20010996 Ver 1_Complete File_20010703

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Mr. Bill Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548

July 13, 2001
Re: Permit Application for proposed replacement of Bridge Number 44 on SR 1252 between US 64 and
NC 97 over the Tar River in Edgecombe County
DWQ No. 010996, TIP No. B-2967
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Review of your application revealed it lacking necessary information required for
making an informed permit decision. The permit application was deficient in the following areas:
• The application does not specify the nature and quantity of impacts proposed to protected buffers. The
application identifies temporary impacts, but presents no quantities. The Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules do
not separate temporary from permanent impacts. According to the rules, "...any disturbance.."
requires a reporting and quantification of impact. Therefore, please provide a quantification of all
proposed impacts for the referenced project.
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2h .0507(a)(5), we will have to place the permit application on hold
until we are supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the NC
Division of Water Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers place
the permit application on hold.
Hopefully, we can work together to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact John Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
Sincerely,
John R. Dorney
Water Quality Certification Program
cc: Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
.File Copy t
C:\ncdot\TIP B--2967\correspondence\010996 hld.doc
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5017o recycled11017o post consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Mr. Bill Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
0 (O-ct ? ?
Lr- 9-n
July 13, 2001
Re: Permit Application for proposed replacement of Bridge Number 44 on SR 1252 between US 64 and
NC 97 over the Tar River in Edgecombe County
DWQ No. 010996, TIP No. B-2967
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Review of your application revealed it lacking necessary information required for
making an informed permit decision. The permit application was deficient in the following areas:
• The application does not specify the nature and quantity of impacts proposed to protected buffers. The
application identifies temporary impacts, but presents no quantities. The Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules do
not separate temporary from permanent impacts. According to the rules, "...any disturbance.."
requires a reporting and quantification of impact. Therefore, please provide a quantification of all
proposed impacts for the referenced project.
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2h.0507(a)(5), we will have to place the permit application on hold
until we are supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the NC
Division of Water Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers place
the permit application on hold.
Hopefully, we can work together to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact John Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
_ Sincerely,
John R. Dorney
Water Quality Certification Program
cc: Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
File Copy t
C:\ncdot\TIP B--2967\correspondence\010996 hld.doc
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50°o recycled/ I09o post consumer paper

4.
y ?. STAi(-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR
June 11, 2002
State Project:: 8.2290801 (B-2967)
Contract No. C200304
F. A. Number: BRZ-1252(1)
County: Edgecombe
Description: Bridge over Tar River and Approaches on SR 1252
MEMORANDUM TO: Steven D. DeWitt, PE
State Construction Engineer
FROM: Wendi O. Johnson, PE Wq G11h
Division Construction Engineer
SUBJECT: Approved Preconstruction Conference Minutes
G I O qot&
c?i???C crv? I?.
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY

We are transmitting an approved copy of the minutes covering the preconstruction conference for
the above project, which was held on May 6, 2002. The minutes were approved by the Contractor,
Dellinger, Inc., as recorded.
/t
Attachment
C: John Wadsworth (FHWA)
Jean Manuele (US Army Corps of Engineers)
John Hennessy (NC DEHNR)
John Holley (DEHNR, Land Quality Section)
David Cox (MCWRC)
Ron Sechler (National Marine Fisheries)
Dr. Garland Pardue (US Fish & Wildlife)
Edgecombe Martin County EMC (Ed White)
Sprint (Kenneth E. Grotjan)
Leggett Community Water Association (Ms.Ruby Stroup)
Geotechnical Unit
Post Office Box 3165, Wilson, North Carolina 27895-3165
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Page 2
June 11, 2002
Ec: C. L. Jones, PE
Willie Bryant
Don G. Lee
Troy Peoples, PE
Andy Brown PE
Eddie Bunn, PE
Victor Barbour, PE
Steve DeWitt, PE
Warren Walker, PE
Haywood Daughtry, PE
Richard Chrisawn
Shannon Sweitzer, PE
Ellis Powell, Jr., PE
Don Smith
Andy Pridgen
Mike Robinson, PE
Lloyd Johnston, Jr.
Jimmy Marler
John Williamson
Aydren Flowers
Brandy C. Carter (Utility Agent)
David R. Henderson, PE
Andy Mills, PE
Jean Manuele (US Amy Corps of Engineers)
Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Judith Johnson (NCWRC)
Bryant Bunn, PE
Ron Hamcock, PE
,,
PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE MINUTES
State Project: 8.2290801 (B-2967)
Federal Aid No.: BRZ-1252(1)
Contract No.: C200304
County: Edgecombe
Description: Bridge over Tar River and Approaches on SR 1252
The preconstruction conference for the above project was held in the Wilson Division Office Conference Room
on May 6, 2002 with the following persons in attendance:
NAME REPRESENTING
Rob Barnhill Barnhill Contracting Company
Bobby Francis Dellinger, Inc.
Donna Joyner Sprint
Jim Conner Sprint
Mike Robinson NC DOT - Area Structure Engineer
Willie L. Bryant NC DOT - Civil Rights
Donna R. Sauls NC DOT - Division 4 Right of Way
J. L. Raynor NC DOT - Asst. Resident Engineer
Corey McLamb NC DOT - Nashville Construction
R. E Nichols NC DOT - Nashville Construction '
R. L. Perry NC DOT - Nashville Construction
J L. Lewis NC DOT - Nashville Construction
Don C. Smith NC DOT - Roadside Environmental
Andy Pridgen NC DOT - Division QA Supervisor
Jean Manuele US Army Corps of Engineers
Eddie J. Bunn, Resident Engineer Division 4, presided over the conference. He asked that everyone present to
introduce themselves and their company affiliation.
Mr. Bunn advised that an executed contract has not been received and the preconstruction conference is being
held from the proposal form. If there are any differences between the proposal form and the contract, the
contract will govern.
The Contractor advised, at this time, he did not know who would be their Project Superintendent and Traffic
Control Coordinator for this project. As soon as a determination is made he will advise the Resident Engineer.
Mr. Jimmy Lewis will act as Project Inspector and Traffic Control Coordinator for the DOH.
Mr. Bunn asked when and where the Contractor plans to begin work. The Contractor advised they would
install signs and begin work on May 271h, which is the date of availability.
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS
Mr. Andy Pridgen, Division 4 QA Supervisor, asked the Contractor if he had any questions regarding the
Special Provisions outlined on pages 26 - 32.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-2967
Page 2
The Contractor advised that Barnhill Contracting Company would perform paving on this project. Mr. Pridgen
was advised to contact David Glover concerning whether core or nuclear testing will be performed on this
project.
Mr. Pridgen advised the Special Provisions in this contract are dated 1/15/02 and he would like to point out the
following:
Mr. Pridgen advised Superpave "B" mixes are to be used on this project and there shouldn't be any problems
with mix verifications.
Pages 28-31 deals with Type S 4.75A and SF 9.5A asphalt pavements; however, they will not be used on this
project.
Mr. Bunn advised the Contractor that a fixed string line is required on this project.
Mr. Pridgen advised the Contractor should he have any questions, please contact him.
RIGHT OF WAY
Donna Sauls with our Division 4 Right of Way office covered the right of way for this project. She advised
that all right of way has been secured with the exception of Parcel 002 (Roger E. Sauerborn). DOT has filed
for condemnation on this parcel.
There are no known asbestos contaminated building materials, underground storage tanks or soil
contamination within the right of way of the project.
The Contractor is reminded to not exceed the right of way or easement areas during construction of the project
without written permission from the property owner.
On page 36, Lynn Raynor advised the following utility companies have facilities that will be in conflict with the
construction of this project: Edgecombe Martin EMC, Sprint (telephone) and Adelphia Communication
CATV.
1. Edgecombe Martin EMC - Utilities have been relocated.
2. Sprint (telephone) - Have underground facilities that will be abandoned and they will be attached to
EMC's relocated facilities. They will tie in to existing underground facilities approximately 600'
beyond the north end of this project and will use bore method. Should be complete by May 24`"
3. Adelphia Communication CATV - Nate Harris advised they expect to have work on their schedule this
week (week of May 6`h) and complete by the end of the week.
Mr. Raynor advised Mr. Conner with Sprint to give the Resident Engineer's office notification as to when
they plan to begin work on the project.
Mr. Bunn asked eveyone to turn to page 6 of the contract and called on Mr. Willie Bryant to cover the
EEO portion of this contract.
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise - Mr. Bryant called attention to the following:
The Contractor's EEO Officer for this project is Lee Bradley.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-2967
Page 3
The Resident Engineer furnished the Contractor with required posters for his bulletin board. The Contractor's
EEO Policy Statement is to be posted on the projects Bulletin Board that should be weather proof along with
the following posters:
1. Davis-Bacon Minimum Prevailing Wage Rate Schedule,
2. "Wage-Rate Information -F/A/ Project", Form PR-1495,
3. "Notice Relating to False Statements," Form PR-1022,
4. EEO Poster - "Discrimination is Prohibited".
The Contractor is urged to document, in writing, all actions taken in complying with Equal Opportunity of
Employment Provisions, Training Provision, and Minority Business Enterprise Provision. This includes
applicant referrals, meeting with employees, on-site inspections, wage evaluation, etc.
The State and/or FHWA will conduct a contract compliance review sometime during the life of the
contract; therefore, fair employment practices should be maintained at all times. Women in any way should
not be discriminated against.
An annual report (FHWA Form PR-1391) is required in July.
DBE goals for this contract are established at 10.0%. The project was awarded with a good faith effort of
7.9% DBE participation.
All subcontractors and suppliers are responsible for meeting the same requirements as the prime contractor,
and it is the prime contractor's responsibility to oversee that both are in compliance.
The Contractor requested estimate period for this project end on the 15th of the month.
All alleged discriminatory violations should be brought to the attention of the Resident Engineer.
On page 15, Mr. Bunn called attention to the requirement of reporting payments made to DBE's and
advised the Contractor that this information is now entered on the Departments website. The Resident
Engineer can access the entries made by the Contractor and approve DBE payments. Failing to report
payments may result in withholding of monies due to subcontractors.
Retainage and Prompt Payment - Contractor at all levels, prime, subcontractor, or second tier contractor,
shall within 7 calendar days of receipt of monies, resulting from work performed on the project or services
rendered, pay subcontractors, second tier subcontractors, or material suppliers, as appropriate.
This provision for prompt payment shall be incorporated into each subcontractor or second tier subcontract
issued for work performed on tlus project or for services provided.
The Contractor will withhold up to 3% retainage if any subcontractor does not obtain a payment and
performance bond for their portion of the work.
Failure of any entity to make prompt payment as defined herein may result in: 1) withholding of money due to
that entity in the next partial payment until such assurances are made satisfactory to this provision; or 2)
removal of an approved contractor from the prequalified bidders list or the removal of other entities from the
approved subcontractors list. The Department will withhold an amount sufficient to cover anticipated
liquidated damages, as determined by the Engineer.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-2967
Page 4
Mr. Bunn asked everyone turn to page 1 of the contract, and the following was discussed:
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS
GENERAL
Mr. Bunn advised, any of the special provisions that are not covered will be as stipulated.
Contract Time and Liquidated Damages:
The date of availability for this contract is May 27, 2002, except that work in jurisdictional waters and
wetlands shall not begin until a meeting between the DOT, Regulatory Agencies, and the Contractor is held as
stipulated in the permits. The delay in availability has been considered in determining the contract time for this
project. This required meeting would be covered at the Pre Construction conference.
The contract completion date is December 31, 2003.
When the Special Provisions require observation periods, they are not a part of the work to be completed by
the completion date and/or intermediate contract times stated in the contract. Should an observation period
extend beyond the final completion date, the acceptable completion of the observation period shall be a part of
the work covered by the performance and payment bonds.
Liquidated Damages - $200.00 per calendar day.
Intermediate Contract Time Number I and Liquidated Damages - Except for that work required under the
Project Special Provisions entitled "Planting" and/or "Reforestation", included elsewhere in this contract, the
Contractor will be required to complete all work included in this contract and shall place and maintain traffic
on same by October 1, 2003.
The date of availability for this intermediate contract time is May 27, 2002 and liquidated damages are $800.00
per calendar day,
Upon apparent completion of all work required to be completed by this intermediate date, a final inspection
will be held and upon acceptance, the DOT will assume responsibility for the maintenance of all work except
"Planting" and/or "Reforestation". The Contractor will be responsible for and shall make corrections of all
damages to the completed roadway caused by his planting operations, whether occurring prior to or after
placing traffic thru the project.
Intermediate Contract Time Number 2 and Liquidated Damages - Contractor shall complete the work
required of Phase 1, Step 4 as shown on Sheet TCP-2 and shall place and maintain traffic on same.
Time of availability for this intermediate contract time will be the Friday at 7:00 p.m. the Contractor elects to
begin the work and the completion time will be the time which is 60 consecutive hours after the time of
availability. Liquidated damages are $2,000.00 per hour.
Intermediate Contract Time Number 3 and Liquidated Damages - SR 1252 (L-Line) - Contractor shall
complete the required work of installing, maintaining and removing the traffic control devices for road closures
and restoring traffic to the existing traffic pattern. The Contractor shall not close SR 1252 during the
following time restrictions:
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-2967
Page 5
DAY AND TIME RESTRICTIONS
The maximum allowable time for the road closure is 15 minutes.
The Contractor shall reopen the travel lane to traffic until the
existing traffic queue is depleted.
The provisions of the specifications which apply to contract time and liquidated damages on intermediate
contract time of an hourly basis shall also apply to this intermediate contract time, but shall be revised to apply
on a 15 minute basis.
The time of availability for this intermediate contract time will be the time the Contractor begins to install
traffic control devices required for the road closures according to the time restrictions stated above. The
completion time will be the time the Contractor is required to complete the removal of traffic control devices
required for the road closures according to the time restrictions stated above and restore traffic to the existing
traffic pattern. Liquidated damages are $500.00 per 15 minutes time period or any portion thereof.
Construction Moratorium - No clearing and grubbing is permitted between November 15 to April 1 of any
year.
No in-steam work is permitted between March 15 to June 15 of any year.
Major Contract Items - As stipulated in the contract.
Specialty Items - As stipulated in the contract.
Fuel Price Adjustment - As stipulated in the contract.
Schedule of Estimated Completion Progress - The Contractor is advised if he anticipated accelerating the
progress shown, he should submit a request, and approval would have to be obtained should he want payment
for performing work beyond that progress noted. All work is to be completed as stipulated in the contract.
The contractor did not present his progress schedule at the preconstruction conference. The contractor's
progress schedule was received on May 28, 2002 and is being reviewed by the Resident Engineer.
Domestic Steel and Iron Products - Domestically produced fasteners are required on this project. Specific
attention was called to the third & fourth paragraphs regarding notarized certification required, that a notation
be made on the purchase order that steel products were processed in the United States and that separate files
will be kept on steel products for verification. Mr. Bunn noted that NC DOT requires certifications for the
majority of materials incorporated into accepted work. Failure to supply the necessary certifications in a timely
manner will cause the NCDOT to withhold payment for work and could possibly prohibit final acceptance of
work performed.
Submission of Records -Federal Aid Projects - Payrolls are not required on this project. This project is not
located on the National Highway System; therefore, federal form FHWA-47 is not required.
Subsurface Information - Subsurface information is available on the structure portion of this project only.
Plant Pest Ouarantines - This project has been determined to be within a county regulated for plant pest(s).
The Contractor shall contact the NC Department of Agriculture to determine those specific project sites
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-2967
Page 6
located in the quarantine area. If the Contractor's operation is in quarantine area, he must follow procedures
as outlined.
Safety Vests - All Contractors' personnel, all subcontractors and their personnel, and any material suppliers
and their personnel must wear an OSHA approved reflective vest or outer garment at all times while on the
project. Mr. Bunn advised that non-reflective orange shirts are acceptable for all project personnel except
flaggers.
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS
ROADWAY
Clearing and Grubbing - Clearing and grubbing shall be by Method III unless superceded by environmental
permits. The contractor was presented a copy of a brochure prepared by the Division of Air Quality. This
brochure covered regulations regarding open burning on projects. The contractor was asked to share this
information with the subcontractor that will perform this operation on the project.
Barnhill Contracting Company will perform grading on this project. Mr. Bunn advised grading would be
paid for under the line item for comprehensive grading. Borrow excavation will be paid for as a separate
line item.
Shoulder and Fill Slope Material - Required shoulder and slope construction for this project shall be
performed in accordance with requirements of Section 226 of the Specifications except as noted in the
contract:
Construction the 6" (150 mm) of shoulder and fill slopes with soils capable of supporting vegetation.
Provide soil with P.I. greater than 6 and less than 25 and with a pH ranging from 5.5 to 6.8. Remove stones
and other foreign material 2" (50 mm) or larger in diameter. All soil is subject to test and acceptance or
rejection by the Engineer.
Material shall be obtained from within the project limits or an approved borrow source.
Contractor advised that borrow will be obtained from G & J Radio property located approximately 1 '/2
mile from the project site. Mr. Bunn asked that the Contractor submit a Reclamation plan for review by the
Resident Engineer and Environmental Personnel. DOT will sample the borrow source to make sure it
meets the borrow criteria.
Restrictions on Construction of Embankment - Construct the embankments for the structure to the finished
graded roadway section and do not begin any work on the bridge end bents as stated. There is a one
month waiting period before beginning construction on either end bent after completion of the
embankments for the end bents.
Contractor will be required to maintain the embankments at finished graded roadway section during the
waiting period. Additional earth material required to maintain embankment of finished graded roadway
section will be paid for as stipulated in the contract.
Coal Fly Ash in Embpnkments - The Contractor has the option of using coal fly ash in embankments as a
substitute for convention borrow material. Contractor advised he will not use.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-2967
Page 7
Reinforced Bridge Approach Fills - The Contractor is to be guided by the Special Provisions and all work
shall be done in the presence of the Engineer or Inspector.
Asphalt Plant Mixtures - Contractor shall place ACBC material in trench section with asphalt spreaders made
for the purpose or with other equipment approved by the Engineer
Guardrail Anchor Units, Type 350 - Furnish and install guardrail anchor units as stipulated. Contract may, at
his option, furnish any one of the guardrail anchor units by suppliers listed on page 33.
Guardrail end delineation is required on all approach and trailing end guardrail buffer end sections for both
temporary and permanent. Guardrail end delineation consists of yellow reflective sheeting applied to the entire
buffer end section of the guardrail.
Mr. Bunn advised there is a small amount of Aggregate Base Course for a driveway. A quarry that participates
in the Department's Quality Control/Quality Assurance program shall supply this material.
Permanent Seeding and Mulching - Don Smith, Area Roadside Environmental Engineer advised the
Contractor that the Department desires that permanent seeding and mulching be established on this project as
soon as practical after slopes or portions of slopes have been graded. As an incentive to obtain an early stand
of vegetation on this project, the Contractor's attention is called to the requirements noted on page 34.
EROSION CONTROL
Mr. Bunn advised the Project Inspector for DOT that he is to give the Contractor a weekly erosion control
letter advising Contractor of items that need to be completed in a timely manner. He advised that erosion
control is very important to DOT and work will be suspended if it is not maintained adequately and sufficient
ground cover provided.
Mr. Smith covered erosion control items listed on pages 37-48 in the contract. He stated that these Special
Provisions are standard; however, he would like to call attention to the following:
Specialized Hand Mowing - Specialized Hand Mowing will be performed around or under fixed objects,
including but not limited to guardrails, signs, barriers and slopes.
Sodding - Mr. Smith asked if there were any questions regarding these Special Provisions and there were
none.
The Contractor is reminded he is responsible for taking sufficient soil samples (at least one sample per
planting area or mile, which ever is less) for testing by the Department of Agriculture, Soil Testing Division
to determine the soil pH. Samples shall be taken in the presence of the Engineer.
Mr. Smith called attention to the 60-Day Observation Period and the Contractor's requirements once all
work has been completed and accepted.
The 60 Day Observation period for sod installation between September 30 and March 1, shall not begin
until March 1.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-2967
Page 8
Contractor shall be responsible year round for all watering and maintenance required to maintain the
livability of the sod from installation until final acceptance, including monitoring the sod to ensure all
watering and other maintenance is performed as required.
After the first 30 days of the 60-day observation period, the Contractor and Engineer shall meet to review
the project and identify dead or damaged sod to be replaced at the Contractor's expense as deemed
necessary by the Engineer. Satisfactory replacement of sod shall begin within 10 days of notification.
Upon completion and acceptance of the sod repairs, the remaining 30 days of the observation period shall
begin.
At the end of the 60 day observation period, the sod furnished and installed under this contract must be
weed free and in a living and healthy condition.
Acceptance of sod will be either at the end of the 60-day observation period or at final acceptance of the
project, whichever is later.
Sodding shall be inspected by the Area Roadside Environmental Engineer to begin and end the 60 day
observation period.
Reforestation - Reforestation is not shown on the plan sheets. See the reforestation detail sheet. Seasonal
limitations - seedlings shall be planted from November 15 through March 15. The shall be planted as soon as
practical following permanent seeding and mulching and shall be planted in a 16 foot wide swath adjacent to
mowing pattern line.
Maste Areas and Borroiv Sources - Payment for temporary erosion control measures, except those made
necessary by the Contractor's own negligence or for his own convenience, will be paid for under the contract
line items.
All erosion and sediment control items, which may be required in a commercial borrow or waste pit will be
done at the Contractor's expense.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas - This project is located in an Environmentally Sensitive Area. This
designation requires special procedures to be used for clearing and grubbing, temporary stream crossing,
and grading operations within the area identified on the plans. This also requires special procedures to be
used for seeding and mulching and staged seeding within the project.
The "Environmentally Sensitive Area" shall be defined as a 50' (16 meter) buffer zone on both sides of the
stream measured from top of stream bank. Contractor may perform clearing but grubbing cannot be
performed until Contractor begins grading operations. Erosion control devices shall be installed
immediately following the clearing operation.
Once grading operations begin, work will progress in a continuous manner until complete.
Contractor shall establish an early stage of vegetation sufficient to restrain erosion immediately following
grade establishment.
Seeding and mulching shall be performed on the areas disturbed py construction immediately following final
grade establishment. No appreciable time shall lapse into the contract time without stabilization of slopes,
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-2967
Page 9
ditches and other areas within the "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" as indicated on the erosion control
plans.
Special Stilling Basin(s) - Special Stilling basin(s) shall be used to filter pumped water during the drilled pier
operation. They shall be a water permeable fabric bag that traps sand, silt, and fines as sediment-laden water is
pumped into it. This device will be furnished by the DOT. It is portable and can be used adjacent to the drilled
pier operation.
Mr. Smith called attention to the top of page 47 regarding placement, replacement, and disposition
requirements. Prior approval from the Engineer must be received before removal and replacement. The DOT
will be responsible for providing a sufficient quantity of bags to contain silt from pumped effluent during
construction of the culvert.
Floating Turbidity Curtain - Contractor shall install a floating turbidity curtain to contain silt created by the
drilled pier operation as outlined by this special provision. The Contractor advised that if possible they would
not be using turbidity curtain.
\UTILITY CONSTRUCTION
Contractor may have to vary the depth of pipeline installation to achieve minimum clearance of existing or
proposed utilities or storm drainage while maintaining minimum cover specified (whether existing or
proposed utilities are shown on the plans or not).
There is a small amount of waterline on the north end of the project that needs to be relocated.
The existing utilities belong to Edgecombe County. The Contractor shall provide access to the owner's
representatives to all phases of construction and the owners shall be notified two weeks prior to
commencement of any work and one week prior to service interruption.
The pressure test and leakage test on the water line may be performed concurrently.
Bedding material shall be installed as noted in the contract.
PERMITS
Mr. Bunn advised the US Army Corps of Engineer and DEHNR has issued a permit for this project and the
Contractor shall comply with all applicable permit conditions during construction of this project.
He called on Jean Manuele to cover the permits. She discussed the following:
All work performed in the environmentally sensitive areas are not to be left non-vegetated.
Mechanized hand clearing will be performed in wetland areas. A work pad is to be constructed of Class II rip
rap on either side of the river and is not to extend over V2 the distance of the river at any given time and is
required to be removed with 30 days once its use is no longer warranted, with the river bottom being restored
to pre-construction contours following removal.
Ms. Manuele asked if the DOT had a seeding mixture that has beep tested and approved that is an annual
cover, as the Corps does not want fescue used in the wetlands. She said the ACOE has a wetland seeding
mixture but it is not approved by DOT. She said millet or rye seeding could be used, as permanent seeding
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-2967
Page 10
mixture is not wanted in these areas as the Corps prefers a temporary seeding mixture. Don Smith will check
and get back with the Resident and Ms. Manuele. Fescue grass cannot be planted in areas designated as
wetlands on the plans.
Agents of the permitting authority will periodically inspect the project for adherence to the permits.
Should the Contractor propose to utilize construction methods (such as temporary structures or fill in waters
and/or wetlands for haul roads, work platforms, cofferdams, etc.) not specifically identified in the permit
(individual, general or nationwide) it shall be the Contractor's responsibility to coordinate with the appropriate
permit agency to determine what, if any, additional permit action is required. The Contractor shall also be
responsible for initiating the request for the authorization of such construction method by the permitting
agency. The request shall be submitted through the Engineer. The Contractor shall not utilize the construction
method until it is approved by the permitting agency. The request normally takes approximately 60 days to
process; however, no extensions of time or additional compensation will be granted for delays resulting from
the Contractor's request for approval or construction methods not specifically identified in the permit.
Ms. Manuele noted that the completion date is October 1, 2003 and she advised the permit expires on February
11, 2003. She asked if the Contractor would be done with all work in the river by February 11, 2003. If not,
the Department will need to apply for a permit modification to extend the expiration date. Demolition of the
old bridge will probably not be completed by that date, so a permit modification will need to be applied for.
The temporary causeway can only span half the river width at any time. Ms. Manuele indicated that the
causeway might not be permitted to remain in the river during the moratorium period of February 15 to June
15, 2003. Pending a project review by the Wildlife Resources Commission and herself, it may need to be
removed and then replaced after the moratorium period has expired. Mr. Bunn asked if these issues could be
resolved before the causeway is originally installed in the river. Ms. Manuele indicated they could only be
resolved after the causeway is initially installed not before.
Some discussion was held regarding the feasibility of a temporary work bridge. Ms. Manuele said that a
temporary work bridge is preferable to the causeway shown on the plans but would still require a permit
modification. If the necessary documents were submitted she would expedite its approval.
Ms. Manuele suggested that the Department refrain from requesting a modification to the permit to ensure that
we cover all issues in the first modification request. The Department will not pursue a modification until
causeway issue is resolved.
The Contractor should contain his work within the footprint shown on the plans. Any deviation would be in
violation of the permits. The permit does not cover waste or borrow within wetlands.
All standard procedures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Mr. Bunn advised the Contractor that their personnel should make themselves familiar with the conditions
stipulated in the permits. He also stated that the erosion control measures in the plans are designed to limit
impacts to the tar spinymussel, an endangered species. These measures should be constructed to the proper
size and location that is shown on the plans.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-2967
Page 11
STRUCTURES
Mr. Bunn reviewed this portion of the contract. He advised these Special Provisions are standard; however, he
would like to point out the following:
Drilled Piers - Seaboard Construction will perform this work and are familiar with requirements and
submittals that need to be furnished. Drilled piers are a straight shaft type and vertical. The
Contractor/Subcontractor and the superintendent performing the work is required to have installed drilled piers
of both diameter and length similar to those shown on the plans and have a minimum of 5 years experience
with underwater concrete placement prior to the bid date for this project. This work is performed under the
supervision of the Contractor's/Subcontractor's superintendent who is knowledgeable and experienced I the
construction of drilled piers using casing and/or slurry. Equipment that has the capacity to undertake the work
and is sufficient to complete the work within the specified contract time shall be used.
To verify the ability to construct drilled piers for this project, the Contractor/Subcontractor shall submit a list
containing a description of at least two projects completed in the last five years on which those responsible for
the drilled pier construction have installed drilled piers of similar size as shown in the plans and with similar
excavation techniques anticipated for this project. This list should include the names and phone numbers of the
project owner's representative who can verify the Contractor's/Subcontractor's participation on the project.
A construction sequence plan for all the drilled piers shall be submitted for review and acceptance 30 days prior
to beginning construction of the drilled piers. Sequence plan should include items 1 thru 13 listed on page 51
of the contract.
The Engineer will review the drilled pier construction sequence plan for conformance with the plans,
specifications and special provisions, and will notify the Contractor within 15 days of receiving the plan of any
additional information required and/or changes that are necessary. Any changes for re-evaluation of any
unsatisfactory part of the construction sequence plan that is rejected should be submitted to the Engineer. The
Engineer responds to the Contractor within 7 days after receiving the proposed changes.
Should any changes in the procedure be made during construction of the drilled piers, the Contractor shall
inform the Engineer in writing and await approval of the proposed modifications prior to the construction of
the remaining drilled piers.
Prior to any drilled pier work beginning and after acceptance of the construction sequence plan, a drilled pier
preconstruction conference shall be scheduled with the drilling superintendent, Concrete Supplier, Resident
Engineer, including the inspector, Area Bridge Construction Engineer, Soils & Foundation Design Engineer
and other pertinent personnel to discuss construction and inspection of the drilled piers.
On page 55, there was a brief discussion concerning slurry construction, regarding concerns as to where the
slurry tank will be located. This will be discussed in more detail as submittals are provided.
The SID shaft inspection may or may not be performed on this project due to the potential unavailability of the
Department's inspection device. Mr. Robinson did indicate that the Department has purchased another SID
and it possibly could be utilized for this project.
Mr. Bunn also pointed out the following:
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-2967
Page 12
Adhesively Anchored Anchor Bolts or Dowels - Contractor shall submit a description of the proposed adhesive
bonding system to the Engineer for review, comments and acceptance. The description shall include
information stipulated in the second paragraph. Materials shall comply with requirements outlined in the
contract.
Holes in concrete shall be drilled with a pneumatic drill unless another drilling method is approved, and the
manufacturer's recommendations regarding the diameter of the drilled hole shall be followed. Contractor shall
abide by requirements stipulated. Field testing will be required where shown on the plans.
Epoxy Protective Coating - Mr. Bunn advised the Contractor that he would need to acquire his epoxy
protective coating from the suppliers listed on page 75.
Vertical Cracks in Prestressed Concrete Girders Prior to Detensioning - Contractor shall provide prestressed
concrete girders without objectionable cracks.
Mr. Bunn advised that he has received the Contractor's letter regarding a value engineering proposal, which
will be forwarded to our Value Management office for review. The contractor is proposing to utilize modified
bulb tee girders in lieu of the Type V girders required by the plans. The contractor indicated that this could
save between forty and fifty thousand dollars.
Mr. Bunn reviewed requirements for drawings, and submittals covered on pages 77 thru page 86., He also
called attention to the footnotes on page 87. He advised that Mr. Greg Perfetti, PE, is the new State Bridge
Design Engineer.
The contractor was supplied a copy of the "Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition." The
contractor was made aware that any bridge demolition must conform to this policy. The contractor has
submitted his demolition plan and it generally follows the previously mentioned policy
Construction, Maintenance and Removal of Temporary Access at Station 30+94.00 -L-Rev.: If detailed on the
plans the construction of a temporary rock causeway within the limits shown on the plans is permitted. The
causeway shall be built as stipulated in these special provisions and as detailed on the plans. Contractor shall
completely remove all causeway material including pipes and return the entire causeway footprint to the
original contours and elevations within 90 days of the completion of the deck slab or as otherwise required by
the permits.
Mr. Bunn advised the Contractor, if noted on the plans, the construction of a temporary work bridge is
permitted. Contractor shall submit details of the temporary work bridge to the Engineer prior to construction
of the work bridge to ensure conformance with the plans and all permits. Make sure that the temporary work
bridge satisfies all permits. Completely remove the temporary bridge prior to final acceptance or otherwise
required by the permits.
If a causeway is detailed on the plans, the construction of a temporary work bridge in lieu of the causeway is
permitted. If this option is exercised, prepare all necessary documents required for permit modifications, if any.
Structure Drainage System at Station 30+94.00 -L- Rev.: Contractor shall furnish materials, and install
drainage system and all its appurtenances called for on the plans at locations on the plans to the lines and
grades shown. The work shall also include the construction of joints or connections to other drainage
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-2967
Page 13
structures to complete the system shown on the plans. Structure drainage system installation shall be in
accordance with the drawings and manufacturer recommendations or as directed by the Engineer.
Submittals are required for this drainage system and they should be submitted directly to the Resident Engineer
and he will forward to the reviewing authority.
Contractor requested that the Resident Engineer furnish him with a list and a layout of all work zone signs
required for this project.
Resident Engineer asked that the Contractor have his construction surveyor contact his office as DOT has
information that needs to be passed along to him.
The monthly construction meetings for this project will be held on the first Thursday of each month.
The Contractor presented a letter advising names of persons authorized to sign supplemental agreements in
conjunction with this project.
There were no further questions and/or comments and the meeting was adjourned.
/t
- 3 -o 2
DATE APPROVED
DELLINGER, INC.
1-k V. P
, NAME AND TITLE
05/06/02
C
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Bill Ross, Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
'&46j;
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RE50URCE5
January 28, 2002
DWQ No. 010996
Edgecombe County
Re: Edgecombe County, Replacement of Bridge No. 44 over the Tar River on SR 1252 between US 64
and NC 97, Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-1252(1), State Project No. 8.2290801; TIP B-2967.
Tar River [28-(74); C NSW]
APPROVAL of Neuse Buffer Rules AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE with ADDITIONAL
CONDITIONS
Dear Mr. Gilmore,
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to impact 6,534 square feet of protected
riparian buffers (3920 square feet in Zone 1, and 2614 square feet in Zone 2) for the purpose of replacing
Bridge Number 44 over the Tar River on SR 1252 between US 64 and NC 97. The project shall be
constructed according to your application dated November 22, 2001 and any conditions listed below. This
approval shall act as your Authorization Certificate as required within the Neuse River Riparian Area
Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). In addition, you should get any other required federal, state or local
permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application dated December
5, 2001. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application.
If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this authorization and approval letter and is
thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the
conditions listed below.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this authorization, 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. 276 1 1-7447. This authorization and its conditions are final and
binding unless you ask for a hearing.
Non-Discharge Branch Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27669-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper
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 1;WA
4 0 0 •
Awn%
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under the "No Practical Alternatives"
determination required in 15A NCAC 2B .0233(8). If you have any questions, please contact John Hennessy
at 919-733-5694.
'psi
i?
Cc: US Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field office
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
ly
'y J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Director
C:\ncdot\TIP B-2967\wgc\buffer authorization.doc
- `
t'
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
November 22, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mrs. Jean Manual
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY

SUBJECT: Edgecombe County, Bridge No. 44 on SR 1252 between US 64
and NC 97 over the Tar River; Federal-Aid No. BRZ-1252(1);
State Project No. 8.2290801; TIP No. B-2967.
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project-planning document
prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and signed by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on June 2000. The project involves replacing
Bridge No. 44 over the Tar River with a new bridge structure on SR 1252, Edgecombe
County. Bridge No. 51 will be replaced on a new alignment approximately 50 feet west
of the existing structure. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction of the replacement structure and approaches.
The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE)
in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with
33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued 13 December 1996, by the Corps of Engineers
(COE). The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project. The DOT asks that the bridge replacement
work to be authorized under a Nationwide Permit 23.
It is anticipated t O1 General Water Quality Certification for an approved
CE will apply to thU23. e NCDOT will follow general conditions on permit,
Section 404 Nation, opy of the CE document has been provided to the North
Carolina Departme ment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), for their ry of this document has been provided to the NC Wildlife
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: WWWDOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
ag.M.'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
h
Re ces Co ission RC) for their review. The DOT is requesting that the WRC
pt men to the CN concerning permit requests.
"46 40j?t
V..
It is anticipated that construction of a temporary work pad will be authorized
under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering). The DOT is therefore requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit
authorizing the construction of the causeway. Enclosed are construction drawings of the
temporary causeway and a completed preconstruction notification form for a Nationwide
Permit 33 and General Water Quality Certification. Installation of the temporary work
pad will impact 0.27 acres of wetlands.
As stated in the CE document for this bridge replacement, the DOT commits to
the implementation of Design Standards for Sensitive Watershed Sedimentation Control
Guidelines in addition to standard Best Management Practices.
Tar/Pamlico Buffer Impacts. Existing buffer impacts were considered as any area
within the existing riparian buffer that will be filled, excavated, or cleared. Due to the
nature of this project, impacts to the riparian buffer of the Tar River are unavoidable.
Riparian Buffer impacts from project construction will sum 0.15 acres (Zone 1-0.09 acres
and Zone 2 0.06 acres) by filling and mechanized clearing.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Jeffrey Burleson at [phone], Extension 315.
Sincerely,
0 cLk' ;;k
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. David Rhodes, P.E., Programming and TIP
Mr. John E. Alford, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tim Roundtree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. J. H. Trogdon, III, P.E., Division 4 Engineer
Mr. Don Lee, Roadside Environmental

.16
Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
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
R Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide
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:
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NCDOT
Mailing Address: 1 S. Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
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: n/a
Company Affiliation: n/a
Mailing Address: n/a
Telephone Number: n/a Fax Number: n/a
E-mail Address: n/a
Page 3 of 12
V?
III. Project Information
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.
1. Name of project: Bridge No. 44 on SR 1252 Over Tar River
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-2967
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): n/a
4. Location
County: Edgecombe Nearest Town: Heartsease
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Bridge No. 44 on SR 1252 o% rr
Tar River
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): n/a
(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:
Land has been clearcut
7. Property size (acres): n/a
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Tar River
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 12

10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Bridge replacement
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: heavy equipment
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: agriculture
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.
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: no
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
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
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 5 of 12
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***
I Temporary fill 0.05 Yes 70 Scrub-shrub
I MechClearingIIl 0.03 Yes 70 Scrub-shrub
11 Fill in wetlands 0.15 Yes 200 Scrub-shrub
II MechClearingIIl 0.04 Yes 200 Scrub-shrub

