20040190 Ver 1_Complete File_20040210

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
January 26, 2005
Johnston County
DWQ Project No. 040190
TIP B-3865
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to reduce the amount of
fill material in wetlands and streams for the purpose of replacing Bridge No. 212 on SR 1002 (Rains Mill Road) in
Johnston County, specifically a reduction of 157 square feet of temporary wetland impacts for Bent 1, a reduction of
240 square feet of temporary surface water impacts for Bent 2 and a reduction of 800 square feet of temporary
surface water impacts for Bent 3. The project shall be constructed in accordance with your modified application
dated 7 January 2005 (received 10 January 2005). After reviewing your application, we have decided that the
impacts are covered by General Water Quality Certification Numbers 3403 and 3366. These certifications
correspond to the Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should acquire
any other federal, state or local permits before you proceed with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment
and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire with the
accompanying 404 permit, unless otherwise specified in the Water Quality Certification.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified below).
Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the property is sold, the
new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying
with all the conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, or of total
impacts to streams (now or in the future) exceed 1501inear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you must adhere to the
conditions listed in the attached certification.
1.) Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form" to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been completed. The
responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the Division of
Water Quality upon completion of the project.
2.) No live or fresh concrete shall come into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has hardened.
3.) During the construction of the project, no staging of equipment of any kind is permitted in waters of the U.S., or
protected riparian buffers.
4.) The dimension, pattern and profile of the stream above and below the crossing should not be modified.
Disturbed floodplains and streams should be restored to natural geomorphic conditions.
5.) Any riprap used must not interfere with thalweg performance and aquatic life passage during low flow
conditions.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Ci ~stnmcr Caniira• ~ RM R9:3-77dR

5
GO
W ATF
QG
~rV~1.~/~- r
~-t~
.:. `C
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
6.) Heavy equipment must be operated from the banks rather than in the stream channel in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream.
7.) All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters must be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
8.) Discharging hydroseed mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment in or adjacent to surface
waters is prohibited.
9.) The NCDOT will need to adhere to all appropriate in-water work moratoriums (including the use of pile driving
or vibration techniques) prescribed by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, the US Fish and Wildlife
Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service.
10.) A copy of this Water Quality Certification shall be posted on the construction site at all times. In addition, the
Water Quality Certification and all subsequent modifications, if any, shall be maintained with the Division
Engineer and the on-site project manager.
11.) The outside buffer, wetland or water boundary located within the construction corridor approved by this
authorization shall be clearly marked by highly visible fencing prior to any land disturbing activities. Impacts
to areas within the fencing are prohibited unless otherwise authorized by this certification.
12.) Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing
season following completion of construction.
13.) There shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated with this
permit without appropriate modification of this permit. Should waste or borrow sites be located in wetlands or
stream, compensatory mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities.
14.) All stormwater runoff shall be directed to sheetflow through stream buffers at nonerosive velocities, unless
approved otherwise by this certification.
15.) All protected riparian buffers impacted by the placement of temporary fill or clearing activities shall be restored
to the preconstruction contours and revegetated with native woody species upon completion of the project
construction. Apost-construction as-built with the restoration activities included shall be submitted to the
DWQ no later than 60 days after the project is closed out by the Department of Transportation.
16.) Pursuant to NCACISA 2B.0233(6), sediment and erosion control devices shall not be placed in Zone 1 of any
Neuse Buffer without prior approval by the NCDWQ. At this time, the NCDWQ has approved no sediment and
erosion control devices in Zone 1, outside of the approved project impacts, anywhere on this project. Moreover,
sediment and erosion control devices shall be allowed in Zone 2 of the buffers provided that Zone 1 is not
compromised and that discharge is released as diffuse flow.
17.) At no time, shall more than one fill causeway be permitted within the Little River. At no time, shall a fill
causeway obstruct greater than 50 percent of the cross-section of the Little River.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that conforms
to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please contact Nicole Thomson at 919-715-3415.
Sir rely,
~,
.,~2~'""' ~~~
,-',
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Army. Corps of Engineers
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Mr. Jim Trogdon, PE Division 4 Engineer, PO Box 3165, Wilson, NC 27895
Mr. Jamie Shern, Division 4 Environmental Officer, PO Box 3165, Wilson, NC 27895
Mr. Mike McKeel, PE, Resident Engineer, Resident Engineer's Office -Smithfield,
2861. US 70 W., Smithfield, 27577
Mr. Corey McLamb, Assistant Resident Engineer, Resident Engineer's Office -Smithfield,
2861 US 70 W., Smithfield, 27577
NC DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
c:\Correspondence\DWQ040190\wgc012605

w,l.,Tfi Michael F. Easley, Governor
O R William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
`OCR QG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
G) ~. Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
?_ . 'i~
t3 r
DWQ Project No.:
County:
Applicant:
Project Name:
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification:
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer Rules, and
any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1621. This form may be
returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer. It is not necessary to
send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I, ~ ,hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence
was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials. .
Signature: Date:
Agent's Certification
I, ,hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence
was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Date:
Engineer's Certification
Partial Final
I, , as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State of North
Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of the project,for the
Permittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401
Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature
Registration No.
Date

SENDING CONFIRMATION
DATE JAN-27-2005 THU 11:55
NAME DWQ-WETLANDS
TEL [phone]
PHONE = 99340190
PAGES : 5~5
START TIME : JAN-27 11:52
ELAPSED TIME 02'26"
MODE ECM
RESULTS : OK
FIRST PAGE OF RECENT DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED...
Miaaxl F. Emler. Govcme r
R7llim O.Rrn lr_Bsrcnrp
YoM Caroli~n nwa„n~rm otE,viicnmoiR nd I.'hNG11 Remorcea
~ .~~ Alm W. INimrk P.E. Dirocror
' Divition of WaPx puahly
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
401 OversightlExpress Permit, Program Development and
Transportation Permitting Units
Street Address: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard. Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
915 3'{/J
Contact Information: Phone q: 919-'733-t786-
/'V ~ ~ Pax #: 919-733-6893
Fax To: ~ 1 K ~ M s: 1~~~, Fax #: ~ . !~/~d
Company: ~~-s ~.,L-~,yFS r', OFGI C c_ `Date: ~ a ~ A:i
a~+rn+Fl£~
Nttmber of pages including cover sheet:
Notes or special instrncdons:
N1J,t.V r/l (k (~sc-,Yist ~ ~~ ~~ ~C`( t--. ~1
~J~ ~J~ ~~! «L grad /.T r~ 1,l </L~'U r"~EiA
/,U - a U ~
~~ YllQ G7<- l'J /X l
1650Ma16mACtMr RB41ph, tbrO~WOtru t769D-1650
2321 CraCLBp BaukwN.SWk 950. Re4Wh; North GBrofmB27B01
PMm.91B-Td11n6/FAX B74T.C*BBB9/NIen1¢t l{Itpl/hlo ivtcx.Wocactlmde
g!~hCUO'
N~t///A/(fJ
An EpAI DpportmM.'ABkmellre 0.cBm Empb}n-50%Peryife6M0%Pe4Cmvmar Paper

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
-:.r
-~ Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
401 Oversight/Express Permit, Program Development and
Transportation Permitting Units
Street Address: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center
.Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact .Information: Phone #: 919-'~33~1-1~8fr
Fax #: [phone]
Fax To: ~ ~ ~ ~, C . `~\ Fax #: ~ '~ • ~~~~
.\
Company: Q~s~ ~,yl~~ N~~ ,,~'S DFFt C ~- ' ,Date: ~d? ~ ~4S _
Number of pages including cover sheet:
Notes or special instructions:
401 OversightlE~ress Unft ~ I,J
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh; North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone] / Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.ns/ncwetlands
NorthCaro ' a
atura~
An Equal opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

e"' ~~ o-
~~ a ~„
~~'cf,~ aWw ads
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTIVIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
January 7, 2005
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Wetlands 401 Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
ATTENTION: Mr. John Hennessy
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
22¢ t,p q
e=`"~ ~ ""
YdiTLiaidus P~.G .~`; (Ut~ti'J~%i ~.R 8KP,1"JCk
.SUBJECT: Minor Permit Modification Application for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 212 on SR 1002 (Rains Mill Rd.) over
Little River, Johnston County. Federal Project No. BRSTP-
' 1002(8), State Project No. 8.2312601, T.I.P. No. B-3865.
Dear Sir:
Please reference the original request for a Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit dated February
12, 2004. Due to design changes in the temporary causeways, there will be different
impact amounts and locations. Fortunately, the impacts are of lesser extent than
previously permitted. For all three causeways, the move is shifting away from the
channel. Two causeways have reduced surface water impacts and one has reduced
wetland impacts. The buffer impacts will not change from what was originally permitted.
Attached is a copy of the revised wetland permit drawing. The locations are referenced to
the structure plans. The shaded area is the area of new impacts. The following lists the
approximate amount of impact reduction:
Bent 1 (Southern most Bent) - 157 ft2 (of temporary. wetland impacts)
Bent 2 - 240 ftz (of temporary surface water impacts)
Bent 3 (Northern most Bent) - 800 ft2 (of temporary surface water impacts)
With these changes in temporary impacts and locations, we request a minor permit
modification for the Nationwide 33. This will allow us the proper placement for
equipment when constructing the bridge.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DON.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27$99-154$

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Manley at
[phone] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
-----~
~ _
Gregory J. orpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
GJT/cdm

.,v-09-2004 TUE 0:40 Ply FRO~f:TM MCKEEL F~K:9i99340190
PAGE 9
_~
7.1 ~ 56 hiC D07
o x 'l
~ +
N
~ rv 3
M :}'
~ L
0.
d
~' ~'~
(A
Sal
~' ~
~~
N .}~ f
7
~ ~
S]
~ ~
~ N
-FI ~
~~ -~
N
m
31K .~..
~~
f' tT ..
~ N~
r ~
r 'Q 1
~ ~ = i J
~ ~ 4 r+ 1
~~ ~
~~
fa.
.~

'-.~
~ '~ } ~
~ ~ ~
i
us ~ ~
a
d ' ~' ~ a
Q ~ • ti
~.: a
} a
~'
a
.+
,u~ ~~`
~~ _
''~ ~' ~,
_ ~,
IS
t
1
ly 1~ h ~!
o ~
I
y
W
x
{ W F~ 1

.~
Q
"~
N
Q
V
_~ ~
s.
~a ~ 11
i q~
~' ~~
'~;~'r
',~J
97.9 250 4882 P.05i10 '~
~I
P
r
a ~'
v ?- ~. ~ ~
d p. ~ w
~ z~N>
~ _~ 0
~~~_ ®~~Nzm~
~~ W
' N 0 4~JLQ-j '~` ~ ~
z lJ ~ ~ 0
~ O O ~ ~ ra
7 h ~ Q
ca ~
F
a
~ ~
' ------- m vs.
~ r
--- Q ~
A Pyy Q Q
T~ ~~
z~
rT~ ~ ~
i•~ O
7
f~-~ ~"'+
Z
1 ~ J
v n.. J O
-z
A
C
Z
.sj.. aj. v
~. ~~
'y
~j. i
~ ~ I
.~~ ~ ~~
o p
1 ~' ~ w >- ~
_ ~~ -
¢c~ uz ~~~ o
V Q N~ N~~ O
~'" a
~ O z ~~ ~,
~ f Qd p C -
~ N U W
i ~{ z N ..~
~ ,¢ a
if z •_ cs
,~ rf ~ ~ fn
~ lrj ~ + fZ GR
i i

,~ f 1 ~ v-
~ ( I
~ = ~t
1 '~ ~ '-
~f o : ~
-`
v
~ o
-_ t
.,"` - rl
1 -~.
~ 5
'r "~ ~
^^
-,~{ -~- ~ --.~•-. c
~- ~ C:s
F"` ~ ~ Q
i s u
r~.? ~-4- "~ ~, r
~~
'~ ~ 1xE --.~_
~-"
.; .~;
~a ~ - '__ ~~____--__~. ~_"_' __ a
~~ ~ _
~~~
0. ,
~ '
~ -'j ~. ~
C.~
~ _ ``
} ~ !
o '~- '?
L~ ~`"•aw ~.~
tt!
to _ t~
Q li. = -i `f
~ ~
a~
ci-~ 65" Cy ~
~- - ~.
~E
~ ~ RS
~ I ~ ~I e
~ j ~' , ~ `
~ ,,,~,##
,.
! ' ~
I ~ I
( !
i
~ k 60~--
__ 1( ,.~
! ~..~
~ ~ W
W l ,,~~..~~
a 1 i'1.;~c'I~
a
t..i
'D
CL'
z
~ ~
x z~,~
~
~ >
~
o
~

~'
~:'
`~ Cif ~ y
~
~
a
t
°
omc~ y
.~
~

~"
•
!
7
/ N ~
~ ~ M
p' -»

~ z

o
T
1 ~ ~ ti
o o
y °
a
__- -~ _ tV

I6
~- ~~
'L
~.
~~
~ ~_
a -~_~ ~
( ~ ~~
°" ~ ~y M~
it ~~ ~ s 'y
3- ~ ~
~4~.~
r .~, 81 ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~
'~ a -~ ~
,~ '~' .~3
__ ~ c~
~ r
' ~ ~ ~ ~~
i l }~ ~ ~
V ~~ a-aa
~ ~ tat - ~ ~ -~-'~' a
~ ( ~ WU
~~ 5 t ~ ~ J ~' ~ J
i ~ ~ (~ Q o os
i
;~'"'~ ~v
~ ; , .Q
+. { y •
= Q
w j~ i t~ ~ i LG
i
~~- ale ~ ,.' ~
~~ ~
• N„'„~4}

ZE: Minor Permit Modification for B-3865
.
Subject: RE: Minor Permit Modification for B-3865
.Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:55:34 -0500
From: "Bell, Michael F SAW" <[e-mail]>
To: "Chris D. Manley" <[e-mail]>
Chris, Thanks for the information and you minimization efforts. Your permit
is hereby Modified to include the design incorporated in your facsimile dated
December 8', 2004. Michael F. Bell
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris D. Manley [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 6:19 PM
To: Mike Bell; [e-mail]
Subject: Minor Permit Modification for B-3865
Dear Mike and Nikki,
Please see the following attachments regarding changes with the
temporary causeway for B-3865 over the Little River.
As always, time is very important with modifications. Possibly
within a couple of weeks construction maybe forced to stop if we
have not received approval. Plus it will cost us money for time
not worked.
I appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Please let me know
if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Chris Manley, ONE
L of 1 1 /6/2005 4:07 PM

dd SfATEo
~.~ :z~,.
STATE OF NORTH CARnT r-
DEPARTIV~NT OF ~~~,/ .--- - ~~
MICHAEL F. EASLEY ~©~ - /~ "sTT
GOVERNOR n n ~+ o
`1x1 ~ri~/~ ~ ~~,,,N ~~
December L .~~ ULV~'-
~' _ . c ` `
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ~~ `~ ~
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000 ~~ n
Washington, NC 27889-1000 ~~'/~
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael Bell
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Minor Permit Modificatiron Application for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 212 on SR 1002 (Rains Mill Rd.) over
Little River, Johnston County. Federal Project No. BRSTP-
1002(8), State Project No. 8.2312601, T.I.P. No. B-3865.
Dear Sir:
Please reference the original request for a Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit dated February
12, 2004. Due to design changes in the temporary causeways, there will be different
impact amounts and locations. Fortunately, the impacts are of lesser extent than
previously permitted. For all three causeways, the move is shifting away from the
channel. Two causeways have reduced surface water impacts and one has reduced
wetland impacts. The buffer impacts will not change from what was originally permitted.
Attached is a copy of the revised wetland permit drawing. The locations are referenced to
the structure plans. The shaded area (electronic copy shows red) is the area of new
impacts. The following lists the approximate amount of impact reduction:
Bent 1 (Southern most Bent) - 157 ft2
Bent 2 - 240 ft2
Bent 3 (Northern most Bent) - 800 ft2
With these changes in temporary impacts and locations, we request a minor permit
modification for the Nationwide 33. This will allow us the proper placement for
equipment when constructing the bridge.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Manley at
[phone] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
GJT/cdm

