advantage in going to the west due to the skew of the creek on the east side.
For this reason, Alternate 1 is chosen. The Division Engineer concurs with this
recommendation.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in Section II of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited.
. No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are considered to be low for the proposed project.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Franklin County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) was asked to determine whether the
project being considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. The NRCS
responded that the project will not impact prime or important farmland soils.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has commented in the attached
letter (from NC Department of Cultural Resources) that they "are aware of no historic
structures within the area of potential effect." They therefore recommend no further
historic architectural surveys be conducted.
In the same letter, the State Office of Archaeology (SOA) has commented that
"there are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area." They further
state that since it is unlikely there are any sites eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places, they recommend "no archaeological investigation."
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
Water Resources
The project study area lies within the Tar-Pamlico River Drainage Basin. One
water body is crossed by the proposed project, Cedar Creek [DEM Index No. 28-29-(2),
1/1/90]. Cedar Creek is a slow flowing stream with semi-permanently flooded banks.
The bridged channel is approximately 30 meters (100 feet) wide and 2 meters (5 feet)
deep. The substrate is predominantly composed of silt and sand with inclusions of
decaying organic matter. Stream banks appear to be stable and there is ample evidence of
overbank flooding in the project vicinity. Little to no riparian canopy is present in the
existing right-of-way.
Cedar Creek has been assigned a Best Usage Classification by the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which
denotes water quality conditions and potential resource usage. The best usage
classification for Cedar Creek is C NSW. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The
supplementary classification NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) refers to waters which
require limitations on nutrient inputs.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the
DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses
long term trends in water quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by
sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrates organisms, which are
sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa
present of intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and assigned
a taxa richness value. Samples are also assigned a bioclassification that summarizes
tolerance data for all species in each collection. The bioclassification and taxa richness
values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor measure of the
effects of such physical polfutanis as sediment. 'Two BMAN sites are located upstream of
Bridge No. 39 on Cedar Creek. Data collected from these sampling points is shown in
Table 2.
Table 2. BMAN data for Cedar Creek.
Sample ,, Date Distance from-F Taxa richnessBioclassification
-Location - ;:project.km (mi) _: value
SR 1105 9/90 10 km (6 mi) 20 good-fair
SR 1116 9/90 12 km (8 mi) 15 fair
Note: Taxa Richness values are ranked such that a value <7 is poor and >24 is good
(the scale changes for each physiographic province).
Impacts to water resources are anticipated from project construction. Potential
sources of impacts to water resources include: instream construction, grading, vegetation
removal, and pavement installation. These activities can result in increased sediment
loads and the runoff of toxic substances such as fuel, oil, and tar into lakes and streams.
Impacts are best minimized by limiting earth removal activities and implementing
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP's) for the Protection of Surface Waters.
BMP's should be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project, where
applicable. No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I
or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile)
of the project area.
Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial Communities in the study area are described as Disturbed and Swamp
Forest. These communities are well-defined and there is little overlap of flora between
the communities. The faunal component of the terrestrial communities is dominated by
species found in the forested community that forage in the disturbed community.
Disturbed Community
The disturbed community occurs on the roadside shoulders, fill slopes, and utility
easements found in the study area. Large portions of this community are regularly
influenced by mowing and herbicide application. This maintains the community in an
early successional state. Other portions of the community experience less frequent
disturbance and consequently support a higher diversity of species. Roadside shoulders
are dominated by hardy low growing herbs and grasses such as: Carolina-geranium, wild
onion, and fox tail grass.
Permanent residents of this community are limited to those species which are
highly adaptive and extremely hardy. The greatest potential for diversity is found among
the insects, many of which meet the previously mentioned requirements. Some higher
vertebrates are also found in this community. Permanent residents include song sparrow
and eastern harvest mouse, other typical nonresidents that utilize this community are
Virginia opossum and mourning dove. Many of the species found in other communities
in the project vicinity will utilize habitats found in the disturbed community on a
temporary basis for foraging, hunting, and as a migration corridor.