List each 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 Mapes
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616. or
online at htip://Nvww.fema.gov,
*** 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: n/a
Total area of wetland impact proposed: temporary and permanent 0.27 acres
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 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* List each impact separately and identify 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 I-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.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: n/a
Page 6 of 12
3. 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)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,

bay, ocean, etc.)
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

* List each u; ; rmely and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but arc not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, draiuu; . :,uii.heads, 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): ? uplands ? 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: n/a Expected pond surface area: n/a
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.
Bridge will be replaced bridge versus
During bridge demolition, concrete railings, steel girders, concrete cans, and timber piles will be
removed without dropping any of their components into the Waters of the US.
No runoff from the bridge will discharge directly into the river or the buffer zone. Standard deck
drains will empty into systems with a 8 inch trunk line from the beginning of the bridge to station
31+50. These systems will discharge onto the rip rapped spill through slope at the beginning of
the bridge. No deck drains will be required from station 31+50 to station 31+75. Standard deck
drains will be used from station 31+75 to the end of the bridge. These will discharge into the
flood plain outside of the buffer zone.
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://l12o.enr.state.nc. us/ncwetIands/strm?,iide.litml.
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.
Mitigation is not needed
Page 8 of 12
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/indcx.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): n/a
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): n/a
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
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 ?
X.
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 El
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.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Page 9 of 12
Yes ® No F-] 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 3920 3
2 2614 1.5
Total 6534
Gone t extends out SU feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
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 2B .0242 or .0260.
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.
n/a
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
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (I 5A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes E] No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes 0 No
Page 10 of 12
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).
n/a

/ izziZo ,
Applicant/Agent's Signature V Pate
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
US Army Corps Of Engineers Field Offices and County Coverage
Asheville Regulatory Field Office Alexander Cherokee Iredell Mitchell
US Army Corps of Engineers Avery Clay Jackson Polk
151 Patton Avenue Buncombe Cleveland Lincoln Rowan
Room 208 Burke Gaston Macon Rutherford
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 Cabarrus Graham Madison Stanley
Telephone: [phone] Caldwell Haywood McDowell Swain
Fax: [phone] Catawba Henderson Mecklenburg Transylvania
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Alamance Durham Johnston Rockingham
US Army Corps Of Engineers Alleghany Edgecombe Lee Stokes
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Ashe Franklin Nash Surry
Suite 120 Caswell Forsyth Northampton Vance
Raleigh, NC 27615 Chatham Granville Orange Wake
Telephone: [phone] Davidson Guilford Person Warren
Fax: [phone] Davie Halifax Randolph Wilkes
Washington Regulatory Field Office Beaufort Currituck Jones
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bertie Dare Lenoir
Post Office Box 1000 Camden Gates Martin
Washington, NC 27889-1000 Carteret* Green Pamlico
Telephone: [phone] Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
Fax: [phone] Craven Hyde Perquimans
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office Anson Duplin Onslow
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bladen Harnett Pender
Post Office Box 1890 Brunswick Hoke Richmond
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 Carteret Montgomery Robeson
Telephone: [phone] Columbus Moore Sampson
Pitt
Tyrrell
Washington
Wayne
Union
Watauga
Yancey
Wilson
Yadkin
*Croatan National Forest Only
Page 11 of 12
Fax: [phone]
Cumberland New Hanover Scotland
US Fish and Wildlife Service / National Marine Fisheries Service
US Fish and Wildlife Service US Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service
Raleigh Field Office Asheville Field Office Habitat Conservation Division
Post Office Box 33726 160 Zillicoa Street Pivers Island
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 Asheville, NC 28801 Beaufort, NC 28516
Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone]
North Carolina State Agencies
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
State Historic Preservation Office
Department Of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CAMA and NC Coastal Counties
Division of Coastal Management Beaufort Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
1638 Mail Service Center Bertie Craven Hyde Pender
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638 Brunswick Currituck New Hanover Perquimans
Telephone: [phone] Camden Dare Onslow Tyrrell
Fax: [phone] Carteret Gates Pamlico Washington
NCWRC and NC Trout Counties
Western Piedmont Region Coordinator Alleghany Caldwell Watauga
3855 Idlewild Road Ashe Mitchell Wilkes
Kernersville, NC 27284-9180 Avery Stokes
Telephone: [phone] Burke Surry
Mountain Region Coordinator Buncombe Henderson Polk
20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway Cherokee Jackson Rutherford
Waynesville, NC 28786 Clay Macon Swain
Telephone: [phone] Graham Madison Transylvania
Fax: [phone] Haywood McDowell Yancey
Page 12 of 12

,
solwo 41'
A'? 1N KIL II N r // .r ntnn '\a'?r•1 . 1= ;? 'J? iY ?SA eu,Otnl It
' \ 70 110
u•vK? 1 I . 33 ' s.. ,* iX.mm?•' .dlr , C. ! i
'( A4YrvrrllR
SII S6 1 wn,uY.r. I I „^ Ras?nea!n IES t
43 Geie RocY+ Ps u
B E I N) T 1
/v) o" 33 101
i/ SII / 6 rd Oak f. l . Moo(ooo 'I', II Canada S
t 3911 ` / N A'/ S H ( Dower 1 1 Lawpnc• 9` ` 101 \ i%
n.. Mow dun r/ r t r 1 olr / Q?Rt Ertpu IS( ? Y ,4 %o...oc unt of
I Momr ., .I\ +
four \ Oak Cn I
ue rY toN Mart
'Xrry. C / race So?
Moo: ' 64A ° / 9] r e..
rend ( / I _ ru ru. r (D C •M B E\ a n.I,.l to wttoeP -rlle= f
try .?aarces 9B, T/1 + 1 I r `l 648 ,4 liammen I ?1s?'?y1??11 It
,/?1 CiX ' In t ) ) 111 ' :1._
` ,? P"il / 1 , 1i•. 9] 1 s 61 r'? ° craw tIl Maas.11 I Its a r+?rfcr
s 171 SbnOep? 1 t'• it
n r ': sn.r0sourS II Gold + T7fbOf0 1 /
t 1 4 Paint f "+ 1-7
11/, 9 sle..nr, , • y ` 117 ( 3J t°s*? (./y 1 jj ) t r E.,rertt*esX . I Wil lmston
? m
1 Idutnn r ' IrV..?n. ? ' Elm Gty 11 are ` 1 Zsg COnrlo! 1, +' °ROarr40nane Y h? ! lamtleJl t
261 / 58 Prnrtots YPUmelr
48' Maat,t . ' ?1 1„ GuY 11 1 ' 4 t\ I // 6/A 1 euna ?; M A T I II N csX
t71 38 \ UI 264A ej 1_ wnoanYt 177 / 13 star Gott 11 I Mr
I11 1 in `a
L ?' slt Rock 4 1 4accNIt. I Cnso / / 1 ` 11 III
r.
renrl 1 r S Anorn RrOS 'IN Wilson+/ ?? FaiYlano MAtoll
!do, 7tt fradreaes - - 7t tl fo1 1 i u
a
r 1 / ®
4 Scale of Miles
1 Lucas 0 S 10 20 30 Mouse 30
S9 a
T 9 0 N 7L' ' 301 reWr o to io 3o no rs t ractol., to t` old Fwd B I E A UJ
.__. < _. Scale ofKdomriers L *-Gleemille+ Zed •rrCenr,..••m "1
,7_. _ . _ .. _ . _ . _ .. _.. I- a . ?. sk I 1. _d?? -.
01
1 If Liu t u r `' u we
1110
Liu
Ila?
of. it
tam \-Y ti'•
rrr 701 Lm i , .. . .M y
01 91 PAS plot 137
1?7 /r•S • /.I 11r• T_. r
I lll!
?0
tl r S 1.a 1
? ill
T.Jr
R •.?„..,,. .. "" • SIT
LILL!
]I- I
Z M
• r S u
t ?: 1 • ' t r rY7 1 I o 7O
`,F+
ROCKY MOU. T Mo.......
Mul
r c ; I r ).o t t
ttr
Lill lll1. , / s ' ?; ?
Cal
;!)' I q /J '? rtTt F Kinp.lroro ?• t .'-Y,,
I ,? ? \\ t.•1r0•d
J ^
Cllr , tt7a „ , ? .
!I 17'r ? ? ` t
001'
IILL\
1 SCALE/ \ J o
0 I t ) .MKtS I :'1??• - ,.? • LA! tus •t:oa ?rlXi: i.,. 1
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
EDGECObIBE COUNTY
VICINITY PROJECT: 8.2290801 (B-2967)
BRIDGE NO.44 OVER TAR RIVER
MAIDS ON SR 1252 BETWEEN
US 64 AND NC 97
SHEET I OF 9 ?, q f of
LEGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER
R
® DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER
R
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® bENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
• CLEARING
E- E- FLOW DIRECTION
TB
Z_ TOP OF BANK
WE- - EDGE OF WATER
- -c - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT

PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
0 SINGLE TREE
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
--A- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE
- TOE - TEMP. GE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - 7- - - - WATER SURFACE
xx Xx x x LIVE STAKES
C2D BOULDER
- - - CORE FIBER ROLLS
WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
BZ1 BUFFER ZONE I
BZ2 BUFFER ZONE 2
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2290801 (B-2967)
BRIDGE NO. 44 OVER TAR RIVER
ON SR 1252 BETWEEN
US 64 AND NC 97
SHEET 3 OF 9 5-31-01
v
z x ,
O W .
Q

I
P
I a = : .,
aa H a
U
z
/ z x u o W wW
o• A

°
?
':
*4
'< [?

°
z o
U
U
r%
9 •?
c
P?
z
0.4
W
I
o z
_' I I a A w 0. W o H
?I \6 NC GRID
W NAD 93
/ I\
I I 1
I I ?
? I I
? I I
I I I
?I I
44
W
NI ? ,
I I
NI I ,
?I I
I I?
I II
I w
IJ /Im
dSO .PI
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
LU
J
J
0
z
Q
J
N
Z
O
N
Q
v
O
O
W
U
F-1
W
rHn
V J
aV
fp1a, ?
T :D w
c4`?'F
a
.a
°z k.
a
-V- 3Nl? HDIM
I
- PDE -
11
11
W
on
z
O
co
m
w
D
Q
N
W
w
w
0
O
of
35
pIL

co
00
O
o+
W M
N
m 1 0' 0
N
CL
IN p CO
` U w m
J?

r
p
NC GRID
Nqp es

M? B

32
4z
o
a

Z c?

oN
0- Lj
W
U
?a
O
a
a

a0
03

aY
mu

a \1

i I
LAJ
J
i
C7
N
m
H

z W
o
a L '
I I I I ?. ? z
I ?., C4
I
o
a
z

a
x
?:) t~
u
?I I z o ? z
I a co W
i N ? l ? w N >km z
I , I ? ?" ,
o OG 0- I
,,
I' I N
N I I l o z °
I\?I ? I I I H ° w z °

? z
I
? j I I I A ? w° 0
? w o
? I I I A a s w
1
? ;
a:
I I
I v
w
x
I
XI
w
I
I I I , z
I N N
of ) cr-
I i ?wl / m
3 W
I I Y
?? I a
13 I ?co ?
I ? w
U
I I
I I LU
I_L_I
I
I I /• o
I I LU n z
e5' I I / a° zw aw
??•• R? $
vB a?.
IH wza
J- I I ?a ? r~N
i I Fzaz?
O O < O
.?
I I a? cu aces
I I W
. I a
-V- 3NI? HDiVW

w
cl:
J
0
0
+-
M
M
I
w
cr-
J
0
0
N '
f?)

W

.J
I o
_
l
I Q' ?

LiJ al
+ ,
Ln
Q
Ln
Q? 0 r- r
M aj (n
J Lo Z
O Q Q w
p F J CL Y
+- N W N Ln
M L+i
I
>
LL)

0
0

0
M
W

Q

O
0
LLJ
N
O
I CL
> O
LLJ Ir
cr CL
J
I
0
0

m
N
Ln
r-
Lf 1
cD
Ln
Ln

/
/
Ln
V

O ..I
Q
W

0 3
? z o cw?
vA"i C
7 ]
? E' F U
z
z ? o Wi
H o C, C, o?z
O ev 41
O U ~ a' .'ro
O w w ?V'
U p
w 4 O .s l
Q A A F.,
U a W
z ? w

Ln
In
IW
f
F-1
V J
oG
w a<
Q a?
U
R
U?
z
43.4
a
O C

Z
N
Q'
Q
W
Y
Q
00 M
-46d
I
?I
37
i
44

O W
I I H
I I x?H ? p;w?
I I I oBZ
I I I z?v FFz
I I I z o aW
W o, W W A
I I I oua CP o z
-
I I I y
I I I ozuo
I I I a0? ti z
I I I w> W o z
I I i va a ?o
I I I ...
,I I I z ?
142' CPI
I I 11 m?
I I I \ -?
I I I I
I I I I \ '-' ?-,
I I NI I / WW
I I cc I I / Co(
I I I ? ?
I I I I ILL-
I I I II
I I I II
I I I ?I I M
I I I ?I
I I I ?I ? A
z
I I I k l I z ,?, ?
W I N w w;
I I I al I s z?
I I I WI I ? zW z z?
I I I ?I w ; ; w;
I ,'I I I I Y ?s w ??
l i l I I I CAu w
m ? oc
I ?
?I I I j za z zo
I Q? Q QL
I\ I I I I LL ?
I ?? I I I LL

0
^r
M •
N
9?
G4
0
w

w
z

U)
F- Q W
w
° a=
r
M LL L° U) (9
Z
D j
U) m
CL W) =
N
<
LL O O
I

LL Z W
00 m O
H O
CL U
C7
0-
O 0 0 m O
U 0 N a LL
W m m p
Z
to
U

O W
a 2
a v)

M
o
U)
1
U 0
m Q

r
m d c

:3 W C
U fft LO
'0 0

CD

c 'D
c E3

m

O

17
Q O

LL

U) Fr Q)

0 ? J J J J J

I I

i;5 z Q

c ?
LL
o
m
? U
C C ? ?
U
~
c
i E
w U
a

N
? U
H c Q
?