B-3865%20Modification%20Drawing.bmp (BMP Image, 851x1400 p... imap://[e-mail]:143/f...
r~~
i
7~N-~J?-204 1.156 ht~' ~QT
t
t~
~f l
i a ,!
~ ~ ~
m
'~.,..~' ~ 1 i
~ "'' I
-- ' a. ~„,

fi
v
t~
v3
9i9 Z50 X3062 ~.0~t1~3
r ~ ~
~"
., , w
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
x

~ ~ c ~ ~ "
a
m
~
C?
A ..~ ~
~
~' q ~
7 ~
6~ ~'
-#
m
~~~,
_.,. a~
~~

_ '

.

e.~_

,..~' .
._ ~~`
en ~ ~~ ~„
cv
~ z ~--
-e.~
...,
Y ...~ S

_ _
I€
` 'o ~,

---~ _-,._~__

'
-- E1

..
~~ -
~ 3t.
a}
~ "-* sy
'~
_ -r.-
~
,
,,
.
` ~ ,

,.
~
11
`
F
V ~T A • ~
• ~

~
- 5 ~~
~
~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
r ~ 3
/ LQ N
~ #~}
mo
~
~ •
CV ~ •
V ~ _ ~ ,
w` ,
q iid
t i
3 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~~

c+~ ~r
4i ~•~. =
< t; t FGy4~ ~i r~s ...t y~ ~ ~
'~i ~ :r . 3 ~ ~ tat cap rw
r-
~
'1
7
`~ ~~ 1~ ~
G? .
~ L
~ d -~
~ , t t p ° c~...
1 of 2
1
•
1 ~ ~ t ~ 4 = F ~ i
~ ~
V e ~
~ w ~~.:d.'.r .
12/ 16/2004 9:45 AM

~+. ~~
~,~~1 ~ ~sr
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Manager
NCDOT,PDEA
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
August 2, 2004
Johnston County
DWQ Project No. 040190
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions aid those listed below, to place fill material in
0.007 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, and to perform mechanized cluing in 0.015 acres of jurisdictional wetlands.
In addition, you are authorized to impacts to 9087 square feet (5873 square feet in Zone 1 and 3214 square feet in
Zone 2) of protected Neuse River Riparian Buffers. The purpose of the project is the replacemernt of Bridge No.
212 on SR 1002 (Rains Mill Rd.) in Johnston County. The project shall be constructed in accordance with your
application dated received February 12, 2004. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is
covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3403. This certification corresponds to the Nationwide
Permit 23 issued by the Corps of Engineers. This approval is also valid for the Neuse River River Buffer Rules 15A
NCAC 2B .0233. In addition, you should acquire any other federal, state or local permits before you proceed with
your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply
Watershed regulations. This approval will expire with the accompanying 404 permit, unless otherwise specified in
the Water Quality Certification.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified below).
Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the property is sold, the
new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying
with all the conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, or of total
impacts to streams (now or in the future) exceed 1501inear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you must adhere to the
conditions listed in the attached certification.
1.) Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form" to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been completed. The
responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the Division of
Water Quality upon completion of the project.
2.) All stormwater runoff shall be directed to sheetflow through stream buffers at nonerosive velocities, unless
approved otherwise by this certification.
3.) During the construction of the project, no staging of equipment of any kind is permitted in waters of the U.S., or
protected riparian buffers.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 OIIe
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 NOrthCarOlina
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone] /Internet: http~//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands ~~}~,~,~~~,//'~

. +
4.) Ripazian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing
season following completion of construction.
5.) The dimension, pattern and profile of the stream above and below the crossing should not be modified by
widening the stream channel or reducing the depth of the stream. Disturbed floodplains and streams should be
restored to natural geomorphic conditions.
6.) Any riprap used must not interfere with thalweg performance and aquatic life passage during low flow
conditions.
7.) All mechanized equipment operated neaz surface waters must be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
8.) Discharging hydroseed mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment in or adjacent to surface
waters is prohibited.
9.) The outside buffer, wetland or water boundary located within the construction corridor approved by this
authorization shall be cleazly marked by orange fabric fencing prior to any land disturbing activities. Impacts to
azeas within the fencing are prohibited unless otherwise authorized by this certification.
10.) There shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into jurisditrtional wetlands or waters associated with this
permit without appropriate modification of this permit. Should waste or borrow sites be located in wetlands or
stream, compensatory mitigation will be required since it is a direst impact from road construction activities.
11.) Pursuant to NCACISA 2B.0233(6), sediment and erosion control devices shall not be placed in Zone 1 of any
Neuse Buffer without prior approval by the NCDWQ. At this time, the NCDWQ has approved no sediment and
erosion control devices in Zone 1 anywhere on this project. Moreover, sediment and erosion control devices
shall be allowed in Zone 2 of the buffers provided that Zone 1 is not compromised and that discharge is released
as diffuse flow.
12.) The NCDOT will need to adhere to all appropriate in-water work moratoriums (including the use of pile driving
or vibration techniques) prescribed by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, the US Fish and Wildlife
Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service.
13.) At no time, shall more than one fill causeway be permitted within the Little Rver. At no time, shall a fill
causeway obstruct greater than 50 percent of the cross-section of the Little River.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that conforms
to Chapter 150B of the North Cazolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.

This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please contact John Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
Siricergly, ~
.~/~ ~i !
L! .
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
c:\ncdot\TIP B-3865\wqc\040190 wgc.doc
~.

..~~o.
Man
-~~,~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTIVIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
July 9, 2004
Mr. John Hennessy
NCDWQ
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Dear Sir:
~~T~A~!taS 14Q1 GRCU~
JUL 0 9 2004
~%ZH! ~i`~ (QUALITY SECTION
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Response to the § 401 Water Quality Certification requesting more information.
Replacement of Bridge Number 212 on SR 1002 in Johnston County, TIP No. B-
3865, Federal Project No. BRSTP-1002(8), State Project No. 8.2312601.
On February 12, 2004, the NCDOT requested a Nationwide Permit 23 and 33, with 401 General
Certification numbers 3361 and 3366 for the subject project. The NCDOT is in receipt of a letter
from your office dated February 23, 2004, copy attached for your convenience, placing the
project on hold for the following reasons:
1. The project, as presently designed, has 2 of 3 bridge bents located in the Little River. We
believe that the bents could be relocated so that impacts to wetlands on the southwest side of
the river are avoided and minimized. We also believe that the relocation of bents could result
in placing only one bent in the river.
The bents were placed as close to the top of banks as possible to minimize impacts. The only
way to move the bents completely out of the river would be to lengthen the spans. A ninety foot
span is the longest span available fora 54"girder. Using a deeper girder, the length could be
extended to 120'. However, a girder of that length would need to be floated to the work site.
Water transport of construction material is not practical for this site. If the interior spans were
to be lengthened, the first span would have to be shortened. The first span length is at the
minimum length allowed by the Structure Design Engineer. Since this is a continuous span,
reducing the length would cause uplift in the first span. ~"
~k
D° ~~,~ -
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

2. The proposed fill causeway for the southwest side of the Little River can be relocated to
minimize impacts to wetlands. There is existing high ground located in the project
construction area that could be used for placement of a fill causeway to reduce impacts to
wetlands. If conjoined with a relocation of the bridge bent that is presently proposed for
placement in wetlands, the project impacts could be greatly reduced.
As noted above, the span length cannot be adjusted, therefore the bent cannot be relocated. The
causeways, as shown on the permit drawings, are needed to facilitate access for construction.
3. The application proposes fill into both sides of the Little River. While we must first pursue
reducing the amount of fill in the Little River, if fill is ultimately allowed on both sides of the
river, its placement will have to be timed so that only one causeway is installed at a time.
The causeways in the water surface are not needed simultaneously to place the girders.
However, the causeways will need to extend to the top of banks on both sides for placement of
the interior span.
4. The proposed fill causeways into the Little River are listed as temporary impacts. However,
it is unclear to us how the removal of the fill causeway is to be performed. Please explain the
proposed method of fill removal, the equipment that will be used, and how the process can be
performed without causing a violation of the state surface water and turbidity standards.
The causeways will be constructed using rip rap on top of filter fabric. The removal of the
causeway will be accomplished with excavating equipment to remove the rip rap and filter
fabric. The entire causeway footprint shall be returned to the original contours and elevations
after the purpose of the causeway has been served. The causeways will be encircled with
turbidity curtains to further minimize silt flow into the water. The curtains will be kept in place
throughout the causeway removal phase.
5. The spillway located on the southwest side of the river impacts jurisdictional wetlands. Can
the slopes of the spillway or the length of the bridge be adjusted to eliminate the proposed
impacts? Please provide a discussion that explains the rationale used for the proposed design
and impacts.
The fill slope (spillway?) is part of the bridge abutment and is necessary for maintaining the
stability of the new structure. Any adjustment that would steepen the side slopes would reduce
the stability of the bridge approach and is undesirable. Lengthening the bridge at this site will
only reduce impacts by less than 0.01 acres of permanent impact and 0.02 acres of mechanized
clearing. Additionally, the wetland in question does not qualify under NCDOT high quality
resource protocols for automatic bridging. Therefore, the NCDOT does not propose further
changes at this site.

We respectfully request that the "on hold" status be lifted and that processing of our request to
proceed under GC 3361 and 3366 resume. If you have any questions or would like additional
information, please contact Mr. Chris Manley at [phone] or a-mail at
cdmanleyndot.state.nc.us.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc:
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Jim Trogdon, P.E. (Div. 4), Division Engineer
Mr. Jamie Shern (Div. 4), DEO
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. William Goodwin , P.E., PDEA

w"~ FR
QG
rvncnaes~ r. ~asiey, aovenivr
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
~. Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Vii' ~ Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
~Ir Division of Water Quality
February 23, 2004
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, 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 212 on SR 1002 in Johnston County, TIP No.
B-3865.
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal fora 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 project, as presently designed, has 2 of the 3 bridge bents located in the Little River. We believe that the
bents could be relocated so that impacts to wetlands on the southwest side of the river are avoided and .
minimized. We also believe that the relocation of bents could result in placing only one bent in the river.
• The proposed fill causeway for the southwest side of the Little River can be relocated to minimize impacts to
". ~ wetlands. There is existing high ground located in the project' construction area that could be used for
placement of a fill causeway to reduce impacts to wetlands. If conjoined with a relocation of the bridge bent
that is presently proposed for placement in wetlands, the project impacts could be greatly reduced.
• The application proposes fill into both sides of the Little River. While we must first pursue reducing the
amount of fill in the Little River, if fill is ultimately allowed on both sides of the river, its placement will have
to be timed so that only one causeway is installed at a time.
• The proposed fill causeways into the Little River are listed as temporary impacts. However, it is unclear to us
how removal of the fill causeway is to be performed. Please explain the proposed method of fill removal, the
equipment that will be used, and how the process can be performed without causing a violation of the state
surface water and turbidity standards.
• The spillway located on the southwest side of the river impacts jurisdictional wetlands. Can the slopes of the
spillway or the length of the bridge be adjusted to eliminate the proposed impacts? Please provide a discussion
that explains the rationale used for the proposed design and impacts.
~ -:
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1 800 623-7748.

~ WArE Michael F. Easley, Governor
`O~~ ~QG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
~ Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
~_
C~ `C
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.
Sinc y,
?~.
an W. Klimek, P.E.
Director
cc: DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Mike Bell, US Army Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
File Copy
C:\ncdot\TIP B-3865\coaespondence\040190h1d.doc
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1 800 623-7748

Y
.~.
~° --
}.
~ti~f
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MKgA~, F, ~~y DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
GOV&RxOR
December 3, 2004
WBS Element: 33311.3.1 (B-3865)
Contract No. C200846
F. A. Number: BRSTP-1002 (18)
County: Johnston
Description: Bridge over Little River and Approaches on SR 1002
MEMORANDUM TO: Ellis C. Powell, Jr., PE
State Construction Engineer
FROM: Wendi O. Johnson, Pg' , ( , ' , ---~._-
Division Construction Engineer
SUBJECT: Approved Preconstruction Conference Minutes
G~~~
~~, ~ ~~ S~!~~
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
D r5 ~~Q~
~D
DES 1 6.2004
DENR_
~AlVDSgNpST R
We are transmitting an approved copy of the minutes covering the preconstruction conference for
the above project, which was held on October 28, 2004. The minutes were approved by the
Contractor, S. W. Wooten Corporation, as shown in the attached.
Attachment
c: Ron Lucas (FHWA)
Dr. Garland Pardue (US Fish & Wildlife)
Mike Bell (US Army Corps of Engineers)
Nikki Thompson (NCDENR, Division of Water Quality)
John Holley (NCDENR, Land Quality Section)
David Cox (NCWRC)
Scott L. VanHorn (NCWRC)
Ron Sechler (National Marine Fisheries)
Progress Energy (Sammy McFarland)
Tri-County EMC (Michael Davis)
Sprint (Kenneth Grotjan)
Adelphia (Nora Hensley)
Post Office Box 3165, Wilson, North Carolina 27895-3165
Telephone [phone] Fax {252) 234-6174

~ -Ellis C. Powell, Jr., PE
December 3, 2004
Page 2
v'
ec: Cecil Jones, PE
Donald Pearson
Robert Simpson
Andy Brown, PE
Bryant Bunn, PE
Andy Pridgen
Shannon Sweitzer, PE
Lloyd Johnston, Jr.
Mike McKeel, PE
Kevin Lacy, PE
Victor Barbour, PE
Don G. Lee
Mohammed Mulla, PE, CPM
Dean Argenbright, LG
Jimmy Marley
Jamie Shern
Michael Robinson, PE
Warren Walker, PE
Haywood Daughtry, PE
John Williamson
Brandy Carter
Chris Kreider, PE
David R. Henderson, PE
Je_rme_ry A_rmstrcng
Willie Bryant
Tim Little, PE
Gerald McCauley

PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE AND PERMIT MEETING MINUTES
WBS Element:
Federal Aid No.:
Contract No.:
33311.3.1 (B-3865)
BRSTP-1002 (1$)
C200846
County: Johnston
Description: Bridge over Little River and Approaches on SR 1002
The preconstruction conference for the above project was held in the Wilson Division Office Conference Room
on October 28, 2004 with the following persons in attendance:
NAME
Mickey Renfrow
Brandy Carter
Sammy McFarland
A. H. (Bert) Lane
C. D. Francka
C. D. McLamb
Jamie Shern
Erick Frazier
Jirn Winchell
Mike McKeel
REPRESENTING
NCDOT -Division Four Right of Way
NCDOT -Utility Coordination
Progress Energy
NCDOT -Division Four Construction
NCDOT -Division Four Bridge Maintenance
NCDOT -Division Four Construction
NCDOT -Division Four DEO
S. T. Wooten Corporation
S. T. Wooten Corporation
NCDOT -Resident Engineer
Wendi Johnson, Division Construction Engineer, presided over the conference. She asked everyone present to
introduce themselves and their company affiliation.
The Contractor submitted his letter naming persons authorized to sign Supplemental Agreements.
Jim Winchell will be Project Manager and Bruce Wood will act as Project Superintendent and Traffic Control
Coordinator for the Contractor.
A. H. (Bert) Lane will act as Project Inspector and Traffic Control Coordinator for the Division of Highways.
Contractor stated they plan to begin work November 1, 2004.
The Contractor presented his progress schedule and was advised that it would be checked and he would be
advised if satisfactory. By copy of these minutes, we are advising the Contractor that his progress
schedule is approved as submitted.
RIGHT OF WAY
Mickey Renfrow covered this portion of the contract.
All of the right of way necessary for this project has been acquired.
There are no known underground storage tanks or any known soil contamination within the right of way of the
project.

Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3865
Page 2
The one-story frame building located right of SS 18+00 was overlooked as a 200 Series demolition item, due
to a plan change, but will now need to be demolished to construct driveway. Building will be checked for
asbestos October 29, 2004. Asbestos Abatement Report should be in by November 2, 2004. Resident
Engineer will be negotiating with the Contractor for removal of building.
The Contractor is advised not to exceed the right of way or easement areas during construction without
written pernussion from the property owner.
UTII.ITY CONFLICTS
Progress Energy -Power (Distribution) -The Contractor shall give Progress Energy four weeks notice