Alluvial Swamp Forest
The alluvial swamp _forest community located in the study area occurs in various
successional stages. This community includes several small areas of levee forest and
other portions that are semipermanently flooded. Areas that are flooded less frequently
have a canopy dominated by red maple, river birch, and sycamore. In other areas the
canopy is dominated by black gum and red maple. The epiphyte mistletoe is found
growing on many of the canopy trees. The understory consists of thick shrub sized
species that appear stunted.
The faunal component of this community is made up of a rich assemblage of
species that occupy a variety of habitats in this community, including upland hummocks,
levees, mudflats, and permanent pools. Canopy trees provide roosting for turkey vulture,
red-tailed hawk, and barred owl. Swamp sparrow is often found in low growing shrubs
and trees. Upland hummocks and levees provide nesting sites for Canada geese and
wood ducks. White-tailed deer, bobcat, and raccoon are also common in these upland
areas. Muskrat, northern cricket frog, and frogs can be seen in and around permanent
pools. Many of the species found in this community are likely to utilize habitats found in
other communities in the project vicinity.
Terrestrial Community Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area.
Table 3 summarizes potential losses to these communities, resulting from project
construction. Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance
of each community present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived based on the
project length 250 meters (820 feet), and the entire proposed right-of-way width of
24 meters (80 feet). However, project construction often does not require the entire right-
of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 3. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities resulting from either alternate
Community -Impacted Area ha (ac)
' Replace Bridge Temporary`Detour ' Total.'
Disturbed Community 0.22 (0.55) 0.06 (0.16) 0.28 (0.71)
Alluvial Swamp Forest 0.32 (0.80) 0.39 (0.97) 0.71 (1.8)
Total Impacts: 0.54(l.4) 0.45(l.1) 0 99 (2 5)
Construction of the proposed project will primarily impact the disturbed
community and the edges of the alluvial swamp forest community. Plants and animals
found in these communities are generally common throughout North Carolina and are
well adapted and likely to repopulate following disturbance. Animals temporarily '
displaced by construction activities should repopulate areas of suitable habitat following
project completion. The construction of an onsite detour will result in impacts to well
established portions of the alluvial swamp forest. The loss of ecotonal zones and alluvial
swamp forest would reduce the amount of suitable habitat available for interior species
and increase opportunities for edge species. If forested tracts become too small in area,
interior species will not re-populate.
7
Indirect effects on wildlife populations are anticipated to be minor. While,
mortality among migratory species can be expected from project construction, these
effects are anticipated to be minor, since the replacement of the existing structure is not
anticipated to result in increased vehicular traffic. In order to minimize impacts to natural
communities in the project vicinity it is recommended that all cleared areas along
roadways and embankments be revegetated immediately following project completion
and that impacts to forested communities be avoided whenever feasible.
Aquatic Communities
Community composition of the aquatic communities is reflective of the physical
characteristics of the water body and the condition of the water resource. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to water resources also greatly influence aquatic community
composition and structure.
Cedar Creek and its floodplain provide a wide variety of habitats as it meanders
through the study area. Habitats found in the study area include vegetation filled pools,
mudflats, open channels, and the main channel of Cedar Creek. Pools and small channels
that contain parrot feather and other aquatic plants provide shelter for grass shrimp,
eastern mosquito fish, whirligig beetle, snails, and fingernail clams. These pools are also
known to serve as nurseries for juvenile fish and as breeding areas for insects and
salamanders. Crayfish burrows occur on open mudflats where flood waters have receded
and individuals were observed in shallow pools. Larger channels in the study area
support piscine species such as bluegill, bluespotted sunfish, and pirate perch. Animals
found in the terrestrial communities are an integral part of the aquatic community
utilizing various habitats on a regular basis.
Aquatic Community Impacts
It is anticipated that permanent and temporary impacts to aquatic communities
will occur from increased sedimentation, increased light penetration and loss of habitat.
Sedimentation covers benthic organisms and filter feeders, inhibiting their ability to feed
and obtain oxygen. Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates in the water
column can lead to the smothering of fish eggs, reduced depth of light penetration in the
water column, reduction of dissolved oxygen and alterations in water temperature.