W ?
U

LL
^
U) c U

N LL
? o 0
C z

Z
LL
N C
c 'c o U O
L
?
(
j
d
U
?
m
a?
L m a U

N
C
} V
Q' a o v
Q c
? ? ma
C Q U ? Q

W
LL
dp U O
°
E'?'¢
c
? to
O

d ~
? w w u> a
v•N C7 ° U

O

N ? a°
0 O O

LL +
+ +
l
+
... N
f
?
f?
COI
Cl)
O J

0
O
H O U W v
Z
l
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
1 CARSON'S LAND L.L.C. ROCANVASUBACNCP27804
2 ROGER E.SAUERBORN TARBORO,NC 27886
l3 R.R. BRAKE FARMS, INC. 92YTEE6bR8,"40 27809
5-31-01
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2290801 (B-2967)
BRIDGE NO.44 OVER TAR RIVER
ON SR 1252 BETWEEN
US 64 AND NC 97
SHEET OF 9

I I
1 I
I I
1
i I
1
/ I
13 I `? 1?
z
x
o w m

?°, Z H ? xw
m ? w o'
0
zx
u
?xwz
?-

mti
Ho wm
?o
z
Z.-I,
0U Fc;g M
? z
?
>
w
U A a A C W
z

C)
Q o
Y ?O
O
3 N W
w
U V
?O Q
Cr c
Q 2
O O
Q.
W 1w

U
J
J
4
Z
Q
J
N
Z
O
N
cc:
a
U
U)
U
Q
a
x
m
w
w
m
LL
cr
m
a
O
m
a
x
w
\ 01\
?d
O
Ln
N
O
2
O
U-)
O 11
LLI
J
Ln Q
N u
N
O
?, 0 0
Z
w N
Z U
w 0-
N

a
w O O
w
of -
w wv
Z
LL og
D
00
0 0
w
wL
L
w U
Z) 0-
M N
Z
(n o 0
0

g w V
og

>> N
O O
Q ?
z
5
G Z
C J
D
CO

N o 0
V U)
Q Q O
a a

_ ? o 0
o
LU w
LL N
L ZU
Q
L m ON
?
M
W
rn
0
0 rn
0
0
w U
Z

Q
S
O
N
Z O
O t
g 0

0
M
w w
Xa W
O
? }
F" } o
?

w
m N
? N
N o ?
O Q
v O
O
w J
? Q
N F-

H
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
•
and Natural Resources A ffllwu
Division of Water Quality
4 -
Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENR
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary Kerr T. Stevens, Director
July 13, 2001
Mr. Bill Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Re: Permit Application for proposed replacement of Bridge Number 44 on SR 1252 between US 64 and
NC 97 over the Tar River in Edgecombe County
DWQ No. 010996, TIP No. B-2967
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Review of your application revealed it lacking necessary information required for
making an informed permit decision. The permit application was deficient in the following areas:
• The application does not specify the nature and quantity of impacts proposed to protected buffers. The
application identifies temporary impacts, but presents no quantities. The Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules do
not separate temporary from permanent impacts. According to the rules, "...any disturbance.."
requires a reporting and quantification of impact. Therefore, please provide a quantification of all
proposed impacts for the referenced project.
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2h .0507(a)(5), we will have to place the permit application on hold
until we are supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the NC
Division of Water Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers place
the permit application on hold.
Hopefully, we can work together to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact John Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
Sincerely,
cr--4 *44
Ito John R. Dorney
Water Quality Certification Program
cc: Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
File Copy
C:\ncdot\TIP B--2967\correspondence\010996 hld.doc
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
+a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 28, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Edgecombe County, Bridge No. 44 on SR 1252 between US 64
and NC 97 over the Tar River; Federal-Aid No. BRZ-1252(1);
State Project No. 8.2290801; TIP No. B-2967.
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project-planning document
prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and signed by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on June 2000. The project involves replacing
Bridge No. 44 over the Tar River with a new bridge structure on SR 1252, Edgecombe
County. Bridge No. 51 will be replaced on a new alignment approximately 50 feet west
of the existing structure. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction of the replacement structure and approaches.
The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE)
in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with
33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued 13 December 1996, by the Corps of Engineers
(COE). The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project. The DOT asks that the bridge replacement
work to be authorized under a Nationwide Permit 23.
It is anticipated that a 401 General Water Quality Certification for an approved
CE will apply to this project. The NCDOT will follow general conditions on permit,
Section 404 Nationwide 23. A copy of the CE document has been provided to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), for their review. A copy of this document has been provided to the NC Wildlife
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: WhW..DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
?t
Resources Commission (WRC) for their review. The DOT is requesting that the WRC
provide comments to the COE concerning permit requests.
It is anticipated that construction of a temporary work pad will be authorized
under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering). The DOT is therefore requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit
authorizing the construction of the causeway. Enclosed are construction drawings of the
temporary causeway and a completed preconstruction notification form for a Nationwide
Permit 33 and General Water Quality Certification.
As stated in the CE document for this bridge replacement, the DOT commits to
the implementation of Design Standards for Sensitive Watershed Sedimentation Control
Guidelines in addition to standard Best Management Practices.
Tar/Pamlico Buffer Impacts. Existing buffer impacts were considered as any area
within the existing riparian buffer that will be permanently filled, excavated, or cleared.
Any temporary buffer impacts were not quantified, but are shown on the plan view, sheet
3 of 4. Due to the nature of this project, temporary impacts to the riparian buffer of the
Tar River are unavoidable; however, permanent impacts to buffers do not exist (sheet 4 of
4).
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Jeffrey Burleson at [phone], Extension 315.
Sincerely,
v
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. David Rhodes, P.E., Programming and TIP
Mr. John E. Alford, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tim Roundtree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. J. H. Trogdon, III, P.E., Division 4 Engineer
Mr. Don Lee, Roadside Environmental

t
3/25/96
DEM ID:
CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 33
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: N. C. Department of Transportation
2. MAILING ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 25201
CITY: Raleigh
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS,
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
SUBDIVISION NAME:
STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manaaer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Edgecombe NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Tarboro
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Bridqe NO. 44 over Tar River on SR 1252
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Tar River
RIVER BASIN: Tar-Pamlico
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),

WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
1
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 P'OR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
N/A
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
N/a
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING:
FLOODING: N/A
DRAINAGE: N/A
EXCAVATION: N/A
OTHER: Temporary fill-0.05/
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.05
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: n/a FT AFTER: N/A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): N/A FT
WIDTH AFTER: N/A FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:

OTHER: Temporary causewa
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N/A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): See attached CE
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: To install a temporary work pad to
replace the inadequate bridge no. 44 over Tar River
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): The temporary workpad must be installed to install the new
bridge structure.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: November 23, 1999(ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE
AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: Mav 13, 1997
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [ ]
3
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO []
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM-THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Aariculture
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.

4
,Zl c- ?zi ,tiG1. ?)- 2-V 2.0-
OWNER'S/AGENT' S SIGN URE DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
AGENCY ADDRESSES
LEGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
r =(
PROPOSED BRIDGE

WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER
R
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
'» `• • CLEARING
E- E- FLOW DIRECTION
TB
-- TOP OF BANK
.-WE-_ EDGE OF WATER
- -C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
--?-- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -P-- - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB - EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - 1- - - - WATER SURFACE
xx Xx X X LIVE STAKES
O BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
PROJECT: 8.2290801 (B-2967)
BRIDGE NO. 44 OVER TAR RIVER
ON SR 1252 BETWEEN
US 64 AND NC 97
SHEET 3 OF 9 5-31-01
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE

mot
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
BZ1 BUFFER ZONE I
BZ2 BUFFER ZONE 2
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
EDGECOMBE COUNTY

O W 4

71
E-4
<
I ?
o 3 z ? W
H a U
I Z ? m z
x o w
?
I?" x w W N
F, 0
O
Z O

U
U p O
?I H? W W N cn
?? I wAO zz?
I U A w 0. A 0 W
I i ? x

271
J
J W
z I
Z
a
J
N
C) I
N
U W
I I
w
I ,
NC GRID
NAD 83
/ I\
I I 1
I I ?
I I ?
I I ?
I I ?
til I
44
?' I I w
N i I I
I I
NI I ?
?I I
?I I
I II
I l
?dSof
I I
I I
I I
I
I
1?
II
II
II
II U-1
I I l
J
J
O
Z
Q
J
N
Z
O
N
a
U
0
0
s
W
a
Q'
U
H
W
Co
zu
a?
okra ? F
F .a
a
a
-V- 13W HDiVW
I
i
PDE -
11
X11

35
Sol " - - -

L' W
o
\ ?+ J
w rn I

Z m
m N T (-
Ld 0-
U

w
? I

C? p
I
O
ND G,

N \
"
-ol
Nye

32
?
?e
o
r0
a?

ow Lr)
Lr)
F
u
w

? a

a
e }Y

o
0-14
E U
w O
H Ir

Q ? \1
/

G
N
m
H

? W o
I
I
I I
I I ?' d ?" ?' a w
°'
;
I I I I I o
?" t?
x z
? ? ?
?" a
H v
?I ?
?I i I
l z o ?
00 ? w z
I N I ?'
I
I i I I E p as ? o c
v ? a-I
'
, I
\ NI I o z ? ?' x
un ?a

o
I
I
CC
I

I

I

?"

?

W

z

z

?
I I
I I
I I
I A
ca w g
a w
A 0

?I 1

I
3
I?

I

?

? W

w
°
- °
I ° z p x
Zi --,- z
l W
w
I IW I
I I I I ?
I
co
ON I I w
I I I ? ,-
--?I I u,
~ <a I I /
Li
I
I I
I I iaml
?
I JI ?J
N
I I I ?' ,l' m
w
I I I??I =
I I /ua a z
2 5'. Ca
U z
I I ww w w
a
?? I I HB ?? HN
z
I i Hzaa
O O O .? F
A rZ G V A k B
-b- 1W HDIVA
U
Z
N
a
? a
Y
Q
II
c

.

I
W
cr-
J
I
°
C? °
+-
M
M
0
W
m
J
0
0
N '
M
>
W

J
I 0
_

w + v in
C? °
'
t,(
) Qi N
J Lo Z 3::

° a a w

0 F- J W Y
N W N In
r-) L.+i
I
W
cr-
J
I
O
0
O
n
W
cc:
J
I
0
0
m
N
W
Q
0
0
W
N
0
a-
0
x
Cl-
Lfl
ti
U?
U)I Ln
CD Lr)
Ln
z
I
o
C7
I a
I ?
I a
I Z
I
C
z
o
w 4
M
a H

o
a
F .o
cII

z ? °
U '"
a°o w z
C4
ca z
H O `? °?
o o W W ON? ?,
F ? c? ti z ? o
? w a ?° .yl
A A A F.,
U a W
z ? W

a ? H
Y -
m F- Lr)
O<LL- - W
CL PA) V)
0 z '-'
ol=> I C?
crN- I
aaW
Q?-J° U)
u U
W
H
.7 ?
C
U ?
a aF
a
? O
U) I,f)
Q Nl

U
z
N
m
Q
LL-
LLJ
Y
Q
M
co
. ? o x F Fr
37
i?