prior to completion of the proposed bridge and allow Progress Energy six weeks to complete the relocation
of their existing temporary power distribution facilities to the new permanent location. After the relocation
has been completed, the temporary power pole line will be removed. Progress Energy plans to begin work
on the temporary power line November 11, 2004. This phase of the work should take approximately four
days to complete.
Tri-County EMC -Power (Distribution) -All utilities in conflict have been relocated. Tri-County's power
facilities begin at Station 25+00 -L- and continue past the end of the project. Tri-County's existing poles
will be removed by Adelphia at a later date.
Sprint -The Contractor shall notify Sprint 30 days prior to completion of clearing and grubbing on the
right side ofthe project and allow Sprint three weeks to install their temporary telephone facilities as shown
on the Utilities by Others Plans. The Contractor shall give Sprint four weeks notice prior to completion of
the proposed bridge and allow Sprint six weeks to complete the relocation of their existing temporary
telephone facilities to the new, permanent, buried and aerial locations. After the relocation has been
completed, the temporary telephone pole line will be removed.
Adelphia -CATV -The Contractor shall notify Adelphia 30 days prior to completion of clearing and
grubbing on the right side of the project and allow Adelphia six weeks to install their temporary CATV
facilities with Sprint's temporary telephone pole lines and remove Tri-County's existing poles as shown on
the Utilities by Others Plans. The Contractor shall give Adelphia four weeks notice prior to completion of
the proposed bridge and allow Adelphia six weeks to complete the relocation of their existing temporary
CATV facilities to the new, permanent, aerial and buried locations. After the relocation has been
completed, the temporary telephone pole line will be removed.
NOTE: All other utilities will remain in place and will be adjusted as necessary.
The Contractor and the Resident Engineer will meet on site to discuss utilities, wetlands, buffer zones,
project limits, flagging, etc.
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS
GENERAL
Any of the Special Provisions not covered will be as stipulated.

Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3865
Page 3
Contract Time and Liquidated Damages -The date of availability for this contract is November 1, 2004,
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 required permit meeting was
held in conjunction with this preconstruction conference, so the availability date stands.
The completion date for this contract is September 15, 2006.
The liquidated damages for this contract are $500.00 per calendar day.
Intermediate Contract Time Number 1 and Liquidated Damages -The Contractor shall complete the required
work of installing, maintaining and removing the traffic control devices for lane closures and restoring traffic to
a two-lane, two-way traffic pattern. The Contractor shall not close or narrow a lane of traffic on SR 1002
(Rains Mill Road) from b:30 a.m.-8:30 a.m., Monday thru Friday.
The liquidated damages are $500.00 per hour.
Construction Moratorium -Little River is a tributary of the Neuse River, so there is a possibility of a
Shortnose Sturgeon, among other more common anadromous fish. Design and scheduling of bridge
replacement shall avoid the necessity of in-stream activities from February 1 to June 15.
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
The Contractor's EEO Officer is George Strickland and Richard Vick is their Minority Liaison Officer.
The Contractor shall exercise all necessary and reasonable steps to insure that Disadvantaged Business
Enterprises participate in at least 13% of the contract.
The Contractor is also encouraged to give every opportunity to allow DBE participation in Supplemental
Agreements.
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 project's bulletin board, which should be weatherproof, 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, meetings with employees, on-site inspections, wage evaluations, etc.
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.

Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3865
Page 4
All alleged discriminatory violations should be brought to the attention of the Resident Engineer.
The Stateand/or FHWA will conduct a Contract Compliance Review sometime during the life of this contract.
Therefore, fair employment practice should be maintained at all times. Women should not be discriminated
against in any way.
Reporting Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Participation -When payments are made to Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise firms, including material suppliers, Contractors at all levels shall provide the Engineer with
an accounting of said payments. This accounting shall be furnished the Engineer for any given month by the
end of the following month.
Retainage acrd Prompt Payment -The Department will not deduct and hold any retainage from the Prime
Contractor on this project. The Department will withhold an amount sufficient to cover anticipated liquidated
damages, as determined by the Engineer. 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 subcontract or second tier subcontract issued for
work performed on the project or for services provided.
The Contractor's requested estimate period for this project will be the last day of the month.
Domestic Steel and Iron Products -All steel and iron products which are permanently incorporated into this
project shall be produced in the United States except minimal amounts of foreign steel and iron products may
be used, provided the combined project cost of the bid items involved does not exceed one-tenth of one
percent (0.1 percent) of the total amount bid for the entire project or $2,500.00, whichever is greater. This
minimal amount of foreign produced steel and iron products permitted for use by this Special Provision is not
applicable to fasteners. Domestically produced fasteners are required for this project.
Submission of Records -Federal Aid Projects -This project is located on a roadway classified as a local road
or rural, minor collector, so Payment of Predetermined Minimum Wages, Statements and Payrolls and Records
of Materials, Supplies and Labor are exempt from this contract. This project is not located on the National
Highway System; therefore, federal form FHWA-47 is not required.
Plant and Pest Quarantines -This project is in a county regulated for plants and/or pests. Contractor must
thoroughly clean all equipment before moving out of the quarantined area. Comply with federaUstate
regulations by obtaining a certificate or limited permit for any regulated article moving from the quarantined
area.
Safety Yests -All Contractor's 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. Non-reflective orange shirts are acceptable for all project personnel except flaggers.
OutsourcingDutside the USA -All work on consultant contracts, services contracts and construction
contracts shall be performed in the United States of America. No work shall be outsourced outside the United
States of America. Outsourcing for the purpose of this provision is defined as the practice of subcontracting
labor, work, services, staffing or personnel to entities located outside the United States.

Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3865
Page 5
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS
ROADWAY
Clearing and Grubbing -Perform clearing on this project to the limits established by Method III shown on
Standard No. 200.03 of the Roadway Standards.
The property owner will have no right to use or reserve for his use any timber on the project. All timber
cut during the clearing operation is to become the property of the Contractor and shall be either removed
from the project by him or else shall be satisfactorily disposed of as stipulated in the contract.
Temporary Detours -Construct the temporary detours required on this project in accordance with the
typical sections in the plans or as directed by the Engineer.
Borraw Excavation - No direct payment will be made for the work of Evaluation of Potential Wetlands and
Endangered Species. Payment at the contract unit price for the pay item "Borrow Excavation" or "Grading -
Lump Surn"will be considered full compensation for this work.
Shoulder artcl Fill Slope Material -Required shoulder and slope construction for this project shall be
performed in accordance with requirements of Section 226 of the Standard Specifications except as
follows:
Construct the top 6" (150mm) 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" (SOmm) or larger in diameter. All soil is subject to testing and
acceptance or rejection by the Engineer.
Material shall be obtained from within the project limits or an approved borrow source.
Construction Surveying - Provide a stakeout of areas where an environmental permit is required prior to
performing any construction in or adjacent to these areas. Provide clear delineation by use of pink or other
highly visible flagging. Insure construction limits do not exceed approved permitted work areas.
Immediately notify the Resident Engineer of any variations of the stakeout linvts when compared to the
approved permit drawings.
Orange safety fence should be used to delineate the work areas in the buffers.
The Contractor is required to submit a certified statement each month indicating the percentage of
Construction Surveying work that has been completed. The Resident Engineer will determine if the
amount indicated is reasonably correct, and the Resident Engineer will pay accordingly on the next partial
pay estimate.
Preformed Scour Hole with Level Spreader Apron -Construct and maintain preformed scour holes with
spreader aprons at the locations shown on the plans and in accordance with the details in the plans.

Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3865
Page 6
EROSION CONTROL
Enrvironmentally 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 crossings
and grading operations within the area identified on the plans. This also requires special procedures to be
used for seeding and mulching and stage seeding within the project.
Clearing and Grubbing - In areas identified on the EC plans as "Environmentally Sensitive Areas", the
Contractor may perform clearing operations but not grubbing operations until immediately prior to
beginning grading operations as described in Section 200, Article 200-1, of the Standard Specifications.
The "Environmentally Sensitive Area" shall be defined as a 50 ft. (16 meter) buffer zone on both sides of
the stream (or depression) measured from top of stream bank (or center of depression). Only clearing
operations (not grubbing) shall be allowed in this buffer zone until immediately prior to beginning grading
operations. Erosion control devices shall be installed immediately following the clearing operation.
Grading -Once grading operations begin in "Environmentally Sensitive Areas", work will progress in a
continuous manner until complete. All construction within these areas must progress in a continuous
manner such that each phase is complete and areas permanently stabilized prior to beginning of next phase.
Failure on the part of the Contractor to complete any phase of construction in a continuous manner in
"Environmentally Sensitive Areas", as specified, will be just cause for the Engineer to direct the suspension
of work in accordance with Section 108-7 of the Standard Specifications.
Crimping Straw Mulch -Crimping shall be required on this project adjacent to any section of roadway
where traffic is to be maintained or allowed during construction. In areas within six feet (2 meters) of the
edge of pavement, straw is to be applied and then crimped. After the crimping operation is complete, an
additional application of straw shall be applied and immediately tacked with a sufficient amount of
undiluted emulsified asphalt. Contractor should be sure to apply substantial tacking.
Lawn-Type Appearance -All areas adjacent to lawns must be hand finished as directed by the Engineer to give
a lawn-type appearance. These areas shall be re-seeded to match their original vegetative conditions, unless
otherwise duected by the Field Operations Engineer.
The Project Inspector will furnish the Contractor with a weekly erosion control checklist.
Gravel Construction Entrance -Contractor shall install a Crravel Construction Entrance in accordance with the
details in the plans and at locations as directed by the Engineer. Class A Stone is to be used.
Special Stilling Basins -The special stilling basins shall be used to filter pumped water during construction of
drilled piers. Basins shall be placed so the incoming water flows into and through the bags without causing
erosion. The neck or spout of the bags shall be tied off tightly to stop the water from flowing out of the bag
without going through the walls. No more than 50 NTTTs may enter Little River.
Safety Fence- The work of Safety Fence shall consist of furnishing, installing and maintaining polyethylene or
polypropylene fence along the outside riparian buffer, wetlands or water boundary, located within the
construction corridor, to mark the areas that have been approved to infringe within the buffer, wetlands or
water, and as directed by the Engineer. The fence shall be installed prior to any land-disturbing activities.

Preconst'ruction Conference Minutes
B-,~ 865
Page 7
STRUCTURE
Contractor advised that Gemini Drilling will do drilled piers; Harris Perry will do clearing.
Submit working drawings in accordance with Article 105-Z of the Standard Specifications and the
requirements of this Special Provision. Submittals are only necessary for those items required by the Standard
Specifications, other Special Provisions, or contract plans. Make submittals that are not specifically noted in
this Special Provision directly to the Resident Engineer.
Cross Hole Sonic Logging -Use the non-destructive testing method called Cross Hole Sonic Logging (CSL)
to verify the integrity of the drilled pier and the quality of the concrete. The Engineer will determine the
number of CSL tests and which drilled piers will be CSL tested on this project. Drilled piers are referred to as
piers in this Special Provision.
Adhesively Anchored Anchor Bolts or Dowels -This work consists of furnishing all necessary labor,
equipment and materials and performing all operations necessary for installing anchor bolts/dowels in concrete,
using an adhesive bonding system, in accordance with the details shown on the plans and with the requirements
of this Specification, unless otherwise directed.
Constructiof~, Maintenance and Removal of Temporary Access at Station 21 +48.00 -L-
Construct, maintain and remove the temporary access required to provide the working area necessary to
construct the bridge and, if applicable, remove an existing bridge. 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 permits.
Temporary Rock Causeway - Do not construct or remove causeway (in the river) during the moratorium
period shown on the permit. If the completion of the deck slab falls within the prohibitive dates for causeway
construction or removal, begin causeway removal immediately following the prohibitive dates.
PERMITS
The US Army Corps of Engineers and DENR have issued permits for this project. A buffer certification has
been issued by the Division of Water Quality. The Contractor shall comply with all applicable permit
conditions during construction of this project.
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) authorizing the project, 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 of construction methods not specifically
identified in the permit.

Preconstiuction Conference Minutes
B-3865
Page 8
Where construction moratoriums are contained in a permit condition which restricts the Contractor's activities
to certain times of the year, those moratoriums will apply only to the portions of the work taking place in the
waters or wetlands, provided that activities outside those areas are done in such a manner as to not affect the
waters or wetlands.
All storm water runoff shall be directed to sheet flow through stream buffers at nonerosive velocities, unless
otherwise approved.
During construction of the project, no staging of equipment of any kind is permitted in waters of the U. S. or
protected riparian buffers.
Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed on mats, or other measures must be taken to minimize
soil disturbance. This is only within the footprint. Mechanized clearing can be used for access as long as
nothing is disturbed.
Contractor was reminded that any permitted temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected
areas returned to their pre-existing elevation.
Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming in contact with fresh waters of the state
until the concrete has hardened. Concrete from the barrier rail construction tends to drop into the stream.
Concrete must be contained.
At no time shall more than one fill causeway be permitted within the Little River. At no time shall a fill
causeway obstruct greater than 50 percent of the cross section of the Little River. Contractor was reminded
that he cannot exceed footprint shown in the permit.
Resident Engineer will contact PDEA to get drawing that shows buffer impacts.
Filter fabric should be installed under stone. This makes removal much easier.
Jamie Shern advised that the current bridge was constructed in 1955. He will check on historical significance.
Demolition of the existing bridge will be accomplished by non-shattering technique.
All standard procedures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
The Resident Engineer and the Contractor will schedule monthly construction meetings.
Contractor was reminded to keep turning radius flagged off and wear lanyard while operating a crane.
There were no further questions and/or comments and the meeting was adjourned.
S. T. WOOTEN CORPORATION
~2-~-cry
DATE APPROVED
NAME AND E
Fri ~...k ~ft~Z ~2/ ~ S=?rJc.~'.~ras ~ ; J . s . ,,.~ /kcnc~ ~I

~M'f
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTTVIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS I,yl,~pp 'I~p~
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 8, 2004
~ ~~LS~ V
WBS Element: 33311.3.1 (B-3865) D
Contract No.: C200846 ~ ~ T ~ 8 2004
F. A. No.: BRSTP-1002 (18) DENR • WA fin,
County: Johnston ~ANP ~~ ~RANCtt
Description: Bridge over Little River and Approaches on SR 1002
SUBJECT: PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE AND PERMTI' MEETING
IVIr. Eric Frazier
S. T. Wooten Corporation
P. O. Box 2408
Wilson, North Carolina 27894-2408
Dear Mr. Frazier:
Per ow conversation, the preconstruction conference and permit meeting for this project is being
scheduled for Thursday, October 28, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. The preconstruction conference is contingent
upon the award of the project by the Board of Transportation. The conference will be held in the