Increased light penetration from the removal of streamside vegetation may also increase
water temperatures. In order to minimize impacts to aquatic communities in the project
area it is recommended that instream activities be kept at a minimum.
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in section 33 of the code of Federal Register
(CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, also 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
(USACE) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C 1344.
One wetland site is located in the study area. This site encompasses the alluvial
swamp forest community. This wetland has Cowardin classifications of Palustrine
Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded and Semipermanently Flooded
(PFO 1 C and PFO1 F). Hydrological evidence consists of inundation, surface saturation,
watermarks, drift lines, drainage patterns, and oxidized root channels. The top 25 cm (10
in) of soil is a l OYR 5/2 sandy loam and below that a l OYR 8/2 mottle became common.
The approximate area of this wetland that is located within the proposed right-of-way is
0.39 ha (0.97 ac) for the temporary detour and 0.32 ha (0.80 ac) for the replacement of
Bridge No. 43.
Permit Requirements
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting 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 the 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 withina 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'
or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
A North Carolina DWQ Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also
required. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the DWQ issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge
into waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from DWQ is a
prerequisite to the issuance of a Section 404 permit.
Projects authorized under Nationwide permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. However, final
permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Three
federally protected species are listed for Franklin County by the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) as of 4 November 1997 (Table 3). A brief description of these species and habitat
requirements follow.
Table 3: Federall
for Franklin
om
mon Name _Scientific.lVame Federal. Status
dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Tar spiny mussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Note:
*"Endangered" denotes a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
9
*"Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) Endangered
Alasmidonta heterodon formerly ranged from the Petitcodiac River, Canada to the
Neuse River, North Carolina. In North Carolina populations are found in the Neuse River
Basin and the Tar River Basin.
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel ranging in size from 2.5 cm to 3.8 cm
in length. It's shell is distinguishable 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.
A mussel survey was conducted using scuba and tactile survey at the bridge site.
Water depth averaged around 1.2 meters (4 feet) and visibility was fair. The substrate
consisted mostly of very fine silt, or much and is generally unsuitable for mussels. Small
areas of firm substrate (clay, cobble, or gravel) were found to contain mussels. A total of
24 elliptio mussels (Elipto spp.) were found approximately 300 feet downstream to 1000
feet upstream of the existing structure. No other mussel species were present.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar river spiny mussel) Endangered
The Tar river spiny mussel has always been endemic to the Tar River drainage
basin, from Falkland in Pitt County to Spring Hope in Nash County. Now it is limited to
populations in Swift Creek and the Tar River in Edgecombe and Nash counties.
This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well oxygenated, circumneutral
pH water. The bottom is composed of uncompacted gravel and coarse sand. The water
needs to be relatively silt-free. It is known to rely on a species of freshwater fish to act as
an intermediate host for its larvae.
The Tar river spiny mussel grows to an average length of 60 millimeters. Short
spines are arranged in a radial row anterior to the posterior ridge on one valve and
symmetrical to the other valve, others have two rows of spines on each valve. The nacre
is pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white (posterior). Young specimens have an
orange-brown peristracum with greenish rays and adults are darker with inconspicuous
rays. The shell is generally smooth in texture with as many as 12 spines that project
perpendicularly from the surface and curve slightly ventrally.
A mussel survey was conducted using scuba and tactile survey at•the bridge site.