/
i

•
I I O
H W
?
I I ? ?.y ? ai
I I ogz m ? w ?
I I I ?'
?
o ? ?" t3

,I I I
c?
a
zxv
o
o

x
?,
w z
I I I
I I I Hoa 0 ? z
I I I 00U

I I I
I w>W
A O
a z
0
I I
I I v A
I
I I I
z a
m

0
M
N
a-
0
w
w
I
4z" CP
I I II mT ' \\ ?
I I I ?:?
LZ I I l \ \ \ ? \
i I
i I ml I \ I
I I N I I \ '-' ?
I I I I / u
I I NI I / WW
I I I I ?
I I I I I?
I I I II
I i I I I
I I I ?I I ?
I I i ?I
I I I ?I ? ?
I I I k l I z
I I
I I
I I
I I
I ;I
I i I
I I
I? I
I ?? I
I `.I
I ? ?H
I ?I I ? a N?
z z
I LU I UL
w xa
I F
I a
I I l m h" w Na
I I I
? °z a z °z w
I I I A? A AU
I I I N LL
I I I ?
N LL
I I I N LL?
LL
I I I ? ? ? LL ?
f
•

w
Z
O

< } ~
Q w

a)-6

;7

O 2
CL
z?
>
LL O O

Cl) LL Z w
O O m
17 F- ? O
W
D 0 m p
U O N LL
W M M
Z
too
U
w

U)

? o p
U) o

'a Cl) Iq r-

p C:

Cf) V)

CL c
U p o
p
E ? Q

(n 0

O
?
O Lon CUR
U)
LL 00 M M
( Cl ?

v
c
c ?-
O N LL
-y .c
? U
^ n
U
P C O I-
N
v •K L d
?
U E
w
a

p O
a' U
a l>
? c Q
?
~
3
W 3

U
Q .-.
U
c
u
.
? c
_a°Q
?
w LL
0
c ? Q
m
Z

? p
?
•c 'c o U O O p
CD
?
d
U
y U
?
d
? y c
t m a U

c
} V
? a o ?
? j p U

? g w c

3
a
m
c

C 'a
Q p ?
O

N
? ~
LL
? a) w LO a
N C7 p U

(n R' ?
(v

p J J J J J

v
N
y D ?

(? Z J
Q

_ O
>
f-O Uop?
Z

U
0
a
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
1 CARSON'S LAND L.L.C.
2 ROGER E.SAUERBORN
3 R.R. BRAKE FARMS, INC.
ROCKYVMOUNTC NCP027804
Yhodc RO, NC 27886
BATTLEBbRSXNCO 27809
5-31-01
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2290801 (B-2967)
BRIDGE NO.44 OVER TAR RIVER
ON SR 1252 BETWEEN
US 64 AND NC 97
SHEET OF °I

- \
01

u O n

li
(III
,•,`?`? 7??

- 'Ty/
1-_.._-_°? •19.0

-_
Dunbar
? 1251 C`-?-

?s??d ate..
20

-J?'/ --1
It
11 ?7
It
///
20\
. ` 11 --
O
x
x
a
„ SITE

j0 . ;;., U i 11 J'.. 1 P.
Dun ar I ?"?: .
Bri ge ti c7
H 11 `'•`?l -.
n ?
? `.
\?
:
I
?
?
?
/
- 11 _ 30 _ ?? _.. \ ? H .•1? I
1 Fasl
+'J
?
as

-
11 \ 70,
11 ? •' ' -all C l ? ?\ ?i
i p ' 11 ? ? ? 11
1
8M v
o
N32.e i -- 4
3 artsC?se
i
M

? n\
3.4
30

lx?
34
0
.
30
I`i
nc Kinsisb-oro
10
TAIL RIVER BUFFER N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
LOCATION EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2290801 (B-2967)
44 OVER TA
MAPS BRIDGE NO
.
R RIVER
ON SR 1252 BETWEEN US 64
AND NC 97
SHEET a OF 6/4/01

f
z
O
m
W-
w
D
a
N
Li
LLI
0

Ll-
9>?j
oo+z2

I
I Z,
o 9
W
n
I I
I L
I
? ?
a ?
?
H ?
? a
aw
I ? I
J I ti ° x z m ???
H

I z o
x o
v ?-
I I ti? ?
m o ??A
Q? F o ? O?z
I I o o W ? o?? M
W z rA
'? A W O W O W
> (
j A a A W
,
z a CA

J- J
I I Q o
x" .
gel " " I I w
w
I I Y U
U U
" \ 1 I O Q I--1
ir-
\ ?I I
I E: I I Ir a
/ ?I?/?I I I o 0
I ?
ZAO"
I I _--I I
NC C,3
NAD@a 00+N -
/
0-2
I - 'I I \
I I yob,' N
I I I,k'I ?
F-
U
a
tr
w
w
w
m
Q.
Q.
O
Ln
N_
rr
O
O
L(7
O
J
Lfl Q
N U
N
O
LO
? o 0
z
LLJ N
Z U
LU O Q
(? N
g

W ° o

LU
Z?
Q
O
LL N
D
m
o p
W
U N
Z
U
L
L Q
D O
m N
_z
m ° O
0
z ?
g w U
1- o s
?J,J
>> N
} o p