Conference Room of the Wilson Division Office. Our office is located at 509 Ward Boulevard in
Wilson, N. C.
Please be prepared to present the following documents at this conference: progress schedule, letter
naming persons authorized to sign Supplemental Agreements, and letter naming your Company EEO
Officer and Minority Liaison Officer:
We look forward to meeting with you at the above time.
Cordially yowl,
W~
Wendi O. Johnson, PE
Division Construction Engineer
Post Office Box 3165, WiLsoq North Cazolina 27895-3165
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]

Mr. Eric Frazier
October 8, 2004
Page 2
c: Ron Lucas (FHWA)
Dr. Garland Pardue (US Fish & Wildlife)
Mike Bell (US Army Corps of Engineers)
Ncky Thompson (NCDENR)
John Holley (NCDENR, Land Quality Section)
David Cox (NCWRC)
Scott L. VanHorn (NCWRC)
Ron Sechler (National Marine Fisheries)
Progress Energy (Sammy McFarland)
Tri-County EMC
Sprint (Kenneth Grotjan)
Adelphia (Nora Hensley)
ec: Cecil L. Jones, PE
Donald Pearson
Robert Simpson
Andy Brown, PE
Bryant Bunn, PE
Andy Pridgen
Shannon Sweitzer, PE
Lloyd Johnston, Jr.
Mike McKeel, PE
Kevin Lacy, PE
Victor Barbour, PE
Ellis C. Powell, PE
Don G. Lee
Mohammed Mulls, PE, CPM
Dean Argenbright, LG
Jimmy Marler
Jamie Shern
Michael Robinson, PE
Warren Walker, PE
Haywood Daughtry, PE
John Williamson
Brandy Carter
Chris Kreider, PE
David R. Henderson, PE
Jermery Armstrong
Willie Bryant
T. M. Little, PE
Gerald McCauley

~ d
i
s
2
as~Ev
n y-~
~~l~`a,M°,d
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 12, 2004
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
04O°~g0
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael Bell
NCDOT Coordinator
LYrmo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
NoiJ~o3s ~.~~-no ~~ld~
ti00Z 0 ~ ~3~
dnoao anti ~ saN~~x~nn
SUBJECT: Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit Application for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 212 on SR 1002 (Rains Mill Rd.) over
Little River, Johnston County. Federal Project No. BRSTP-
1002(8), State Project No. 8.2312601, T.LP. No. B-3865.
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
Bridge No. 212 over Little River [DWQ Index # 27-57-(20.2) Class "WS-IV NSW"].
The project involves replacing Bridge no. 212 on new alignment immediately west of and
parallel to the existing bridge. This alternate was selected because it is the most
economical option that maintains traffic service on-site.
IlVIPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
A small area of jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by the proposed project. The
construction of bridge no. 212 results in permanent impacts by mechanized clearing of
0.015 acres and fill of 0.007 acres wetland,
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
Bridge No. 212 is currently 225.0 ft. long and located on SR 1002 over Little River in
Johnston County. It has a reinforced concrete deck on I-beams supported by reinforced
concrete caps and piles at approximate 45-foot centers. There is potential for the concrete
components of the bridge to be dropped into Waters of the United States during
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

a
` 9
` ~
construction, resulting in temporary fill of a maximum of approximately 115 cubic yards.
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
Bridge No. 212 will be a three span continuous for live load 54 inch prestressed concrete
girder bridge, requiring bents to be at the waters the waters edge. Construction of the
bridge will require the need for a temporary causeway.
TEMPORARY CAUSEWAY
The construction of bridge no. ~ the use of causeways consisting of 36 tons
of Class II Rip Rap to provide access to the site for construction equipment. The
resulting temporary surface water fill will be 0.052 ac.
The materials used as temporary fill in the construction of the rock causeways, will be
completely removed. .The entire causeway footprint shall be returned to the original
contours and elevations after the purpose of the causeway has been served. After the
causeways are no longer needed, the contractor will use excavating equipment to remove
all materials. All causeway material will become the property of the contractor. The
contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for removal of and disposal of all
materials off-site.
NEUSE RIVER BASIN RULES
This project is located in the Neuse River Basin; therefore the regulations pertaining to
the Neuse River Buffer Rules will apply. A no practical alternative analysis has been
done, and the design has been evaluated to avoid and minimize impacts to buffers. There
are 5873.0 square feet of allowable impacts to Buffer Zone One and 3214.0 square feet of
impact to Zone Two.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 29 January 2003,
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists four federally protected species for Johnston
County.
A Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" was reached for the Red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis) due to lack of habitat. Surveys for two species have just been
completed for Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Tar spinymussel
(Elliptio steinstansana). A site search for the Dwarf wedgemussel and Tar spinymussel
was conducted in October 22, 2003 and no individuals were found, therefore the
Biological Conclusion is "May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect". Available
habitat for Michaux's sumac was surveyed in June 25, 2001 and no individuals were
2

found. Since the survey was conducted more than two years ago a new survey will be
conducted before the construction of the project, due to the expired time.
Federally-Protected Species for Tohnston County
ommon Name cientific Name tatus
ed-cockaded wood ecker icoides borealis ndan eyed
warf wed a mussel lasmidonta heterodon ndan eyed
ar s in ussel lli do steinstansana ndan eyed
ichaux's sumac hus michauxii ndan eyed
KEY: Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
PROJECT COMIVIITMENTS
• Although the shortnose sturgeon is not on the most recent USFWS list of Federally
Protected Species for Johnston County, the NCDOT committed in the CE document
to avoid the necessity of in-stream activities during the spring migration period of
shortnose sturgeon (February 1 to June 15).
• Implementation of High Quality Water erosion control standards are recommended to
minimize the impacts to the mussel fauna occurring at the site as well as avoid
potential impacts to populations that may occur downstream of the project area.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the construction of the temporary causeways will
be authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access
and Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33
authorizing construction of the causeway. All other aspects of this project are being
processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in
accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(6). The NCDOT requests that these activities be
authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 ~'R number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15,
2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3361 and 3366
will apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing
two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their records.
Neuse Buffer Rules: This project lies within the Neuse River Basin; therefore, the
regulations pertaining to the Neuse River Buffer Rules will apply. There are 5873.0 ft2 of
impacts to Buffer Zone One and 3214.0 ft2 of impacts to Buffer Zone Two. These uses
require written authorization from the Division or the delegated local authority.
Therefore, NCDOT requests written authorization for a Buffer Certification from the
Division of Water Quality.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org//planning/pe/naturalunit/Permit.html.
3

s
f
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information please call Chris Manley at [phone] or via a-mail at
cdmanley C~ dot. state.nc.us
Sincerely,
r_
~-~~-
Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
w/attachment
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment .
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J. H. Trogdon, P.E., Division 4 Division Engineer
Mr. Jamie Shern, Division 4 DEO
Mr. William T Goodwin , PE, PDEA Project Planning Engineer)
4

Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. ~ ~ ®~ ~ o
(If anv particular item is not applicable to this proiect. please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:NW 23, NW 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copybecause written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. ff payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and. the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3147 Fax Number: 919-766-9794
E-mail Address: tg [e-mail]
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 8

,
T ` 1
III. Project Information
Attach ea vicinity mad p~c early 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 Replacement over the Little River, Johnston County
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3865
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Johnston Nearest Town: Princeton
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Bridge No. 212 over the Little
River on SR 1002
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/L.ong): 35° 29'N, 78° 08'30"W
(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. Property size (acres): Rural
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): The Little River
8. River Basin: Neuse
(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/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: A 225 ft. reinforced concrete deck on I-beam bridge.
Page 2 of 8

~,
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:-
Replacement of existing bridge on new alignment immediately west of existing bride with a
three span prestressed concrete girder bridge. Cranes, Earth moving equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace bridge no. 212.
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.
None
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
None
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
Page 3 of 8

.n
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:None
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
1 fill 0•~~ yes
1 clearing 0.015 yes

* List each impact sepazately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, sepazately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Yeaz floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps aze available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at httoJ/www.fema.aov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Cazolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.022 ac.
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Im act Perennial or
Intermittent?
(leases i )
1 fill 0.052 ac. Little River

* 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 lineaz footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several intemet sites also allow direcC download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.t~ozone.com,
www.mapguest.wm, etc.).
Page 4 of 8

Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site:
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, ,estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number

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

(acres)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,

ba ,ocean, etc.)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. 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.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT "Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters" will be strictly enforced durinf the entire life of the project.
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
Page 5 of 8

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 Mazch 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment aze 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.
ff 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 Cazolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. 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/lineaz 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.
No proposed mitigation.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Cazolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http:/Ih2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. 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 (lineaz feet): zero
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): zero
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): zero
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): zero
Page 6 of 8

Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): zero
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federaUstate) land?
Yes ® No ^
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: ff you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
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 )?
Yes ^ No ^ 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* (s uareafeet) Multiplier M~ anon
1 5873.0 3
2 3214.0 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of zone 1.
Page 7 of 8

_ff 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.
n/a
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
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.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
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.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application?
Yes ^ No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
4- -- Zlsl o
Applic,~nt/Agent's Signature ~ Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

NORTH CAROLINA
SITE

~~
%~ e;`.
`
~
2407

G~
~° -
o
2316 ° 237 f ~ z
i ~o~ ~ !
y U
~+ _
BEGIN PROJECT ~'~ '•, e` ~~ j
~,
`~ '~
`~ 2342
`

a
~ ~
't Ppif~e'
% .p
'•
o
p ~ ,
, ~D. 1 2 ,
'~
~~ a
~
END PROJECT
~ 23,6 ,
~ ~ `-'~
~.~.
2371 ~,
.
~ fA7
2
~
~
`.•
~~
70 Z 15 ~.\`
o
~
\`
i
3
! ~ 24137 a
' o
1 '•_~ )• r

•
.
'~ i
I X32 0, ~o
° \ ~
~ .-.i..~
``•L' •\
.
~„ 1
2314 ~o 2556
Gb2 .
~•
~
~ ~° 2316
` . _.__.r~
`
` E~
2532 2404 o
2372
'•
i
. 556 Peon SL 2371 ~~
2531 lY ~i~'
° 53 2372 ~ 57 _.._..- i
~ r."_
~~ ~c ~ 2581
Q~cp ~ 2535 a p 258

A. ~I `L~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ZC ~ T ~ ~ ~T ~ ~ ~ JOHNSTON COUNTY
~/ i 1 ~! PROJECT: 8.231`_'601 (B-3865)
~~ BRIDGE N0.212
V
R
E
OVER LITTLE DI
ON SR 1002
SHEBT 1 OF 8 S/ 26/ 03

~•1+IlB~~ WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
tPOND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
®DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
• • •• • • • CLEARING
-•~ -~ FLOW DIRECTION
Tt~ TOP OF BANK
°••-•WE ••- EDGE ~OF WATER
-- ~ -- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
---~ -- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
--- NG--- NATURAL GROUND
---~-- PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- pDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
--EAB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPg D
E
PLANT BOUNDARY
-••-•--••-•--••-••--•- WATER SURFACE
xx 7fk >r X LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
--~ CORE FIBER ROLLS
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-4g•
tDASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54• PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
.. .. .. .. W000S LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF. AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
WITH LEVEL SPREADER (PSH)
LEVEL SPREADER tL5>
} GRASS SWALE
~~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHNAYS
JOHNSTON COUNTY
PROJECT:8.2312601 (B-3865)
BRIDGE N0.212
OVER LITTLE RIVER
ON SR 1002
SHEET 2 OF 8 3~ 26~~03

N
D
o
•• a~ -- -ar 'y~
,; 1
•• • `~ I 7 ``~ ~
- i ,I
.
•
~

~
~

\`
1
N •
a II ; ~
•
i ~Z m ~Z ! I
lk ~ ~
' ~ ~ Oo O
~
cn O ~~ O ~
m ~ r a
~ i
,
I :I ~
~ i. m ~p~ o
Opp
~ o
c

O~ a ~ m 70
mom ~m Zn ~
~
I
~
~

C
~~
O
o ~~ •"0~.~
•
• 1
v
~
~

N ~~~ z~ na
o =
~ .
I , I ~
~ ~O~
~ .
c
O ..
O -<
m a
2 N I ~ ; ~ ~ • ~ O ;'~
~
p ~
m ~ I ~
I ~ ~
,
~ •
' ~ ~
m
o I ~~
I i
~ ~
Tc ~
N
---~ ~ ~
-(t "°
~ ~~
-c ~ ~
~
Tc ~ ~

__ -
m
~
~
~
~ '~ I ~ -
_' ny ~ ----------~ -------'-~
E~ ~' ~
'
cn 'fir 'E'
~ I
~
~ ~
c ~ ~ `• ~

z

~

~
~ ~ 4

-
_ ~~ TB
-.___._.._.._. ~. ---
~ -
W
E
rn
m
N
C
~ N m d
~ f~ ~ ~ 'F---
o
~m
~o I i N

-1 .' _ _
m m ~ ,E, ~ _
•- _
r ~°
o ~ ^F ~ ~ TB _`WE ' -

•.
--
Z ~ ,u aB ...
•~

S ~ _- __-__ ~ _____- _. . .
\
~!
~ ~ d ~ I I ``~~~~
O

C ~ ~r ~
O O C ~_
~,
, _ I
o

O°
~ O
O ~ ~

n
O Qj~' N
~b

C
.~q z
~ Oy
~.., d ~"
h7 Z O ~ ~
'
3 ~ z a
~ cn , O
~

1 ~ o

^
~
~ ~b
~ ~ ~ .
~ z ~ ~ N ;, n ~ O ~, ~ I
I ~
~
~ ~
z ~ ~ ~
~n~ ® O ~~, 1
~~ ~ X ~
~ D O°
r
~
$ l~
~ o
° O 41 r "
~ ~ 1~', I
~ ~ m ~ "'~
C
,~
~ .
r
,
a ''3 ,0 9~i I '-, = G7 ~
~
w
\ h
~~ ~
~ r+ a ~
~ /
~ ~ a
rN

~
~ ~~ i ~

u, ~ ~ z ~ +
-~
~~
- oy a mo
o~
n g o-I i ~
boo
R ~ ~~~
e x ~~
~ ~ `
o 0
~ ~
~ ~ ~~ ~ o
~ ~ 8mo i i .
b g -~ _ I I
~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~' ~----- I I
~ ~----
~ '' i i t_V
I I
~ I I
~"'~ i t
d~4
I I
____________~ I
~ I I
~`\ i i ~
I I
I
y ~~~
~ N ~ I I --
~ ~ v ~
O iy ti C tp
a ~ ~ ~ v' b
~ Cd t7 ,~ ~ !I n O y k
~ zrv~az~ gg~ c~ ~ .N
o ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ 11~
N r~ N ~ ~" ~ I `
C~~z2~ ~~
tai w `~ y ~ ~
~ a. `~ ~ 1 ~
~~
w j ~
~ ` j ~~ ~ ~.
~° O ~ ~ N ~
~ ~ O O - ~~O O
~ ; ~

o
n ~z
'~
~

(A <
O
~ C Z
-i •N
f~'1 0
'U
-+ m ~ -_~
N ~ ; m o
~
m O O
~ m
o ~
coo
r- ~ ~co
::.,
~

w
r ~
m c~
N~ ~
?~ ~
p
-i N N
N
~ -D
O
~
D ~C
N i w
~ D
m

~ D~
'D
n ~i
~ O p~
_
'D ~ O ~
~ n ~
~ Z ~
m w
N
W
O
N
-~
A
~ l~
m
D ~
m ~~~
~
s
ca o ~ C1~1

C ~
~ ~_
v:
~1
.~
° C
rJ
~ ~
G ~
? ~ ~ O
z ~ ~
n
m z ~ ~~o o ~ o G~
r

o r
~ z ~ n
O o O
o ~
C ~ ~••' r"
~ a ~ ~
2 /~
w
~
~ ~ ~" d ~
o~

PLAN VIEW
Pipe or Di
Ou
Square Pry
Scour Hole
(Rip Rap in
basin not
for clarity
SECTION A-A
F~//s/ 0 ptletr Ditch
PSRM
e
~D -- 2•~ d
Liner: Class I Rip Rap -/
18" thick with Filter Fabric
PERFORMED SCOUR HOLE WITH
LEVEL SPREADER APRON (PSH)
(Not to scale)
tuck
_ Natural
~~ound
g 4 . t D 2 -f t
W 10 ft d I ft
CLASS I RIP RAP 17 Tons
1~T(CIID®~~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
JOHNSTON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2312601 (B-3865)
BRIDGE N0.212
OVER LITTLE RIVER
ON SR 1002
SHEET 6 OP 8
ai s6~ os
Install level and flush
... S .1. l-. .-~ ~ 1. .._ ~ I .._ .. .. _l

~~®~~~~ ~l ®V'V' ~~~~
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PA RCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
DB 1639 PG 526 EDDY C. CAPPS 1392 RAINS MILL ROAD
PRINCETON. NC 27569
DB 1964 PG 37 HANSON AGGREGATES PO BOX 13983
O MB 56 PG 434 CAROLINA INC RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK.
NC 27709
BK 1202 PG 375 MALTON G. BAKER X30 McCORMICK DR.
O SELMA. NC 27576
DB S57 PG 327 RAINS MILLING CO. UNKNOWN ADDRESS
~8 MB 6 PG 259
~~~©~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
JOHNSTON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8..2012601 (B-3865)
BRIDGE N0.212
OVER LITTLE RIVER
OI~T SR 1002
SHEET 7 OF 8 E/ 26/ 03