Water depth averaged around 1.2 meters (4 feet) and visibility was fair. The substrate
consisted mostly of very fine silt, or much and is generally unsuitable for mussels. Small
areas of firm substrate (clay, cobble, or gravel) were found to contain mussels. A total of
24 elliptio mussels (Elipto spp.) were found approximately 300 feet downstream to 1000
feet upstream of the existing structure. No other mussel species were present.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
10
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Michaux's sumac was known historically from the inner coastal plain and lower
piedmont of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. This species is believed to be
extirpated in South Carolina. It is currently known from only 21 populations in North
Carolina and Georgia. In North Carolina populations of Michaux's sumac still exist in
Hoke, Richmond, Scotland, Franklin, Davie, Robeson, Moore, and Wake counties.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows 0.2 to 1.0
meters in height. The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile,
oblong to oblong- lanceolate leaflets that are each 4 to 9 cm long, 2 to 5 cm wide, acute
and acuminate. The bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly
serrate. It bears small flowers in a terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers are
greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on female
plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to 6 mm across.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent on some sort of
disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in association with
basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams. It grows only in open habitat where it can
get full sunlight and it does not compete well with other species such as Japanese
honeysuckle that it is often associated with.
The existing approaches to Bridge No. 43 and roadsides provide suitable habitat
for Michaux's sumac. A search of the NHP database shows no populations of this
species occurring in the project vicinity. These areas were examined visually for the
presence of this species. Michaux's sumac was not found during these surveys. Given
the results, it is apparent that Michaux's sumac is not present in the project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
IX. CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project.
FIGURES
• • x Franklin • ,Q,? `\ 1 1
?- County
Airport _,-
l"09
y r 170
cr.
N . ° 1 10? c?/ BRIDGE NO.
33
J _
108
:
r'
i - - ?°
7 a'•
-1
1 0-
Royal 7
crooked Broxh.
O - - 0, .ccaKey
rEOSOm Alerl -•`
N 75!-
6 _w o00 - "7
!
I /.
O Ingleside Centemll
O - _
? C'
O I F R `AIyL I I N.
+lowsourl `,
alnk n 56 i 56
r 7 a a
?e? !!• M IUStICt r r
'Ll Youn Ile 39 Sat <
IA y nlllo
r r Hooe ?,
so Bunn sI
('nn 98 73c I
IeY' 5 6
Pe rtes
•?\ Pdot 1
® e
?t
if -4'v North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
`?, w •? Planning & Environmental Branch
FRANKLIN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 43
ON NC 39 OVER CEDAR CREEK
B-3172
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
I g Figure I
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
ATTACHMENTS

s ? ?? ?a
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 17, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 43 on NC 39 over Cedar Creek,
Franklin County, B-3172, ER 96-9018
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on July 11,
1996. However, Debbie Bevin met with John Williams of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) on July 16, 1996, to discuss the project and view the project
photographs and aerial.
In terms of historic architectural resources, the only structure over fifty years of age within
the project area is Bridge #43, which was built in 1935. We recommend that an
architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate the bridge for National Register eligibility and
report the findings to us. We recommend that no further 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 archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environrTiental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
Franklin County Historic Properties Commission
109 East Junes Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ???
Franklin County
Bridge No. 43 on NC 39
Over Cedar Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-39(1)
State Project 8.1360801
TIP # B-317?
REVISION TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
APPROVED:
(51 -'? z - Z) 0
Date
- 'LZ - J
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date ::- icholas Graf, P. E.
' Division Administrator, FHWA
Franklin Countv
Bridge No. 43 on NC 39
. Over Cedar Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-39(1)
State Project 8.1360801
TIP # B-3172
REVISION TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
JUNE 2000
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
'Z-Dd
Date

John L. Williams, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
.,IIIIIIIffill"
%'???%'• FESS%p ti?9
= SEAL
022552
vcC,V G,
It fill%%
t Z2-00 V) 1q. -Y In IQ_ t--- 7
Date Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
6-22-0U
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Franklin County
Bridge No. 43 on NC 39
Over Cedar Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-39(1)
State Project 8.1360801
TIP # B-3172
I. BACKGROUND
A Categorical Exclusion for the subject project was approved on November 24,
1997. The document recommended Alternate 1, the replacement of Bridge No. 43 with a
new bridge at the same location. Traffic was to be maintained on a temporary alignment
to the west during construction.
II. DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION
During their analysis for this project, the Geotechnical Unit discovered the
remnants of an old roadbed to the east of the existing alignment. They suggested that by
placing the temporary alignment to the east instead of the west that the wetland impact
due to the temporary alignment could be reduced. The temporary alignment to the east
was re-evaluated for natural systems impacts. It was determined that the east alignment
would have 0.04 hectares (0.10) acres less impact, a reduction of approximately 10% of
the total impact. Structure Design has indicated that a temporary rock causeway may be
required for the construction of the new bridge.
The recommendation is to change from Alternate 1 to Alternate 2. The bridge
will be replaced on the existing location. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary
alignment to the east during construction to minimize wetland impacts.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions involved with this project.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
A summary of costs is presented below.
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
COMPONENT Recommended
New Bridge Structure $ 235,000 $ 235,000
Bridge Removal 17,000 17,000
Roadway & Approaches 121,000 121,000
Onsite Detour 119,000 119,000
Mobilization & 160,000 160,000
Miscellaneous
Engineering & 98,000 98,000
Contingencies
Total Construction $ 750,000 $ 750,000
Right of Way $ 48,000 $ 48,000
Total Cost $ 798,000 $ 798,000
The estimated cost for the project shown in the 2000-2006 TIP is $1,286,000.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The environmental effects are essentially the same as described in the original
document. However, the Natural Resources were re-evaluated to confirm the decision to
change the recommendation to Alternate 2.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Water Resources
The referenced NRTR includes water resource information for both proposed
alternatives. The Best Usage Classification assigned by the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) for Cedar Creek.(DWQ Index No. 28-29 (2),1/1/90) is still classified as C NSW.
Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The supplementary classification NSW
(Nutrient Sensitive Waters) refers to waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
No new water resource information was collected during the 21 March 2000 field
investigation.
Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial Communities in the study area are described as Disturbed and Swamp
Forest. These communities are well-defined, and there is little overlap of flora between
the communities. The faunal component of the terrestrial communities is dominated by
species found in the forested community that forage in the disturbed community. An old
road bed, now disturbed scrub/shrub vegetation, exists within the area where the proposed
temporary detour for Alternate 2 would be located. For information concerning terrestrial
communities, refer to the referenced NRTR. No new terrestrial community information
was collected during the most recent field investigation.
Terrestrial Community Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area.
Table 2 summarizes potential losses to these communities, resulting from project
construction. Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance
of each community present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived based on the
project length of 250 meters (820 feet), the entire proposed ROW width of 24 meters (80
feet), and an additional 18 meters (60 feet) temporary easement area. However, project
construction often does not require the entire ROW; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
Table 2. Estimated area impact to terrestrial communities
Community Impacted Area ha (ac)
Alternate 1 (west) Alternate 2 (east)
Disturbed Community 0.24 (0.6) 0.32 (0.8)
Alluvial Swamp Community 0.43(l.05) 0.39 (0.95)
Total Impacts 0.67(l.65) 0.71(l.75)
Within the area where the proposed temporary detour for Alternate 2 would be
located, an old road bed exists, reducing the swamp community impacts and increasing
impacts to the disturbed community. Although impacts to the swamp community cannot
be avoided altogether, impacts could be minimized if Alternate 2 was chosen rather than
Alternate 1, therefore from a natural resources perspective, Alternate 2 is preferred.
Waters of the United States
The referenced NRTR includes complete information about waters of the United
States. One continuous wetland site is located in the study area. This site encompasses
the alluvial swamp forest community. This wetland has Cowardin classifications of
Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded and Semi-permanently
Flooded (PFOl C and PFO1 F). Hydrological evidence consists of inundation, surface
saturation, watermarks, drift lines, drainage patterns, oxidized root channels, and
sediment deposits. The top 2.5 centimeters (1 inches) of soil has a matrix of 1 OYR 5/2
sandy clay loam and a mottle of IOYR 5/6. From 2.5 cm (1 in) to 7.6 cm (3 in) there is
the same matrix and a mottle of l OYR 4/6 sand. From 7.6 cm (3 in) to 17.8 cm (7 in)
there is a matrix of IOYR 4/1 sand and from 17.8 cm (7 in) to 25.4 cm (10 in) there is a
matrix of l OYR 5/2 sand.