Q Q
Q
c
C Z

C ...
J

A

N O p
{
r
a
Q a °
a

w °
W Q N
LL 2 z
LL o --
W
m a

Z U
Q
O
N
O
O
0
U)
gi
0
m
W W
a w

U - co N
?
W
H N
U)
o
U) d
v d-
0
z
w
-?
r H

O
H
Edgecombe County (?
Bridge No. 44 on SR 1252
Over Tar River
Federal Project BRZ-1252(1)
State Project 8.2290801
TIP # B-2967
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
-zz-00 /
Date Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Edgecombe County
Bridge No. 44 on SR 1252
Over Tar River
Federal Project BRZ-1252(1)
State Project 8.2290801
TIP # B-2967
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
June 2000
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
ate K ren Orthner
Project Development Engineer
04-Qc O)a -f 14 9-
Date Wayne lliott
Bridge Project Development Engineer, Unit Head
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 44
on SR 1252 over Tar River
Edgecombe County
Federal-Aid No. BRZ-1252(] )
State Project No. 8.2290801
T.I.P. No. B-2967
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Roadway Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Four Construction,
Structure Design
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for "Bridge
Demolition and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 44.
Roadway Design Unit, Hydraulics Unit, Division Four Construction Office
Due to the anadromous species found in the Tar River, NCDOT will adhere to
construction guidelines outlined in "NCDOT Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish Passage" during construction.
Roadway Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Four Construction
office _
Once construction of the new bridge and approaches are complete, the existing
bridge will be removed. The existing approach fill will be removed to natural grade and
the area will be planted with native grasses and/or tree species as appropriate.
Design Services Unit (Victor Barbour, PE), Roadway Design Unit, Hydraulics Unit,
Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Four Construction Office
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was consulted in regard to the
effect of project construction on the Tar Spinymussel. The USFWS concurred in the
biological conclusion that project construction is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the
Tar Spinymussel if the following environmental commitments are implemented:
1) Erosion control methods designed for protection of endangered species should be
incorporated into project design and should be in place prior to clearing and
grubbing activities if possible.
2) Project letting will be scheduled so that clearing and grubbing is restricted
between November 15 to April 1.
3) Precautions should be taken to avoid substrate disturbance, introduction of toxic
compounds (hydraulic fluids, bridge runoff, etc.) and alteration of flow.
4) Various selected personnel from the USFWS and the N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) should be given a written invitation to the pre-
construction meeting for this project. Contact Tim Savidge in Project
Development and Environmental Analysis as an NCDOT contact for agency
coordination regarding the pre-construction meeting.
Green Sheet
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
June 14, 2000
Edgecombe County
Bridge No. 44 on SR 1252
Over Tar River
Federal Project BRZ-1252(1)
State Project 8.2290801
TIP # B-2967
Bridge No. 44 is located in Edgecombe County over Tar River. It is programmed
in the 2000 - 2006 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.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 44 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new bridge
on new alignment approximately 50 feet (15.2 m) west of the existing structure (see
Figure 2). The new structure will be approximately 420 feet (128 m) long and 30 feet
(9.1 m) wide. The roadway cross section of the bridge will consist of two 12-foot (3.6-m)
lanes with 3-foot (1.0-m) offsets. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure
during construction.
There will be approximately 1170 feet (356.6 m) of new approach work to the
north and 1010 feet (307.8 m) of new approach work to the south of the new bridge. The
pavement width on the roadway approaches will be 28 feet (8.5 m), including two 12-foot
(3.6-m) lanes and 2-foot (0.6-m) paved shoulders. Additionally, there will be 8-foot
(2.4-m) grass shoulders. The design speed will be 60 mph (100 km/h).
The estimated cost of the project is $2,335,000, including $2,300,000 in
construction costs and $35,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the
2000-2006 TIP is $467,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
No design exceptions will be necessary as a part of this project.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1252 is classified as a Rural Minor Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Currently, the average daily traffic (ADT) is approximately 2400
vehicles per day (VPD). The projected ADT is approximately 4100 VPD for the year
2025. The speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge is 55 mph (90 km/h). SR 1252
connects US 64A with NC 97.
The existing bridge was completed in 1954. The bridge is composed of a 12-span
concrete and steel structure. The bridge deck is 429 feet (130.8 m) long and
26.5 feet (8.1 m) wide. There is approximately 36 feet (11 m) of vertical clearance
between the bridge deck and the streambed. There are two lanes of traffic on the bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 6.0 out of a possible 100. Presently, the bridge is posted with weight
restrictions of 23 tons for single vehicles and 26 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Vertical alignment is good and horizontal alignment is fair in the project vicinity.
The roadway width on the approaches to the existing bridge is 24 feet (7.3 m). Shoulders
on both approaches to the existing bridge are approximately 4 feet (1.2 m) wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicated that three accidents have been reported
within a recent three-year time period in the vicinity of the bridge. Two accidents
occurred on the same day due to ice on the bridge.
There are four daily school bus crossings over Bridge No. 44 according to the
Transportation Director for Edgecombe County Schools.
A power line is present 30 feet (9.1 m) west of the existing bridge. In addition, a
telephone line is present 40 feet (12.2 m) west of the existing bridge.
IV. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are two "build" options considered in this document as follows:
Alternate 1: Bridge No. 44 would be replaced with a420-foot (128-m) long bridge on
the existing location. Traffic would be maintained on-site using a
temporary detour to the west during construction. The design speed would
be 60 mph (100 km/h).
Alternate 2: (Recommended) Bridge No. 44 will be replaced with a420-foot (128-m)
long bridge on a new location approximately 50 feet (15.2 m) west of the
existing structure. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction. The design speed will be 60 mph (100 km/h).
"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.
2
V. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)
Recommended
COMPONENT ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2
New Bridge Structure $ 838,500 $ 838,500
Bridge Removal 71,750 71,750
Roadway & Approaches 1,389,750 1,089,750
(Permanent and Temporary)
On-site Detour Structure 480,000 N/A
Engineering & Contingencies 420,000 300,000
Total Construction $ 3,200,000 $ 2,300,000
Right of Way $ 25,000 $ 35,000
TOTAL COST $ 3,225,000 $ 2,335,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 44 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new bridge
on new alignment approximately 50 feet (15.2 m) west of the existing structure (see
Figure 2). The new structure will be approximately 420 feet (128 m) long and 30 feet
(9.1 m) wide. The roadway cross section of the bridge will consist of two 12-foot (3.6-m)
lanes with 3-foot (1.0-m) offsets. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure
during construction.
There will be approximately 1170 feet (356.6 m) of new approach work to the
north and 1010 feet (307.8 m) of new approach work to the south of the new bridge. The
pavement width on the roadway approaches will be 28 feet (8.5 m), including two 12-foot
(3.6-m) lanes and 2-foot (0.6-m) paved shoulders. Additionally, there will be 8-foot
(2.4-m) grass shoulders. The design speed will be 60 mph (100 km/h).
Once construction of the new bridge and approaches are complete, the existing
bridge will be removed. The existing approach fill will be removed to natural grade and
the area will be planted with native grasses and/or tree species as appropriate.
Alternate 2 is recommended due to lower cost. Each alternate would provide a
60 mph (100 km/h) design speed. The environmental consequences are essentially the
same. Each alternate maintains traffic on site, since there are no alternate routes available
in the area.
VII. 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 the Project Commitments sheet of this document. In addition, the use of current
NCDOT standards and specifications will be implemented.
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.
This project will not impact any resource protected by Section 4(f) of the U. S.
Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
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 Edgecombe 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.
4
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
The Edgecombe County zoning in the area of the bridge is agricultural/residential
(A/R-30) zoning. A mix of farms and farmhouse, mobile homes and other residences
characterize the area. The soil in the bridge vicinity is of a type that could be considered
prime farmland. The topography of the area is such that the area around the bridge is
probably not suited for cultivation. The actual area impacted by either alternate is fairly
small. For these reasons, any impact to this farmland would be inconsequential.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended that properties in
the project's area of potential effects should be evaluated for eligibility to the National
Register of Historic Places. A meeting was held on March 19, 1998 including the
NCDOT, the SHPO, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The parties
involved agreed that the properties within the project's area of potential effects are not
eligible for the National Register (see attached Concurrence Form). No additional
architectural historic surveys were recommended.
In addition, the SHPO recommended an archaeological survey of a known
archaeological site in the project vicinity. NCDOT staff archaeologists on May 26-28,
1998 surveyed the project area. Gerold Glover, Archaeologist, submitted an
Archaeological Survey Report documenting new evidence of three prehistoric sites and
evaluating the previously recorded site. The report concluded that the archaeological
sites that were found at the project site lacked the integrity necessary for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. The SHPO concurred in the recommendation that
no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project as
shown in the letter dated March 18, 1999 (see attachment).
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
1. TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS
The topography of the project vicinity is characterized as rolling hills with
moderate to steeply sloping banks along the major streams in the coastal plain
physiographic province. Project area elevation is approximately 52.5 feet (16.0 meters)
above mean sea level.
According to the General Soil Map for Edgecombe County (USDA-SCS 1979),
the project area consists of the Tarboro-Altavista-Wickham soil association. This
association is described as nearly level and gently sloping, somewhat excessively drained
to moderately well drained soils that have a loamy subsoil or sandy underlying material;
on stream terraces.
The specific map units within the project area include Chewacla silt loam,
Congaree silt loam, Tarboro loamy sand (0 to 6 percent slopes), and Pits soils mapping
unit.
The Chewacla soils are listed as a hydric soil (United States Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1981). The pit soils mapping unit designated is a
highly disturbed soil unit and not the hydric Pit soil. The Pits, Congaree and Tarborro
soils mapping units are non-hydric although the Congaree soils may contain hydric
inclusions. Chewacla silt loam (0 to 2 percent slopes) is found in the northwestern
quadrant of the project area in a bottomland hardwood forest, but it is not immediately
adjacent to the Tar River. In the northeastern quadrant of the project area this soil is
found adjacent to the river a short distance from the bridge. This soil type is described as
nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil found on flood plains. Permeability is
moderate, the available water capacity high and shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is,
frequently flooded for brief periods and the subsoil is found to be strongly acidic.
Congaree silt loam is found in the southwestern quadrant of the project area and is
adjacent to the Tar River. This soil type is described as nearly level, well-drained soil in
slightly rounded higher areas on flood plains. Permeability is moderate, available water
capacity is high, and shrink-swell potential is low. These soils are strongly acidic and are
frequently flooded for brief periods of time. This non-dydric soil series may contain
hydric soil inclusions of Chewacla and Wehadkee soils.
Tarboro loamy sand (0 to 6 percent slopes) is found as a continuous thin strip
along the Tar River in the northwestern quadrant and extends for a short distance into the
northeastern quadrant of the project area. This soil is somewhat excessively drained and
is found on low ridges on stream terraces. Permeability is rapid, available water capacity
is very low, and shrink-swell potential is low. The soil ranges from strongly acidic to
slightly acidic.
The Pits soil mapping unit is the dominant soil type found in the project area. It is
found in the southwestern quad-rant along the roadside and in the southeastern quadrant of
the project area along both the roadside and the Tar River. This highly disturbed
mapping unit is described as consisting of pits from which the underlying sand, gravel, or
soil material has been removed or areas that have been excavated and used as sanitary
landfills. Most of these pits were made as a result of removal of material to be used as fill
for roads and other structures. The depth of these pits ranges from 5 to 20 feet (1.5 to 6.1
meters) and many are partially filled with water during wet periods. Many of the older
pits support native vegetation. The few areas used as sanitary landfills consist of pits 10
to 20 feet (3.0 to 6.1 meters) deep and are filled with refuse to within several feet of the
surface. The pits that are now closed to this use also support native vegetation. It is
unknown whether any of these old landfill pits are located in the project area. The area
along the Tar River where this mapping unit is found has a distinct elevational change
about 25 feet (7.6 meters) from the riverbank. The elevation drops approximately 20 feet
(6.1 meters) at this point and covers a long, flat area, which is well vegetated with native
species. Adjacent to the road area near this elevational change is a large refuse pile
consisting of old appliances and motors. The former use of this area is uncertain and
should be investigated prior to any construction activities.
Within the southeastern quadrant of the project area where the Pits soil mapping
unit is found, it was also noted that along the Tar River banks distinct groundwater seeps
were evident at approximately 0.3 to 1.0 feet (0.10 to 0.31 meters) above the river flow
level. These seeps were numerous in this area and all had a low to moderate discharge.
The seep areas had a rusty brown color with penny wort (Hydrocotlye sp.) growing along
the peripheral margins.
II. BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of
associated plants and animals. Descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each
community. Classification of plant communities is based on the system used by NCNHP
(Schafale and Weakley 1990). Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to
the same species include the common name only. Vascular plant names generally follow
the nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). More recent nomenclature is used when
appropriate. Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife were determined through field observations,
evaluation of habitat, and review of field guides and other documentation (Webster et al.
1985; Potter et al. 1980).
TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are Man-
Dominated, Coastal Plain Levee Forest (Brownwater Subtype), and Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwoods (Brownwater Subtype). Dominant faunal components associated
with these terrestrial areas are discussed in each community description. Many species
are adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the project alignment but may not
be mentioned separately in each community description.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes cut over areas southeast and southwest
of the bridge that are now in secondary succession, the road shoulders, and utility line
easement (Figure 2). Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly
maintained areas. The road shoulders and utility line easement are dominated by fescue
(Festuca sp.), broadleaf plantain (Plantago major), foxtail (Setaria sp.), ragweed
(Ambrosia sp.), bitter sneezeweed (Helenium amarum),_wild carrot (Daucus carooa),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), and aster (Aster sp.). Species in the cut over areas include dog
fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), blackberry (Rubus argutus), goldenrod, beggarweed
(Desmodium sp.), wild carrot, juvenile red maple (Acer rubrum) and sweet-gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), and various other old field successional species. This area
appears to have been cut over approximately two years ago.
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and
capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves,
fruits, and seeds) to both living and dead faunal components. On the day of the visit,
wildlife observed in the Man-Dominated community included an American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), a white-tailed deer (Odacoileus virginiana) carcass next to the bridge,
and a dead raccoon (Procyon lotor). Additional species that may utilize this community
include hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus),
woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), field
sparrow (Spizella pusilla), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), and
slender glass lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus).
Coastal Plain Levee Forest (Brownwater Subtype)
This community occurs in a narrow strip on all sides of the river although it is
scarce on the southwest side. Canopy species consist of hackberry (Celtis occidentalis),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and red ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Understory
species include ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), beech (Fagus grandifolia), ash, and
bladdernut (Staphylea trifolia). The shrub layer consists of the same species as the
understory but in many places it is thick with greenbriar (Smilax sp.) and muscadine
(Vitis rotundifolia). The herbaceous layer includes greenbriar and muscadine as well as
abundant poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) and uniola or river oats (Chasmanthium
latifolia), aster, and along the river banks knotweed (Polygonum sp.).
On the day of the visit, a toad was observed in this community as well as a
snakeskin and rabbit scat. In the southeast quadrant of this community a sign is posted to
advise of a wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) restoration area. Other types of wildlife
that might use the Coastal Plain Levee Forest include red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus),
white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), cardinal (Cardinali.s cardinalis), tufted
titmouse (Parus bicolor), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), raccoon, long-
tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), gray treefrog (Hyla
chrysoscelis), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis
sauritus), and rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus).
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Brownwater Subtype)
In the northwest section of the study area the Coastal Plain Levee Forest grades
into Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods. This area contains the largest trees on the
study site. The northeast quadrant contains a limited amount of this community as well,
and southern sections probably were similar before disturbance. The northwest section is
designated as a Natural Heritage Area by the NCNHP and has been given the name Tar
River Floodplain. It has a site significance of "C", meaning that it is regionally
significant because it is an outstanding example of its type for that geographic region of
the state. The canopy is dominated by red ash, hackberry, black walnut (Juglans nigra),
willow oak (Quercus phellos), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), water oak (Quercus
nigra), and a few swamp chestnut oaks (Quercus michauxii). The understory contains
younger trees of the same species as the canopy, and the shrub layer is sparse to absent.
The herbaceous layer is dominated by river oats and poison ivy but also contains Virginia
creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), greenbriar, and muscadine.
Wildlife which might utilize this type of community include the cotton mouse,
marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), red-eyed
vireo, black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus),
downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina),
smooth earth snake (Virginia valeriae), and ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus). A
woodpecker (Picidae) and an American woodcock (Scolopax minor) were heard in this
community on the day of the visit.
AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
The aquatic community in the project area exists within the Tar River. Within the
project area of Bridge No. 44, the Tar River channel flows east and is approximately 50
to 60 feet (15.2 to 18.3 meters) wide. The Tar River and SR 1252 cross at this location at
an angle. On the day of the field investigation the river water was a deep, tannin tea
color, slightly turbid and the flow was low. The depth of the river was approximately 1
to 3 feet (0.13 to 0.90 meters) along the bank then became deeper toward the middle of
the river. The river bottom at the shoreline consisted of clay overlain with a silty sand. A
cursory search of the shoreline was conducted for evidence of mussel and clam species.
A canopy of hackberry with a thick understory of catbriar, poison ivy and a few
small green ash juveniles dominated vegetation along the Tar River banks. Although the
river was not dip-netted, river bank rocks and debris were turned over in search of
macroorganisms. On the day of the site visit bream (Lepomis spp.), mud turtles
(Kinosternan subrunbrum), American toad (Bufo Americanus) and some unidentifiable
minnows were observed in or near the river. The Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio
roanodensis), a state threatened species, is recorded by the NCNHP in a recent (1992)
record as being located adjacent to the eastern side of the bridge. Asian clam shells were
seen near the riverbanks but no mussels were observed. Animals such as bass
(Micropterus salmoides), snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina), Northern water snakes
(Nerodia sipedon), eastern cottonmouth snakes (Agkistrodon piseivorus), and bullfrogs
(Rana catesbeiana) may also reside or forage within this aquatic community or along the
waters edge. Macroinvertebrates such as larvae of the mayfly (Ephemeroptera), stonefly
(Plecoptera), and caddisfly (Trichoptera) would be expected to be found within the snag
habitats and within the riffle areas in the river. The macroinvertebrate fauna within the
channel may be dominated by chironomid larvae (midges) and oligochaetes (segmented
worms).
According to Wayne Jones, District 3 Fisheries Biologist for the NCWRC, fish
found in the Tar River at this location include striped bass (Morone saxatilis), largemouth
bass (Micropterus salmoides), Roanoke bass (Ambloplites cavil ons), American shad
(Alosa sapidissima), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), yellow bullhead catfish (Ictalurus
natalis), crappie (Pomoxis sp), sunfish (Lepomis sp.) and southern flounder
(Paralichthys lethostigma). Mr. Jones stated that the striped bass, Roanoke bass,
American shad and hickory shad are anadromous species and a moratorium on
construction activity should be enacted from March 15 through June 15 to allow these
species uninhibited movement up the Tar River during spawning season. Stream crossing
guidelines for anadromous fish passage (NCDOT 1997) and NCDOT BMPs for erosion
and sediment control should be implemented during construction.
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed
separately as terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. Impacts to terrestrial communities,
particularly in locations exhibiting gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic community
receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is important to note that
construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction
activity occurs. Efforts should be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the
construction site. Note that temporary impacts from Alternate One are due to a detour,
which will be closed and the sites restored following on-alignment bridge replacement.
Impacts from Alternate Two, being on new alignment will be permanent. In Alternate
Two, the estimated area of the existing facility that will be removed and returned to its
natural state is 0.61 acres (0.25 ha).
Terrestrial Communities
The Coastal Plain Levee Forest, Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods, and the
Man-Dominated communities serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for fauna.
The loss of these habitats will result in the displacement and mortality of faunal species in
residence. Individual mortalities may occur to terrestrial animals from construction
machinery used during clearing activities.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Permanent and temporary impacts from
Alternate One and Alternate Two are detailed in Table 2.
9
TABLE 2
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL AND A UATIC COMMUNITIES
Types of Man- Coastal Plain Coastal Plain Aquatic Total
Impacts Dominated Levee Forest Bottomland Community
Community (Brownwater Hardwoods
Subtype) (Brownwater
Sub e
Alternate Permanent 2.13 (0.86) 0.21 (0.08) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 2.34
One 0.94
Temporary 1.29 (0.52) 0.48 (0.19) 0.62 (0.25) 0.00 (0.00) 2.39
0.96
Alternate Permanent 1.29 (0.52) 0.48 (0.19) 0.62 (0.25) 0.00 (0.00) 2.39
Two 0.96
NOTES: Impacts are based on 60-foot (18.3-meter) right of way limits. Actual construction impacts may
be less than those indicated above, calculations were based on the worst case scenario. Values given are in
acres (hectares).
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Tar River channel. The
replacement of Bridge No. 44 over the Tar River will place structure over up to 30 x 100
feet (7.6 x 30.5 meters) or 0.06 acres (0.02 hectares) of stream bottom under the footprint
of the proposed new bridge. Note that by definition bridging avoids impacts to
jurisdictional waters. Additional downstream impacts may also occur and should be
avoided. This represents worst case conditions; actual disturbed area will likely be less.
Additional downstream impacts beyond the study area are possible. Impacts to the
adjacent man-dominated and forested communities can have a direct impact on aquatic
communities. Construction of the bridge and approach work, as well as the removal of
trees, will likely result in an increase in sediment loads and water temperature, and a
decrease in dissolved oxygen in the short term. Construction activities can also increase
the possibility of toxins, such as engine fluids and particulate rubber, entering the
waterways and impacting aquatic organisms. These factors can potentially cause the
displacement and mortality of fish and local populations of invertebrates, which inhabit
these areas. Best management practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface waters
should be strictly enforced to minimize potential adverse impacts due to this project.
III. WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water
systems. The proposed project lies within the Tar-Pamlico River drainage basin.
WATER RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS
The Tar River flows east through the proposed project area with a width of 50 to
60 feet (15.2 to 18.3 meters). The Tar River drains into the Pamlico River. The North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) classify this
section of the Tar River as WS-IV NSW. Class WS-IV indicates waters protected as
water supplies. These waters are generally found in moderately to highly developed
watersheds; point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to Rules
.0104, Consideration in Assigning Water Supply Classifications, and .0211, Fresh
Surface Water Classifications and Standards, of this subchapter; local programs to control
non-point source and storm water discharge of pollution are required; and the waters are
suitable for all Class C uses. Class C indicates freshwaters protected for secondary
10
recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife. The
Classification Index number for this portion of the river is 28-(74). Supplemental
classification NSW indicates nutrient sensitive waters, which require limitations on
nutrient inputs.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map
for Edgecombe County (1989) indicates the project area lies in Zone A, where no base
flood elevations have been determined.
Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the
bottom substrates of rivers and streams. The DWQ uses benthos data as a tool to monitor
water quality as benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water
quality. According to Ms. Nancy Guthrie, the DWQ does not have any benthic
macroinvertebrate data for the Tar River within the project area. Ms. Guthrie also
indicated that there was no data available for any nearby locations that would give
reliable information about the water quality at this site.
The Edgecombe County Watershed Map indicates that the project area is not
within a Critical Area. There are no waters classified by the DWQ as High Quality
Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or waters designated as WS-1 or
WS-II within the project vicinity.
Point-source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. There are no NPDES permitted dischargers located in
the project vicinity.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through storm water
flow or no defined point of discharge. In the project area, storm water runoff from SR
1252 may cause water quality degradation along with agricultural and residential runoff.
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO WATER RESOURCES
Impacts to the water resources will result due to the placement of support
structures or a culvert in the river. In the short term, construction of the bridge and
approach work will increase sediment loads and removal of trees which provide shade
along the banks will likely result in an increase in water temperature. Sediment loading
can reduce flow and result in a decrease in oxygen levels. The NCDOT, in cooperation
with the DWQ, has developed a sedimentation control program for highway projects
which adopts formal BMPs for the protection of surface waters. The following are
methods to reduce sedimentation and water quality impacts:
¦ Strict adherence to BMPs for the protection of surface waters during the life of the
project
¦ Reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharge into the water bodies and
minimization of activities conducted in streams
¦ Placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to reduce runoff
and decrease sediment loadings
¦ Reduction of clearing and grubbing along the streams
IV. SPECIAL TOPICS
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). "Waters of the United States" are
regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE).
Jurisdictional wetlands exist within the project area. Approximately 0.10 acres
(0.4 ha) of riverine wetland will be impacted by Alternate Two. Impacts to wetlands are
based on the entire proposed right-of-way limits. Construction of the project may not
require the entire proposed right-of-way; therefore, actual wetland impacts may be less.
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional
surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the
USACOE. Up to 100 feet (30.5 meters) of linear stream charinel or >0.04 acres (>0.01
hectares) of jurisdictional surface water will be covered by bridge structure due to the
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 44.
PERMITS
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
USACOE 1344), a permit is generally required from the USACOE for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States".
Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that
this project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 33-.5 (A) 23.
This permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency
and that the activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation
because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. Since no jurisdictional
wetlands will be impacted by this project, no section 404 permit is anticipated. However,
final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the USACOE.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification, is administered through the DWQ, is
also generally required. This certification is issued for any activity, which may result in a
discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required. This certification is not
anticipated for this project, however DWQ has the final decision.
MITIGATION
Since this project is covered by Nationwide Permit No. 23 and no wetland
impacts are anticipated, mitigation should not be required by the USACOE or the DWQ.
Mitigation for impacts to surface waters of less than 150 linear feet is generally not
required by the USACOE or the DWQ. A final determination regarding mitigation
requirements rest with the USACOE and the DWQ.
12
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
Bridge No. 44 has 12 spans totaling 429 feet (130.8 meters) in length. The
existing bridge is 26.5 feet (8.1 meters) wide. The bridge superstructure is composed of a
concrete deck, concrete railings, and steel girders. All end and interior bents are
composed of timber piles with concrete caps with the exception of two interior bents.
These two interior bents are composed of steel piles with concrete encasements. The
concrete railings, steel girders, concrete caps, and timber piles will be removed without
dropping any of their components into Waters of the United States. There is potential for
components of the concrete deck and concrete encasements to be dropped into Waters of
the United States. The potential temporary fill associated with the concrete deck and
concrete encasements is approximately 130 yd'.
RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of plants and animals have been or are in the process of decline
due either to natural forces or their inability to coexist with humans. Rare and protected
species listed for Edgecombe County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result
of the proposed project construction are discussed in the following sections.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification 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.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two federally
protected species for Edgecombe County as of the November 4, 1997 listing (Table 3).
TABLE 3
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR EDGECOMBE COUNTY
Scientific Name Status
Common Name
Picoides borealis E
Red-cockaded woodpecker)
Elliptio steinstansana E
Tars in mussel
NOTES:
E Denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range)
Picoides borealis (Red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
The red-cockaded woodpecker is a small 7 to 8 inches (18 to 20 cm) long bird
with black and white horizontal stripes on its back, a black cap and a large white cheek
patch. The male has a small red spot or "cockade" behind the eye.
The preferred nesting habitat of the red-cockaded woodpecker is open stands of
pines with a minimum age of 60 to 120 years. Longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) are
13
preferred for nesting; however, other mature pines such as loblolly (Pinus taeda) may be
utilized. Typical nesting areas, or territories, are pine stands of approximately 200 acres
(81 hectares), however, nesting has been reported in stands as small as 60 acres (24
hectares). Preferred foraging habitat is pine and pine-hardwood stands of 80 to 125 acres
(32 to 50 hectares) with a minimum age of 30 years and a minimum diameter of 10
inches (25 cm). The red-cockaded woodpecker utilizes these areas to forage for insects
such as ants, beetles, wood-boring insects, caterpillars, as well as seasonal wild fruit.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat does not exist for this species. There are no pine stands within the study
area and the NCNHP database shows no reported occurrences of the red-cockaded
woodpecker within the project vicinity.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar Spinymussel) Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 7/29/85
The Tar Spinymussel measures approximately 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) in length. The
outer shell surface of young specimens is orange-brown with greenish rays. Adults are
darker colored with inconspicuous rays. The inner shell color is yellow or pinkish at one
end and bluish-white at the other. Juveniles may have up to 12 spines, which they tend to
lose as they mature.
This species lives in relatively silt-free uncompacted gravel or coarse sand in fast
flowing, well-oxygenated stream reaches. It feeds by syphoning and filtering small food
particles that are suspended in the water. The Tar Spinymussel is found in association
with other mussels but it is never very numerous. The known population of this species
is estimated to contain 100 to 500 individuals. The Tar Spinymussel is often located in
the central channel of the river.
NCDOT Environmental Specialists Tim Savidge, Wendee Britt, and Teryn Smith
visited the project site on June 3, 1999. A mussel survey was conducted at the bridge site
to approximately 50 yards downstream using SCUBA. Visual and tactile surveys were
also conducted along the banks. Water depth ranged between 2-6 feet (0.6-1.8 m),
averaging around 4 feet (1.2 m) and the visibility was good. The substrate consisted
mostly of coarse sand and rubble near the bridge. Survey time was 1.5 hours. Mussels
were uncommon but easily located and elliptio mussels of the E. complanata and
E. icterina complexes were equally abundant.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
The Tar spinymussel (TSM) was not observed in any of the surveys performed for
this project. Because of the documented historical occurrence of this species in the
project area, and the fact that the TSM can still be found downstream (Pitt County near
Falkland approximately 14 miles downstream) and upstream (approximately 10 miles),
the potential presence of the TSM within the project area cannot be discounted. It is
possible the TSM occurs within the project area at levels below detection. Additionally,
care should be taken to avoid potential adverse impacts to the TSM population
downstream of the project area.
14
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was consulted in regard to the
effect of project construction on the Tar Spinymussel (see attachment). The USFWS
concurred in the biological conclusion that project construction is "Not Likely to
Adversely Affect" the Tar Spinymussel if the following environmental commitments are
implemented:
1) Erosion control methods designed for protection of endangered species should be
incorporated into project design and should be in place prior to clearing and
grubbing activities if possible.
2) Project letting will be scheduled so that clearing and grubbing is restricted
between November 15 to April 1.
3) Precautions should be taken to avoid substrate disturbance, introduction of toxic
compounds (hydraulic fluids, bridge runoff, etc.) and alteration of flow.
4) Various selected personnel from the USFWS and the N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) should be given a written invitation to the pre-
construction meeting for this project.
15