+ z ~!?
D ~ m
r
N

W O
T ~
O ~
~ O
O O O
7

z cn 2
D N ~
~ C
fD
N
O O T
O O n ~
V V a
pl
7
~
O O C
< ~
N
V N
V Cf ~ ~
j T
N ~

X
~ Z
v
;
`° D
° ~
~
°: C7
~ 'o' ~ ~
y ~..' ''^^
'~ VJ

O O N .~ ~
O O d? d N
~
cn cn °a ~. ~
N
~O d

T
z

° N
n c ~

~
_ T
-
= N
C
m
~
° ~
~~3 ~
'n

aD ~
~ cAi
m
O D
T 0 0 ~
~ 3 .-~
0 0
cn 0
cn ~
~ N ? m
~
N N ~ -~
_
~ z
D

G)~ p vv
m0 ° ^~ ~ ~ cn
~ <m m m<c

N ~ W
p
~~
fA
jV
~
'
s
y
Gr L T~
'
D O •~•~ d
p m N = Z
;U ~ N
rn
N r~
G
~< ~

~
.Z_I ~ O ~ o0
T
o m v `:' z „
w ~
N
O

O N
~ ~
N m
~

O C~
~
~
~
C
J
D
A
n~ ~
t/1
o m ~
~~~
m
?

NORTH CAROLINA
23 t6 Z37 f
•, BEGIN PROJECT ~' o
-~.
a
,•` a z31s
D
1 .iia„_
i '9'~ag 2316 ~•
23.~~ ~ 2371
r
.4 2~( }
° To 2315 f 2~
:' ~
~• ~ ~ ~ 24131 0
0
-32 p~ TO
z 3 ~4 To, 2556 'os,~ ~ 1002
,, ~ ;2316
~~ 2407 c~o-~
o
u
a
4` 23541

ND PROJECT
2532 ~ ~ zvo~a ° arz
i
556 Peorl St. 2~ f ~`
253 f >y y~. 534. 2372 `~ 57 ....----' ~
v ,. 536 o i.~
~~~~ To 258;1
Q~~' ~~ 2535 a p 258 r
. ~~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHNAYS
J ~ ~ ~ ~T ~ ~ ~ JOHNSTON COUNTY
~Y 1 ~! PROJECT: 8.2312601 (B-3865)
~~ BRIDGE N0.212
OVER LITTLE RIVER
ON SR 1002
SHEET 1 OF 6 b/ 26/ 03

-~-wLB~~ WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
WETLAND
L PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
AILOwaBLE a~roaCTS ZONE i (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
~~~~~~~
iiiiiii
iiiiiiiii
alLOwaBIE wPaCTS ZONE u
SINGLE TREE
--~ -~ FLOW DIRECTION •
Te ~ TOP OF BANK •- •• •• •• W000S LINE
-----WE -- EDGE OF WATER
DRAINAGE INLET
__ ~ __ PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
----- ROOTWAD
-- F -- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
--~-- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
--- NG--- .NATURAL GROUND RIP RAP
---~-- PROPERTY LINE •
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE 5 OR PARCEL NUMBER
EASEMENT IF AVAILABLE
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
--EAg-- EXIST. ENDANGERED WITH LEVEL SPREADER cPSH)
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
--EPB-- E PL
O
ANT BOUNDARY
-.~._.._._.._.-.._ WATER SURFACE LEVEL SPREADER cL.S)
X ~x X X LIVE STAKES

BOULDER
-~- GRASS SWALE
~~ CORE FIBER ROLLS
~~~®~
DIVI5I01~T OF HIGHSVAI'S
JOHNSTON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2312601 (II-38b5>
BRIDGE N0.212
OVL'R LITTLE RIVER
oN SR 1002
SHEET 2 OF 8 3,~ 26 /' 03

n Crt
~ ~~ 2~ ~ ~ ~~
~~~~ a~ -_~-=`f
•~~ ~~
~
- ~ ~ I
1 ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
I " \ ~

r ~ ~\
1
2
~~~ Z ~ i ~ ~
'; ,
` i ~
~~ ; o, ~
r ~
~, ~
m
• c~ cn r

5 ~ n o ~ ~

i (
~
i.
ii ~o ~

I

~

.SI

0000
o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m O
~ a
C
~
g
,
_
~ ~ ~ m ~ ~
~ H z c~ ~ ~
~ o 0
0 0 'p Re
0° ~ v
v
N N n~ ~1 I ~ C .C ~ ~ ~
N ~ o
~,
w i
N 1 ~ •, . ~.
, • ~~~
;~,~ ~
~ ~. ~
~ -a
~