The approximate area of this wetland that is located in the proposed temporary
easement for the Alternate 1 temporary detour is 0.13 hectares (0.32 acres). The
approximate area of this wetland that is located in the proposed temporary easement for
the Alternate 2 temporary detour is 0.09 hectares (0.22 acres).
Table 3: Estimated area of impacts to wetlands
Community
Impact Area hectares (acres)
Alternate 1 (west) Alternate 2 (east)
Bridge Temporary Total Temporary Total
Replacement Detour , Detour
Alluvial Swamp 0.3 (0.73) 0.13 (.32) 0.43(1.05) 0.09 (0.22) 0.39 (0.95)
Forest
From a wetland perspective, Alternate 2 is preferred because impacts to wetlands
are less that those with Alternate 1.
Permit Requirements
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 resulting from the proposed project. This
permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed in whole, or in part, by another Federal agency or department where: that
agency or department has determined that pursuant to the council on environmental
quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act; 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 that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency' or department's application for the categorical exclusion and
concurs with that determination.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to
the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state
issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may
result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from
the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
Compensatory mitigation may be necessary, however, final permit and mitigation
decisions rest with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Protected Species
Three federally protected species are listed for Franklin County by the USFWS as
of 3 January 2000 (USFWS) (Table 3). Refer to the referenced NRTR for information on
protected species.
Table 4: Federally protected species for Franklin County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
No changes in the Biological Conclusions determined for the three protected
species in Franklin County from the referenced NRTR have been made. As of 3 January
2000, no species have been added to the federally protected species list for Franklin
County, that were not covered in the referenced NRTR. The roadsides of Alternate 1 and
Alternate 2 overlap, therefore the Biological Conclusions for Michaux's sumac in the
referenced NRTR can be considered relevant to Alternate 2 as well.
A review of the NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats on 21 March
2000 revealed findings of the Neuse River waterdog (Necturus leu isi) 0.16 kilometers
(0.1 miles) west of the project area. Surveys for these were not conducted during the site
visit, nor were the species observed during the site visit.
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
B-3172, Franklin County
Bridge No. 43 on NC 39
Over Cedar Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-39(1)
State. Project 8.1360801
Resident Engineer
Upon completion of the project, NCDOT will remove temporary fill and restore wetlands.
impacted by that fill.
NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal.
Roadside Environmental' Unit
NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal.
Structure Design
NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal.
Revised Categorical Exclusion Page 1' of 1
Green Sheet
June 29; 2000
Cronklin
N F
71. ounty
Airport _
03
r, ` \
BRIDGE NO
i God -32 \ L F
i --
_ ' Y )
1798
Royal 7-0?
Crooked Brooch.
. i 106 _? R ?? ' - i - Z,
170E
"W 7CE
- / EDSOm Alert 75_
6 39 _ ??- -
/ Centered Woo
_ InQ1eside % -_-
y 561 / C-z
N I N .
+Louisburg an n I 56
56 r } a a ,?
Justice/ , - -
Youn tile 39 -,7 03
"i
lA s rnr 1 10
Hop ?. S
Bunn '.?
n 0=
698/' --_-
Pe rtes
` Pilot I '
o '
¦
J+x:_
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
P'
Planning & Environmental Branch
FRANKLIN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 43
ON NC 39 OVER CEDAR CREEK
B-3172
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
July 17, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 43 on NC 39 over Cedar Creek,
Franklin County, 8-3172, ER 96-9018
Dear Mr. Graf:
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on July 11,
1996. However, Debbie Bevin met with John Williams of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) on July 16, 1996, to discuss the project and view the project
photographs and aerial.
In terms of historic architectural resources, the only structure over fifty years of age within
the project area is Bridge #43, which was built in 1935. We recommend that an
architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate the bridge for National Register eligibility and
report the findings to us. We recommend that no further 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 archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
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,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
Franklin County Historic Properties Commission
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??&