14Z
i
1, 6 14 16 ¦
97
2.0
RIV
.1
Bridge No. 44 1
1.0
1.2 Penelo
t? 4
!64\2.0
POP.
8 Wrendale
•9
1407 ?.)
0 2.
1408
N 0 ?•
01254
N
1.4
1253
0/ 1252
Hartsease
LO
0 ) 349 3
?9 O
CSX 1225
L
1223 1339
.W
1225 N
.l
1.8 1208
CO
- - - 1208 - -1337
1223 1224 1 1218
1255
c
\
I
I
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Edgecombe County
Replace Bridge No. 44 on SR 1252
Over Tar River
B-2967
SCALE: 1 in = 1 mi Figure 1
1.5 .4
64
A
1339
1217
r

B-2967
FIGURE 3A

?i
Looking North Across the Bridge

B-2967
FIGURE 3B
? j

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 13, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310- New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge #44 on SR 1252 over Tar River,
Edgecombe County, B-2967, Federal Aid project
BRZ-1252(1),. State Project 8.2290801, ER 97-
8332
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
On April 8, 1997, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, there is a small farm complex north of
the bridge that should be evaluated for National Register eligibility.
The project is in close proximity to a previously recorded archaeological site. Given
the presence of the site and general topographic situation, we recommend an
archaeological survey for any new alignments including the, locations of any lateral
ditches.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.

? A
:holas L. Graf
Clay 13, 1997, Page 2
'Y
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,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
i--ff. Church
T. Padgett
• y
Feclcrul.Iicl 4 BRL-12 2( 1) Tl/' : l3-21)67 Coiml.t: L=.ducconthe
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Pro/ect Description: Replace Bridge No. 44 on SR 1252 over Tar River
On Nlarch 19, 1998, representatives of the
E] North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
[Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
E] North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
F? Other
reviewed the subject project at
EJ Scoping meeting
® Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
F1 Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects,
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the projects area of potential effects.
there are properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects, but based
on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property
identified as Farm complex is considered not eligible for the National Register and no
further evaluation of it is necessary.
® there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Signed:
1-Y S 1C7
Represents e, OT Date
I' C
FhfWAj f r the Division" Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, SUPO uate
State Historic Preservation Officer
If a surve% report is prepared. a final cope of this form and the attached list will be included.
(I
y,,, S1ATr
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 18, 1999
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-144_
Re: Replace Bridge 44 on SR 1252 over Tar River,
Edgecombe County, Federal Aid Project BF,:
12152(1), State Project 8.2290801, TIP B-2967, ER
99-831' -
Dear Mr. Grp.:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of March 2, 1999, transmitting the archaeological survey repo:'-
by Gerold F. Glover concerning the above project.
We agree that archaeological sites 31 ED330, 31 ED3317 31 ED332, and 31 ED5 lack the
integrity necessary for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. No further
archaeological work is recommended for the project as planned. In general, the report
meets our guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
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,
Davi Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: W. D. Gilmore
?C. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ???
. y
NT FT"F,yA United States Department of the Interior
o FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
a
Raleigh Field Office :
Post Office Box 33726
M,PCH 7 'eRaleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
November 23, 1999 1, 'I
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
ATTN: Karen T. Orthner, Project Planning Engineer
RE: Section 7 Concurrence for Replacement of Bridge #44 on SR 1252 over
Tar River, Edgecombe County, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1252(1); State
Project 8.2290801,TIP No. I-2967
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife (Service) has reviewed your November 15, 1999
letter regarding the above-referenced project in Edgecombe County, North
Carolina. Our comments are provided in accordance with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Based on the negative survey results, and adherence to the Environmental
Commitments provided by North Carolina Department of Transportation, the
Service concurs that this project is not likely to adversely affect the
federally-endangered Tar spiny mussel, or any other federally-listed
species in the project area.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been
satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7 consultation
must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by
the identified action.
Thank you for your cooperation with our agency.
Sincer ly,
i
Tom Au9e6rgeiF
Acting Ecological Services Supervisor
Ik
FWS/R4:CMartino:cm:11-23-99/919-856-4520:WPB.I:NCDOT:Tar-rv44.ne