~1F-
~re~~

```
I
; ,, i
!
,~ ~•
,~ ~ ~
Tc
~
~' '~ '~` ` ~~`y N
-•---•-- ~- WE •"
••-•
~• ~ ;F
~
-
~
--•
~ ~ '~_..
~ -
_ -
~
-. _
•
___._.._. --
__.._..~_.__.._.~_•_ T

~
` •" W E
m `~
~ -F-- o a Z
N m
~
f~ I~ ~

~
1 N
~~-
-
~--- ..

~ ~ ~ TB ---.-AWE -

,Ti N •• - ~ ~ ~ - CD
W r _ N

O
d
`C7 r-. ~
~
~~
.~ ~
~
1 0 ---

O --~

_`_~_ _ ~

a
C ~, C ~ ~
O~ ~ -
o
O
~
O ($ N
N
o
~o C
p~
z ~ ~ z o~ ~ I:
d;~~z
z ~ ~
°
1 ~ ~ ~-b C ~l
~
r ~ 0
°° _ ~' " z ~' ~
gy t°
o~ ~
m.
ooQ~~ ~oAN-1 ., ~
y ~ ~~ a
~
` ~
C ~
~ a Z 2
c~ ~ - r, _ 1
:~ a •C
O
v ~ '1 ~

e~
~
~ rt
I
:L1 ,
~ ~ I ' I /
W I~, "A /

O O

Q
C
~ ~
~
.~
..
c7
N
O
z
~
~ ~

r
~
~ y ~
r
G?~
~ ~
~

~ d
o ~ ~, :
~ C O O
O te _
ary x
~ o ~ ~ z
r ~
ao ~n '-3 O •°'
G7 ~~ O
:G O
~
~ ~ ~•+
I ~ ~ ~ O x
~
O ~ Y ~
~ eo ~ l a
,:i
"'
« ~ ~ -~
\ ~~ ~~:
0

rn
n ~

~~ I
~ 1
a~
o
~ ~
II nnn y
C
O
~
b~~
~
to
~c
II n "I
~ ~ ~
b ~ ,°~
~~
I I
~-----
/ r-----
I I
I I
I 1
I I
--_-,~_
I
I I
I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
~________~ I

m~
~~
r
~~
Jn
-.
~ i i
m
co
v
b n g~ ~~
gN ~
b~O~ C~ \~~ 1 ~ o
-~ m
1~
1
i ~
1 ~
1 ~
~ ~
LD
o~
N ~
NI
wi

~~®~~~~ JL ®~~1Ce~~
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
O DB 1639 PG 526 EDDY C. CAPPS 1392 RAINS MILL ROAD
PRINCETON. NC 27569
~q DB 1964 PG 37 HANSON AGGREGATES PO BOX 13983
I~IB 56 PG 434 CAROLINA INC RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK.
NC 27709
BK 1202 PG 375 MALTON G. BAKER 130 McCORMICK DR.
5 SELMA. NC 27576
DB 557 PG 327 RAINS MILLING CO.
O MB 6 PG 259
UNKNOWN ADDRESS

O ~'
~
D ~
m

r z
p
N
1
~1
C
~
a -
C C
~
~ ~
mm

N
m

T
07
r O D
~ ~
+
~ ~O
pZ

Tl ~
~p
x Zv ~
~ -~ C
-c -~
v rn "tl
~D m
D ~ T
~+
n
i m
r

~'
m ~ ... O D
w w ~% m ~ i

N r
~ VI
W
N
,
~
Z
~
~ /~
V J
,
a. a m D ~ C
O O N ~ ^

r l J

0 ~,
0 -~
-- o m -~ ~

~
°°
v
~ D a
o c ~
O
.-.
N Z
o -- m
c

N
.. O
--
"' m ~
0

...
-
C N
r
m
-~
~D
V
c r
0
O ~
.-.
Z m
'

-- m D
~
r
D C
n ~
mm

o m
_ m~
"m

... Z
N "'~

$$4444$$$$$€SSSSOGN4444454334s44ss4
s44sUSERNAME4sss
co~TR
aoo
~ N O N N
7O ~
O O ~jj O O
Sri
Zb n
0 0 o y o y
o g g ~
~ gg
~<~v~w°w H
+ u n n n n u x
vo~°'~a~ b
~ „ ~ o o a
A =
~ v o
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~~g
~~~
rn ~ ~
~~~
~~~ y
m
w W ~
"' ~° ~
N
c
0
II $ N
OD ~
'owe II II
C ~ IJ
~a.0
W V
~ m
J
V! ~ ~ V1
~I e ~
Fm T'~
~~~~~
~e. z
~ R e~ g
`m n ~y ~
Z m ? ~
Z tim ~ ~
~ ~
70 ~
0 m .€~;3
s 5
_ -9 °~~
Z m za~~
~~
~ n
~ y
~ ~ ~
~~
~~
y
~x
~~ ~~
~~
~ ~~
~y
~ ~°x
;T 8.2312601 TIP PROIE~-.~
ro
8~
tr1
~~
~~
~~
~~
~r
~z
A~ ~~\ ~
x ~~~~ ~~ ~/ ~ ~
~~ ti
y ~e
2 , ~ : ~~
o I/ i ~ ~oa
1 ~
o `^
y AA
i
NN
*~
o % ~~
~~ • ~ \~ rte'
~ ~~ i i
\~ ii
° / I ~ '' ~
o ~"
~A ~ , / mb
a~ / n~
~w ~~ ' ~~
"' , ~ l v
~~ i~ ~cn
~~
Q I I m
~ i
I' /
010 '~d / ~ I I
o ~
4
o II
~-7 I I
l.J ~ ~~
G/TTG~c \
~f ~ RNE'R
~` ` `~
a. ~
~.~.
,-`~ ° ° - - - - ~I I ~-~
~~ - I
~ ~_--~ ___~-. ~`Ibl
'' I '„ // 1
~ - - ig~ A
~~,\ h~
~~ ~~I
i' a ,~
o~~g'- ---mg AA
o~
mm
1 °' °'
rr
22
~ 00
I ~ ~
E~ ~,
~rn
o ~j ~~
0
y ~ ~
N
m
1 ~m
A O I ~' "'
w
n
m 2
U~
r n
I ~
= 1 I ~1 0
gz-0 N
m
d ~
n }p` "` i l
~n a n ~ ~ y
~ n n
a a •~
_~,
~ ~ ~ ~ g `\
Q G m i'.-`~-~'~'~
/,, '~~
~ / ~
0 ~ ~ ~ "~ ~o ~' ,~
~... - - ~
~) ~ o
~__ ;~
~ ~~ ~
O
~ ~
C~
~~ ~ x
"_
~~ N
b ~ so
o~
`a~
r~ ry
C o
N
b
tics .
' ~~
O n
~$I
`~
tti n
~~
00
o~
~~
~x
~~
~_
g~
O 1-I
0 ®~
~~
O ~~'
Vl J

SSESSSSSEEIS45$SSDGNSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
~°, ~ C ~' T ~ .o ~ o ~ ~
H
~ ~
'° -moo -moo ~ ~
°
°
° -'v ~+ ~
° "'v ' ~ ~
° ~
o '
~ ~ ~m
~ -o
a ~ A -o -v ~
a
a
~
v -o
v ~
~ A
d a
O ~ 3 ~ ~
3 W m O
~
C M
~ ',
ov
',
o ;!t a ~, ~
', v
,~
~ o -,
-
o ',
o 3- m
mm
m ~ C
~ ~, IC 3 : Q ~ ~-~^ C
7
'' ~ ~
N
O ~ ~ ~ H
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~
~ W tC D m m W ~
~ ~, rt
z0
7 W ~
~ N C
~ ~ A ~ ~° S
O ~ 0 c
`
G ~pN -pN y.
~
' a
. G
.
W
~ ~ O ~ ~ .
-
A
~
~ °
°
~
O 3 ~ a a ~ ~
~ ~ 7 i~ O
; ~
y ~ S H
d ~ v A 3 .
~.
-
n - N VI C
~ S
~ • ~
~ ~ ~ ~ '"'
i .
+
C =
~ K n ~ 3` N ~
O W
W 0 ~ + n
~ ~ ~ O ~
C
7 7 ~~
7 - ~ 700 -n
3 ~ ~
~
'?I
A II
' '7 ~
C ~ N C ' ~ ~ ~ 7
~ 1P W
. ~ : ~ ~ ~.
h ~ ~ °
~ `" ~ ~C o
3 ~ 3 ~
Z 7
o V a ~ o, 2n
n
• l
7

~
' ~ ~ :
I
I i ~
n
I
I
~ Y I i
I
1 I ~ I ~ ~ y
r"
I
~ I Z I ~ I ~ l~ ~ I
'
m m
n n IDC11
~ D •
~
~ ~ I
I TI I
I^ I 70
- I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I
vfC* ~ ~ ~ ~ C O ~ C ~ ~ O C C
(G .. rt _
7 ~ lp m a IP ~
7 ~V -~ 0
~
' ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~

S ~ C N ~ "'

~
~~• W ~ 47 47 ~ 41 ~ a ~ °

O' fp 'O ~ 'O ~ a

~ ~

~ <
~
a
~
O
'p~ _
1p ~ 3

Z
~
~
~ 1
C ~
~ -1 ~ ~ _ ~ C
c o'. -o vs ~ ~ ~
~ 0 3 ° ~ W
,
~
o`
3 n ~ W 3 0 ~ ~ m o o`
m m c
o ~
o
~° .+
oa
c Ro O
70
y
m 7 (O ~ 0~ N a O~ A 7
0
n
~' fP 0 -I W
0 A ,
,
0$ 0 0~ A A~ rt rt l0 10
'O
'O ~ ~
1P p
fP
n O m
tP
m
0 ~
~
4i W
A ~; ~ 'O ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ in O
~ - ~
fp O 'O O
' 0 ~
O 0 G S ~
~
~ A ~' C. O ~ C ~NnC C
~ W
~ ~ O y
~ 'O
C ~ S ~ ~' d
~ ~ m
W _d ~ 7 ~' a O~ O ~~
o
~ W ~
O
~ ~'
W O ~. W D 1P
„
7
~_~ O ~• p ~ 0
O
O O
b O
~ o ~
~ ~ ~_
W
OD O~ O S 7
o A
~ -a x O ~ _ ~ e
o O
- 1p t0
= 3
o- W W a '
+
~
H cn
~
~ ~ .
O
~ ~
x
mo ~ ~

~ 0
= n.
0 0.,
: ~

3,i'
o
; a
_:
o ~

::
:
::::
: : : :
:
~ : : Z
:
:
:.
~ :::: ::
: :
::
::: ; . I ~
if ~
i f
~ I ~
~ ~I Z ®
~
~'. ~° c 3 = ~ ~ c -o -0~v -0 ~ 7v A
~~~as~:~~~~~~a~~~' -i A ~
_~ m ~
~ 70 p C p
~~o ~~'~ ~ ~ 70
~s p
~ 7v tin p 7o
s y~ p
~
~ O
~$ 70
~
~
~
~~
A 3 A~ ~ Z~~~' ~ ~~' 0 3 ~
S~ ~
°
«; -~ m m ~m
~ ~ a ~
a
a ~ ~
~ a .
m
~ b
a ~ ~ a •
~ a
a •
~ ~
a
r
-~,
~ _ W
sp
~ ~ r
G ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ C
7 7 ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ m p ~ •' 'n ~n O 0 ~C ` ~~p~q
d
~ 3 C O O ° A
~
O
"= C 7
~
7 W ~
~ m
`~ Ip ~-
7: ~i O
~
~' 7 ~
O 7
W _
N N
t9 O
~ ~
W
~
O. C
~
p C A A ~. ~
O W
c w
~
' ~ ~-1
~.
W p~
c
~ o ~ o ~ ~ A
o~ ~ w
° O C
m jn o o C
c c
~
Q- ~ ~~ c
~
70 ~ A
to ~ c
~'
. * ~%
~' ~ m
..S
.
~. c e
. h'
N
M ~
~ C m ~~
V C
V ~ ~
'. O
~ V
N ~

~' ~ m
I I I I I I I ~I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I ~ I I 1 ~ I ~ I I
m m ~° °m m~~ l m rv ;~ ~O ICJ ~ (
o. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~x ~'
~ I i I ~
I
I '" a e
I I .~
O I i I I ° 1 I
T ~ ~ ~ 1 I I I I i I i

N

~
i -
+ I I
I I I ~ I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I
N 70 ,,yam ~ Q ~ = to V1 C ~ 'fl
7O ~ ~ n o Q, m m S °_• g A ~ oo ao
~ ~ °x n: 'v ~ ~o
S o rc' A A = y N
° c ° ~ ~. c ~ N
m ~ p
0 A ~ to A
3 ~ s ~ ~
~ ~+
~ ~ ao
5.
~' ? c ~ ~ H c'°o ~ ~ = c o
~ ~- a. ~ ~ ~ H y 3 = 3 ~, $ ~ c °- m
o n:
S N H '« '
p
< C1 C t0 7
Q
.Z
3 ~
~ o
a pd
~
O
'O
W ~ W ~ ~
° S
~ ~
p ~ Cf - W
O W ~
~ ~
~
~
.
~
~ -1 N
~ C
~ ~ ~.
I
~
~
• 7
7~ O' N Q
O o
~ '
~ ~ ~
O
~
;
0 : ~ ~ Q
• V ~
~ ;
; ~ •~
$
; ~ ~ ~
w
~~
; : ; ^

~ o ~ I- ~
~
~'
I ~ ~~ ~

II I

I ° ~ I

x
~

EoNo

I I ~

~ ~ L

~ ~~
© ~?
o >~ ~ ~
K'v
~ I
I I I I ~ I
I IJ I ~ ~ y ~
.
u $ I o l ~ ~ I I I I I ~ I J
g ~- ~ ~ :. I J._~ I I

REVISIONS
~ ~ ~ °x
c~ ~
n ~ ~ ~
D ~ Z
n
r ~'c

~ ~
o ~ C~
C
Z ~
O ~ C ~
~ ~ Z
Q
D
A
m
00
m m
-1 -i
N ~
~~
-~ -~
D ~
O +
+ N
O O
O a
N O
--~ O
O ~
N ~
~n
n•
ti
~ +
+ N
Ql IT
~~
W L
01
-+c,
2 zi
N D
0
rm ~n
Z~ N
m0
L
ti
~~
• ~
x
O ,W
C
r
o a~
m }
~ W
x
c
n
o
n
r
0
C
Z
r
z
LW,
mom
-<`mm
0
zmm
00
D
m n v~
mom
N O
N C
~ ~
r
O p
m~
D O
~' n
o~
x
~ m
m~
nm
0
Z a 1
N
Z C 1
1~
h
C
z
G~
N
z~
i
n_
(`
ZW I
w
-IG1
2 2J ~

a C7
N

~
IT
~D
o

rm m

~ Z~
"'0
0
N
~ N
~ ~
D
D
N a
W + "~
+ (l~ ~
o ~ ~ m

r _
~
r°*i ~
z ° D
~
T
a~ o
m
R° .T~1 ? ~ ON '0
O
I O ~
c~
+
y Z
-+
rn m o
o N
O O
N O O N ~
~ .-.
~~ N
Dm
~ 2 Q -1
+OW
N '~ O
0o
o
~
o r„
-

x m

~
~_
Z
-
N
O Z

A HINGE POINT
~ FOR CU 5
z ~6' a Q'
?
c~
c
n
o <
D
r
°.'
v~ ~7
m
C
m
D
m
J m
z
-~
m
p
_ ~ m
N
r
0
v
m
J Z
r
m
to
N
0
m
N
m
Z
\ O
J ~
m
p
m
~n
-~ G7
Sal
N~
rm
Z ~
m0

~ O
~
~
r I ~ N
~ ~
D
<
tn
^? D~-1 ^ ~
n~" m
D ` , I V1
lON ~ I O
N O
+ +
o O ~+
O O
r OO ~
I
' _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ~
i ~ ~ ^
` J ~ ~
O O `~ <
NN ~ O D

D a ,~, n
~ m
N
pa m

N
~ O
~+
~lT
O
O O ~
a I ~ O
Z N
` ~
m ~ ~°
~
_ N

O
..i0
_ ~J
-~ ~ O

~
~
N D
a ~
r r"i
z~
m O
=
~ m
~
N
O z
C
0
~ HING POINT
g fOR CUTS
~ ~6' n 01
x y-
•

c
n
~ <
~
..
~~; A
m
0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 ~ W N 0 ~
~ <
,,, a m
x m
a v
~ Zpav
mz~ m~
N~ op-1~
~m~~ -v
tO~ env
o-~~ ~'v
-<~ z-+~
~~ -iv
-<~
m ~ ~,
--~ ~
--~ o
~ p-n o
m~n~ ono
p~ vvo
C'I -1m~ 00
W~D °
!p D-O ~o
my „~vo
Dmv vo
my
m ~
'O ~
~ m ~ m< ooa
' m?~< Dn
' mz~ ~v =~v ~v
p
Z =
~
~ =~x7D
ODZ7
• a
o
~~
~ D-I. D
~00~J
m
• D
-i
"D ADD
r«7
V1~
OU7~
Vl~

. D
m ° c~
~mmp
o ao
o
~a D~
zo nm•
p n~
o rnW~
O W~
o
, ~
~ m ~
n m r ~v z AO
m
-~ -~~ n' mD
pc» n
~_ AD
~-i' D
-
p ~
m= ~
m
z r °
n m~n-a
r-
N
m= w
n xv -~
~-
=
z N
<
a _
rn -+
z
x
~
^' n~
o --~
~
'
n ~ -+
~" D
~' ma aZ
r' D ~ ~ Z
• rZN Z
.

~
~
W D
~oOV' N
n=
ampa~ a
c~N
m r n n
n-1in
m n
ycn n
-<nN n
ncn
-v
D n
~ a
V1 D--= mD z_m= rn
= m
x mi ~mv
= mi ~
ITI
< m m Z Z d D
r r
A-1 Z Zl a
p nr ~J
DD ~l O D
Nrnr ~7 D
nr N ~1
as ~7 a
nr V1
m D p Wj~ mn ~jm
7 m~ zN f0r'I m~ m .ZJ
~ n
zm o p
z C
=mAO o° n
°ro O
Ao ~~' n
~o ~
N IpTIN f*~1n ~~ V1~C-1 TZ ~~CZ'~ nl (Z') ~Z -DI (zj ~
m ~ ~

a
o
Oo
n
m~
o
~
ivn
~
O~cn
mvi
mN
mN
~
=
v,
• --10tH il
oc
orn o
~rnm z
[n-~ ,,,,,ic
x~~ oc
rn~ o
-nC oc
rn~
m
AD°
Wo _
m~~ m
m~ n rn
m~~
° _T
Q'n
°' _~
,,D
° _rn
'°~
°
moo
DpC cnc
~ cnrm
cnW~ cnm
p m
o•
{ m
r rr',,
r m
r
(~r7-pN
'~ mm -i:"m m~ _
~ ~O ~O WO ~O
~m:
~ ~,_,1 Dip ~rn i jpA ~
m C
~ ~
-+
-+
~v cn-<
°m z~~
m ~^c'~
oo -otn
zmm tn
Am r,
jN
~
^ mtn
~m
n •• N r
D~ . O D~V1 ~ o~ O O O

~
~ =

• ~N D D D
O
m ~mn' v =:°
cn o o
n ~ ~ m m
xa
N
f'O
i ~
r
IV
N
r
O
m
m

>: ~,~
~z~
R
~
~
rs
e

T
ll ~ ? p.
~ M A
?r a
~°
fTl 'b
m ~
~
g
~°yN~~
~ ~~~a
_ -
m

C
r ~ sz
r'~ ~ ~'
iz ~~ ~
~
~ ~~
~
~
~
~r ~ >
~

m y N

6/2!/00
N
~ u
A e •
' ~
u
Y
a
a
~
~
+
:
° S
7
q
s s ~ ~ a
f
a ~ Yii 8 e ~i t
O G• 8 as ~
~
~ l
Y
LL
T L
T ~ } l
f ~ L
1 l
s l
5 T 7 ~ ~ ? °~
A R q ~ ~ R g q si A ~ ~ q R ~ uxAnoN M1r,Rr,at C4 r
~
JS q O ~ r s Q .~ w ~ a e ~ ~' . N ~ ROM Yt

w ~
31101CIUR! NO.
P P

o' r09 BJ.NA110N

p
P ~i
Y! RINlUT BEVA710N
~

SS T:
3J
T7 INVlRT HlVA710N
~ ~ lLOR CdI1CK
~~
~~
r
n
L
.ou R
oat ~
.011 ~
o~
~
.079
~~

.D79
R y

.,~ ~
~
.,69
~ ''--
15• SID! DRAIN fl7! yvJ
te• sroe DRAW 90!
u• sro! DRAIN 7N! ~
R.C.9. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
es.9. ~ ~~~~~ z
G ®'17
z
761 PACH ~aTNRU ec'1 rol y~
o

a.a nlRU loa
> lrwauas
. Tmu 1.9, rob rAr
y ~ ~

Ia0'ArJO AaOK
• nuANrmr u1AU u Coy
~~ + 112 x w1.m1
---~~Irrr I'.
~~I
C.0. SiD.610.01 OR SID. 6/0.02 I
~ ^ w

/r
Q
~ ~~~ ~ ~
z
~ ~
D.I. sm.610.ts D6 slD. 61066 ,p
Da.9uM! a eRATe s1D. Blau ~
MDJ. T?! •A SID. !10.17 OR 61036 '~
M.DJ. TT9! •r SID. 610.16 OR sa37
M.D~. TTn •w srD. sa.l9 0! uo26
M.D.1. RMA! WIM GM1E SID. 610.11
M.D.I. FRAM! WIM TWO MT ORAL SID. 61029

MD.1. QJ.S.) RAM! WIIN ORAI! SID. H021 `i
MDJ. (N.SJ 7RAM! WIIN iW0 GRATE SID.6/024 ~. ~~
J.0. STD. 610.11 OR 640.Y2 ~ z N
'

MDA RAM! Wrm TWO MT Gllgg STD. u629 ~ o
F~ ~. a
r=
MaUltl !R! BID SlCIION ~ A R.
~
n •
R y~
do P.
b

^~~~
uTCN aASIN RDAOVUlACn «•
v~~~
N N CORR. arm FIDOWf No. a SIZ! Ir ~ ~ $ ~
~~~
CONC. COLLMa Cl'r C.Y. STD 60!.71 ~
t~ CONC. i 6RIdC 91R RUfi, C.Y. S1D.61QT
'! Y ~ `~ r4 ~ RVE RlMOVU lRi.9T.
'~
k~~~ ~~''~~ a~
~ ~~ ~
~~ ~~~~ ~~
R ~ y O

~nsaVs
PARCEL 31 CHANGED RIGHT OF NAY TAKE i0 A PERMANENT DRANAGE EASEMENT.
PARCEL 41 ELDANATEO RIGHT OF TIAY TAKE OF 26 SF.
PARCELS L 3 !k A DLSTANCE CORRECTIONS. AT LOCATNINS NIIEAE PROPOSED R/W MATCHES EXOiTINO R/R.
PARCEL & DELETED EASEMENT AND -DRIYE2- AND AODEO A TFANORARY DRAINAGE EASEMENT
PARCEL 91 REVISED EASEMENT DUE TO ALIGNMENT CHANGES ON -DRIVEL-.
` \Qa~
~ 9
'~V 2
O IL~
~ ; ~,
~~ ~~
.. -• ,. •• ~•o2z
.•Ii
'~ i
'~ ~~ ~, 1
_ ' • `~
^l `' c^ q9 1
~'i ~~~~~' y015~~/.ice A 1 ~ -1
0
~~I'lr~• •. ~ 81
f ~
0 S v
C 1
\
1
O~
D~I~ Z _~ \ ' 1 t
z
~
~~ ;
O ~~~ ~
~
a~n ~
l \
~ \
f^ ~N GI
0 Z
m i
fg ~~, ~, ~ -
-DET/- PRC Sta.2f/3,82
BOA
n
r!
\
m 0
y ~ m ~ ~~K,LY9
II II HHii 11 V1
~
.•
•• ~ •' d,; Ol
uu~uo~,9t'~~oF I
m~li
Li
"in,•° X w/ l
~1 ~
m
A
_'~ r
q
~P

~Cm ~y~Op~
~ II
II
II II II y
~ •; Y
O
(p
~~ aa

fi
hl ~ a
~ ~t
~y~m~
H y
II fl ~ 9 H ~
0
~`°'ioCWm
~~~
~
a
3.H,f0.9YS
;-~
~Yf•YL1

f
~~ 0
11
yN 2
n
~Z
~~ A
N

mN f
n
•

Yc,4
e5
ti~,
Ia O
~-I~oD~ 0
~
S
un°nRCn
o
m
® c~ co
*
~y c
~~
d
'~d~ ~

e a
m
~ rn
~ ~
~
T
~ AD
b
i

la ~59~y6a8
m nI
``
~\I~
`V
m ~ ~ ~~ •n~n ...I
~I G) ~00 ~
~2 ~ 2 sss o 0
e
~ ve ~~~ c 5
A
a
~
IU n ~-Di -yi - ^~
~ PZa°
z z 7 oA0

`a
++ at +~ ITI
n
o
~ 2 ~
I ~ ~,
vNi of ° n
n y
Nm I=
CT
S
c 1 00~ ~ g+
~a 4
,
,
W
~
• V~
I >y> o
p S
°
, ~
2 = `°
ao
zi vm

~{G
4 :"O 11 1
N1111
~
« L
N °
° ~ T ~1 ~I ~'n

f~ ~ ~ -1 P
0
i ~~ a
i O
~~

N
~
n
g~
oo~
~y C11pTCHAT

T r
•
EXIS n
\
~,
rssm.
v ~
1~ ~
~ ~
~Tn \
~~~ 1
~D
m '~
a
~~~
/ m /
l
~ \ i~
Yp /
h . ti•~
1
.~~\\w~
1
~; m r^
r
f ~_
2
F
i i
m
!~ ,
\n O
\ ~.
0~-"2..oFNGF'. oo
/ M•tz'6~fSN-~
/ \ / ~ 0C99f1 /
t / /
9
v
~ \\
~ ~
d
\~: \
~`
~~~
~ , a ~
y J ~2
~ ' ;A
~ \~\
. ~\\
k/ ~
~
y $ /
'/~
c
Z r ~
\ ~

`P~~ 9 ~
\ O
m ~~~ 9 O
a~' ~ ~N 4b \ to 1 '~
t~?pvl t1
,"l%~y~ y9 1
s~ \P ~--
a ~ w a cw N ~~ x aT-
~m ~ y~ m ~N ~ ~~ c~ ' ~ ~~
-f.
I>1p [Dr2°2o~c~iy? n
tih m~z$n~2~pD~
a y= om-, o'er
c° °am~l"~c~o2m ~
ci rN~°~~~.;c°~
mti °°1-i°\tu„\nn\m~ o
°~ ~~oor2n~n~2~jti x
~~^ oo °`ycon7Z
n~ 2~~~~~mo~n
~ ro2ti~~p~bN m
~~~~t~n
o q~u,~2 m~
~~ ~nn~O ~NA -~i
m H2 ~~O ~O
~ 2"' `c"`" im
~~ o~~ yo
n
k e ~ ~ ~A
o m ~ o
titi
~~ a~~~
$ ~, rn o~
~ ~~
rn m ~~ T mm
y ~J
° IV ~O m
~ ~ _~ o ~ ~$
~

rn Ci
~ ~~ g
~ m ~
.~, •
/~/ i°,r
` •g:
I
o
g I
~ g ~
~~ ~
o
z ,-
? '
111 ~ ~ +~'`~
c~
~
~~
~c
~= ~~~. \\
1 T ~ ~ T
~w t' ~ ~ ~
~~
n V~APTN 35837 _
bL \ M¢Y~" vtik ~ 4
Y ~~ ~
-
~ ~ ~ ~~•-
ti~.
N m a =
~~ a
x
~~
\ \ Zo
~ v`
A~ s •'
~ ~ .. 4
~,y~l
~` ~ A. 4 ~~ .Gf
4 ~
/ ~
/~ ,k 4 i ~ 1 ,Q1~O i
~• /
F-' •.
~ylm
~ ~ I£t U 2Ha~N
G ~ m
X
J
1 c~ ..
~~`i-3scT~~+ ~
-t" `~~
0 ~ ..
b ° "
~
't'om
mogmT
i ~
~~~~~
~%~ d ~•1
~
~y J ~
3.V£\1 ~.0g.64/17~}' chi '~ \
~
~
~ ~ ~

• t9a~ i ~~~A`'~` ~ ~ \'$ ^
Ai
~~~ ,o~'j Q ~ v2 d~
,'
~
/ ~ r
~; y';`'~ / ~
~~ W ,, :~- ~
~
pCS
~~n
N SI "~~.,-\ ~\ 9i42~ ~~
°~ k
~
m
0
s
~
n
ti °c

g
~ ~
'o _~
zm

m
~ ~ o
~

O ° o
v
N~r
~ ~o
y mna
=
o
z ;
~
N O

° II
A
~ -
T
-F V10~1
0'f0
O 7.x.1

a

1/1
o
~
-
-1
"1
n
~m
z
aF "~>f~
o ~ ca

t•
O n
Nor
O ~ ~~CD
~
`
_
~^
'+

g v
,,,~•„
'i' ~
7
~
~
-1
~
_ 3A O O ~ A ~
Savo
m ;~ b~A~
~~ ov ~o$om
~ `QQQjo
~~ l_ 7A1m
,t
..N ~~
=E2 n r
J
~~ s{~
Jq tO ~ ]]
= 3 ~ m ~
'
-+o n ~ r'n
+z
P~
is m D
bi • O
~ ~
co o -o Am

n ~ n ~ -°ratn
o~
~ ~ Z
' ° ~~
~

-t n
v
N D I
~ n n ~a
~
~ ~ O
_
~~ ~ Zm
n ~~ ~~

n o m D 7C
~m 2 ~
=
No I+ ~ ~ I~ 3
~
on
c~
~~
a~
'yc
2,~ C'p/~
15 83

~
i ~ ,
M I
y
P
~ ~
Vf CU
+
~
%0 2
V ~'
u
` $

I 8
1
r ~
- '• 1 ~
r
vl^~n-sI
/
yl°=A
m~ r 0 m
O /
m O
P ~~Y11 <
~~ D $LIn N
0 (n
~
J
~~
/1 ~~.~
0~ 1
X
/. \~e ~ ~ ~

-7vlor
- ~~n~
~~
\ ~> r
-'~ s
~~ ~
8~
~~
r
z
y

REVISIONS

~ ~r
as

~, -~o
~ 'w
I o
i a
an ~
I
~~irOD~ ~ ~~

yvi ,z

'~
p
~ > II II II II U f~1 Z
° n n Q_
m
~ o
z y `N~~R
N
NwyNwo I
R' oe
zz e N
o.w -v
~
a FJ
m I $ ~ ono
o° ~ o ~ ~
NWa c
14 ~+w ~ u,c
oo ~ +~m
° ~ one

~~ o m
o
n m
oo n
~r=
I
n ~
~~ m m
o ~,
n O
n N~ ~
00
~ ~
or^ D
I ° o ~ ~ ~ ~o
> ~} I m-O
z° { I to .. a n -'. .n.

°z ~ j m=D i

''~.
m ~0 m I1
g 1 p
o
~ I ti
~~
..
~
` vmo 00 ~~
~
~
O
~ O
~ .~ ~.
m N-
I
O I -
'-' a NOS
vo+o
07i,
~
~" o O- Z I
n °~ I.5' Min.
q ~ 2.0' Max. m N
I ~ `~CS$
~ ~o ~
o ~N'I 62 ~
BY.5Y9 ~~ -
P \
N=

°
b ys
..
\\b J_.
Z
`~
C
p ~ H
9
o N
~ \`
~
\
p
~ ~\
a OC, i
~~`P / / Mfip.9Y.5yN
N }
~ ~ ~' Asa , ~o S / ~ / ~ .BS
/
p
O \ r `5g5// //
>
~
'
c N ~ 9 4
/
~stly~t
`
° ° N
5
9 "/
~ ~

~ e
o ~
ys O $s ~ .
"~ ' ~ ,
~
'~ b ~, ~
/ ss
~,m ss ~~ . .~

~y ', cff''
y~
`
' '~ o~•. ~i xy'(,
ti '~
'~~'~
O
' o
{~ s
Zs
.n `erg ag ~
0
n 2
~ _ ~ I N~ y-
'~ '1
7
~ g:~•,~
o' y
a
~ j
O x ~
m 1~\\ Oy
~ ~ . ~~

,
0
s 2•
~,, oo oY
.~
~~~
+~a~ 1, s ~ ~
\ y
>,
ti
a
o4s ~}
}y2 ~
~ A
\ > f
1 \ ,~a
o~5
ayes
L~ \ ~~ °'~
~g
c9
~
~ 0xw
0
O
r
sNq ' ~f
~ \
~S~le`t"i my~'~ TO~"`0.9~7'
X09 Cf~~gq '>i
9
C
'`
~
h q c` <
G"t
may
O 9 N '$, Fc^gP
G.`
c7
J
$
- . + ~ C~ ~ ~ 9p 4'Q~J
J'
~O~ ~
m O O c \ ~ ny c"ao
\

y y m ~

} Pr S
'-1
~ \ N ~ \~ \
~
\ 0 ~~g
~~ 9o~, aa~'
~
.
II II II ~ (~
d l0 d l ~
mwONN
bi ~ b d
$ R N N\
~ \
n `'
\ jJ`q
~ ~ l _ t^F(
sj
t``
r /

4 8
O
~ 3~ ~
~ ~~
q~f `
s
`~~`s ov q
'.
N
w i
G
s \
C~~ q
\} F9; .P
la O
~ 1
2 ~
\ a
„Cmb~IrOD~ r
$OO 11 II II B 11 lyl n
~ ~ ~fsgF \ `` \ 2 HS\ 9~~'} S
~^~^ ~ x
"hS ~ ~ x'19 ~O
0

b
c^ ( N
~I
m ~ ~~N n van
O
S%
\ ~ ~ ~U
(
Z
o
i
`'~ bi
~
ms n~ ~ ~ ~
r
yY~~~ (' C 1
p`NJ,9~`,; Ya w
Obi
II II ° ° ~
mc~n0 ~0
b,~gQ~
' Fo vy ~ ~O.q ~ .&
C 4 \ ~`
\ \ F~ } n to
o
~~m"r

4
~
~N
Lc

~\ \ A ~ m
Z
~ 2
` ~

~9~; ...I
~
~

o L
\ p
~~ , `~ 9
c+ o n
,` a~ s~,o` N ° ~ o c °+
~~
~ ~~ ~
~
o .
~z

X16;, ~ a I -ll
134,
10
_ _
_ dpi #,
.R b

01
~ 1 e1 -, ~a - - - 9- _
15'9 ~I o!5 ld 2
gl +9
' ~ F
~ ~.
Z
~
Ig'
a w n,
rn m ~ ~ x
m ~
I
'~
a
m ~
m '~'~ ~ m
na t
I ' .
- - I ~L
~'
ti
~ °
II II II II II ~ I
~
10 a '~ 2 ~
n
~ gc°„~~~w ~ V
~ g
~~~A
~ a ~
I ~ ,~N
g ~~jS ~~Q~
rn
A
v' m ~ ~
n
n' bq ~i n N
~ ~
~
pp
~ I~ N OO
I
C 2 ~
O g
kl
~
~ n VNi
~ g ~ ~
$
~
g o n N
~ ~ ~ fp

~ p $~
~S
~
~ ~" ~
z

m

~ ~
N
~
a
y ~
~
Z
O

1
Johnston County
SR 1002 (Rains Mill Road)
Bridge No. 212 over Little River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1002(8)
State Project No. 8.2312601
T.I.P. No. B-3865
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
it i D. ore, P.E., Manager
Proj t Dev ment and Environmental Analysis Branch
43a-~oz
DATE
~ ~~~-.~~G~ ~
~ icholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
_3~-ZouZ
DATE

Johnston County
SR 1002 (Rains Mill Road)
Bridge No. 212 over Little River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1002(8)
State Project No. 8.2312601
T.I.P. No. B-3865
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April 2002
Documentation Prepared By Ko S~ Associates, P.C.
. J. rd, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
Robert Andrew ner, P.E.
Project Develo ment Engineer
C4R~~!%~
SSA ~~
SEAL `
4&6I -:

~ PROJECT COMMITMENTS
~ Johnston County
SR 1002 (Rains Mi11 Road)
~ Bridge No: 212 over Little-River.
1 Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1002(8)
~ State Project: No. 8.2312601
T.IP. No B=3865
!'
~ In addition to the standard 'Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions,: the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
~ Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
~ Protection of SurFace Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for,Best Management Practices#or
~ Bridge Demolition and Removal, :General Certifications, and Section 401 Conditions'of
~ Certification, the followingspecial commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
-.
i Hi4hway Design Branch. 'Division 4
Little River is a tributary of the ' Neuse River,. so there is a possibility of shortnose
sturgeon among other more common, anadromous fishes. Design, and scheduling of
~ bridge replacement shall avoid the necessity of in-stream activities .during the .spring
1 migratiort`period;(Febnaary 1 to June 15).
~ RoadsideEnvironmental unit, Division 4
~ Mussel surveys were. conducted at 'the project site -by the North Carolina Wildlife
1 Resources Commission staff. Although no federally protected mussel species were
1 found, six species of native fresh water mussels were found during the survey. These
1 species include the Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio. roanokensis), Threatened in North
1 Carolina and the eastern lampmussel (Lampsillis radiafa), which will be upgraded to
1 Threatened in North Carolina effective July 1, 2002. Implementation of High Quality
1: Water erosion control standards are recommended to minimize he impacts to the
1 mussel faunal occurring at'the site as well as avoid potential impacts to populations that
1 may occur downstream of-the project area.
1
1 Categorical Exclusion
~ Apri12002.:
1 Green Sheet ~ Sheet 1 of 1
~:
3 _

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
i
Johnston County
SR 1002 (Rains Mill Road)
Bridge No. 212 over Little River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1002(8)
State Project No. 8.2312601
T.I.P. No. B-3865
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 212 is included in the North
Carolina Department of Transportation 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program and in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in
Figure 1. No substantial environmental .impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 39.2
out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally
obsolete and structurally deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will
result in safer and more efficient traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1002 (Rains. Mill Road) crosses over Little River approximately 0.8 miles (1.3
kilometers) north of the intersection with US 70 and north of Princeton in Johnston
County. Development in the immediate area is sparse. Two residential dwellings and
associated outbuildings are located on the south approach, and there is a cluster of six
metal grain bins and an old platform scale off the northeast comer of the existing bridge.
SR 1002 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
SR 1002 has a current pavement width of 19 feet (5.8 meters) with 6-foot (1.8-meter)
grass shoulders in the area of the bridge. The bridge structure is in a tangent section
with a sag vertical alignment both north and south of the existing structure. There is a
left curve (6-degree) approaching the bridge from the south and a right curve (9-degree)
approximately 700-feet (213.3 meters) north of the bridge.. Sight distance is good both
to the north and to the south of the bridge.
4

The estimated traffic volumes on SR 1002 at Little River were 3600 vehicles per day
(vpd) in 2000 and are projected to be 6800 vpd for the design year 2025. The volumes
include an estimated 1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3 percent dual-tired
(DT) vehicles. The posted speed limit is 55 mph (88.5 kmph) in the vicinity of the
bridge.
Bridge No. 212, as shown in Figures 2A and 2B, has an overall length of 225 feet (68.6
meters) and a clear deck width of 22 feet (6.6 meters). The existing two-lane bridge has
a reinforced concrete deck on I-beams supported by reinforced concrete caps and piles
at approximate 45 foot (13.7-meter) centers. The structure was constructed in 1955.
The current posted weight limit is 20 tons (18.1 metric tons) for single unit vehicles and
24 tons (21.8 metric tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailer vehicles. The bridge has a
sufficiency rating of 39.2 compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure and
approaches. Bridge No. 212 has abed-to-crown distance of approximately 16 feet (4.8
meters).
Six accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from March 1,
1997 to February 28, 2000. The accidents were predominantly sideswipe and rear-end
type. Four of the accidents were at Bridge No. 212. The accident rate is 638.6
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles of travel (377.86 accidents per 100 million
vehicle kilometers) which is higher than the statewide average of 261.86 accidents per
100 mvm of travel (162.75 accidents per 100 mvkm of travel) for rural secondary routes
(2 lanes undivided).
An overhead power and telephone line are on the east side of the bridge. The
telephone line is underground along the approaches to approximately 400 feet (122
meters) south and 100 feet (30 meters) north of the bridge. There are no utilities
attached to the bridge.
Nine public school buses cross the present bridge two times per day.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 212 with a new bridge approximately 240 feet
(73.2 meters) long with a clear roadway width of 30 feet (9.2 meters). New approaches
to the bridge will provide 12-foot (3.6 meter) travel lanes in each direction with 8 foot
(2.4 meter) shoulders [2-foot (0.6 meter) paved]. The proposed cross sections are
5

1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
shown in Figure 7. The design speed will be 60 mph (96.56 kph).
B. Detailed Study Alternatives
The studied altematives were: (1) to replace the structure on the existing location with
an on-site temporary detour on the west side; (2) to replace the structure on new
alignment west of and parallel to the existing location and (3) to replace the structure on
the existing location closing SR 1002 and utilizing an off-site detour. These altematives
are shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5. The investigation of the temporary detour altemative
is compared with the off-site detour altemative. The posted speed limit is 55 mph (88.6
kph) and the corresponding design speed is 60 mph (96.56 kph). With a 60 mph (96.6
.kph) design speed, the existing grade at the crossing will be raised 2-3 feet (0.6-0.9
meters).
Alternate 1 replaces the existing structure on the existing location with an on-site
temporary detour on the west side. The estimated cost of the detour is $ 525,000 and
no improvement is made to the south approach to the bridge. Alternate 2 (Preferred)
replaces the existing structure on new alignment west of the existing bridge at a cost
comparable to Altemate 1. Alternate 3 replaces the existing structure with a new
bridge in the existing location, closing SR 1002 to through traffic during construction and
utilizing an off-site detour at a cost savings of $ 400,000 compared to Altemate 2.
The possible off-site detour route (Figure 6) suggested by the Division includes utilizing
SR 2342, SR 2320, SR 2141, US 70A and US 70. A second suggested route would be
SR 1002, SR 1330, SR 1234, and US 70. The first route is in good condition with the
exception of SR 2141, which is posted for 6.5 tons (5.9 metric tons) maximum axle
weight. In addition, three structures are on the route. One is not posted, one is posted
10 tons (9.1 metric tons) for duals and 13 tons (11.8 metric tons) for truck-tractor, semi-
trailers. The remaining one is posted 23 tons (20.9 metric tons) for duals and 24 tons
(21.8 metric tons). for truck-tractor, semi-trailers. The second route has no posted
structures, but SR 1330 is recommended to be resurfaced prior to being used as a
detour route.
The Johnston/Wayne County maps indicate SR 1002 connects US 70 at Princeton to
the northern sections of Goldsboro near the Goldsboro-Wayne Municipal Airport. At its
junction with SR 2342 just north of Bridge No. 212, there is a large taming movement
north-to-west. This taming traffic seems to have an origin-destination from Raines
Crossroads. The distance from Raines Crossroads to Princeton via SR 2342 and SR
1002 is 3.7 miles (6.0 kilometers). The distance via SR 2320, SR 2323 and SR 2316 is
6

5.6 mites (9.0 kilometers). For 1,300 vehicles per day the excess distance is 1.9 miles
(3.1 kilometers). For traffic to and from the Goldsboro area, beginning at Pike
Crossroads, the distance to Princeton via SR 1002 is 5.8 miles (9.3 kilometers) and via
SR 1002, SR 1234, and US 70, 7.4 miles. For a maximum of 2,200 vehicles per .day,
the excess travel would be 1.6 miles (2.6 kilometers). With a 1-year construction
period, the maximum additional road user cost is estimated at $ 710,600. The benefit
cost ratio, which compares the road user cost to the cost for an on-site detour is 1.35.
The benefit cost ratio for the additional cost of the new alignment alternate (Alternate 2
minus Altemate 3) is 1.73.
Alternate 1 was not selected since it has a higher estimated cost as a result of
constructing a temporary detour. Altemate 3 was not selected because it requires
closing the road during the estimated one year construction period. Road closure was
opposed by the Town of Princeton, local emergency response personnel, and local
residents.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
The No-Build or "do-nothing" altemative was also considered but this altemative would
eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not a desirable altemative due to
the traffic service provided by SR 1002.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates
that rehabilitation of Bridge No. 212 is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated
condition. The existing bridge is classified as structuraNy deficient.
D. Preferred Alternative
Altemate 2, replacing the existing bridge on new alignment immediately west of and
parallel to the existing bridge is the preferred altemative. Alternate 2 was selected
because it is the most economical option that maintains traffic service on-site. The new
structure will be 240 feet (73.2 meters} long with a clear roadway width of 30 feet (9.2
meters). New approaches to the bridge will provide 12-foot (3.6 meter) travel lanes with
8-foot (2.4 meter) shoulders including 2-foot (0.6 meter) paved shoulders.
Approximately 1600 feet (488 meters) of new approaches will be required. The design
speed will be 60 mph (96.56 kmph). The estimated cost for the recommended
proposed improvement is $1,378,800. The current estimated cost of the project, as
shown in the NCDOT 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program, is $100,000 for
right-of--way and $1,100,000 for construction.
7

The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on 2001 prices, are shown in the
following table:
Altemate 1
On-site Detour
West Side Altemate 2
New Location
West Side
(Preferred) Altemate 3
Off-site Detour
Structure Removal $ 39 600.00 39 600.00 $ 39 600.00
Structure $ 468 000.00 $ 468 000.00 $ 468 000.00
Roadwa A roaches $ 73 600.00 $ 312 200.00 70 600.00
Mobilization and Miscellaneous $ 202 000.00 $ 311 000.00 $ 205 000.00
Engineering and Contingencies $116,800.00 $ 169,200.00 $ 116,800.00
Temporary Detour $ 525,000.00. NA NA
SUBTOTAL $1,425,000.00 $ 1,300,000.00 $ 900,000.00
Ri ht-of-Wa /Const. Ease./Util. 68 900.00 78 800.00 31 600.00
TOTAL $ 1,493,900.00 $ 1,378,800.00 $ 931,600.00
The above estimates are based on functional design plans; therefore, 45 percent is
included for miscellaneous items and contractor mobilization, and 15 percent for
engineering and contingencies.
8

V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a
number of sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic
mapping (Princeton, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle, 1974), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FV1IS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping (USFWS NWI 2000), and recent
aerial photography (scale: finch=100 feet).
Bridge No. 212 was visited on November 20, 2000. The study con-idor was walked and
visually surveyed for significant features. For purposes of field surveys, the study
corridor was assumed to be approximately 1200 feet (366 meters) in length for
Alternate 1, 1850 feet (564 meters) for Alternate 2 and 500 feet (152 meters) in length
for Alternate 3. The corridor width was 150 feet (45.7 meters) from centerline to the
west of SR 1002 and 100 feet (30.5 meters) from centerline to the east of SR 1002 for
all three alternatives to ensure adequate coverage. Plant community area and wetland
area calculations are based on cut-and-fill boundaries for permanent impacts and
construction easements for temporary impacts; jurisdictional area calculations for
impacts on streams are based on approximate bridge and stream widths. Actual
impacts will be limited to construction limits and are expected to be less than those
shown for right of ways. Buffer length impacts are based on cut-and-fill boundaries for
permanent impacts and construction easements for temporary impacts. Buffer area
impacts are calculated as buffer length times buffer width (50 feet [15.2 meters]).
Special concerns evaluated in the .field include potential habitat for protected species
and wetlands and water quality protection in Little River.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations.
Vascular plant names generally follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968), with
adjustments made to reflect more current nomenclature. Jurisdictional areas were
evaluated using the three-parameter approach following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Wetland jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al.
(1979). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected
population distributions, were determined through field observations, evaluation of
available habitat, and supportive documentation (Webster et al. 1985, Potter et a/. 1980,
9

Martof et al. 1980, Rohde et al. 1994, Menhinick 1991, Palmer and Braswell 1995).
Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived from available
sources (DWQ 1998, 1999). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support
existing data
The most current US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listing of federally-protected
species with ranges which extend into Johnston County (June 16, 2000) was obtained
prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting
presence of federally- or state-listed species were consulted before commencing the
field investigation.
B. Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is underlain by the northwest extremity of the Large River Valleys
and Flood Plain System geologic formation within the Coastal Plain physiographic
province of North Carolina. Wide river valleys with narrow floodplains and several well-
defined terraces that are a few yards to several miles wide characterize this system.
Soil systems have been formed from Piedmont and Coastal Plain sediments. Soils on
the terraces are sandy and loamy in texture, with finer sediments in more poorly drained
areas. The Large River Valley and Flood Plain System is distinguished by susceptibility
to flooding and abrupt juxtaposition of soil textures caused by depositional patterns of
alluvium (Daniels et al. 1999). The study corridor is located within and adjacent to the
floodplain of Little River. Within the study corridor, the narrow floodplain is flanked by
terraces which rise 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters) from the valley floor. Elevations in
the study corridor are approximately 100 to 130 feet (30.4 to 39.6 meters) National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (USGS Princeton, NC quadrangle). In the southwest
quadrant of the study corridor (the south bank of Little River, west of Bridge No. 212), a
natural levee rises from the stream bank and fronts a backwater slough, from which the
floodplain slopes upward to the terrace surface.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) indicates the following soils in the
study corridor. Wehadkee loam (Typic Fluvaquents), Goldsboro sandy loam (Aquic
Paleudults), Gilead sandy loam (Aquic Hapludults), State sandy loam (Typic
Hapludults), Lynchburg sandy loam (Aeric Paleaquults) and Cowarts loamy sand (Typic
Kanhapludults) (USDA 1994).
The Wehadkee series consists of very deep, poorly drained soils on floodplains, with
10

slopes of less than 2 percent. They formed in recent alluvial sediments, and .are
frequently flooded. The Goldsboro series consists of very deep, moderately permeable,
moderately well drained soils that formed in Coastal Plain sediments. These soils are
found on uplands; in the study corridor they are located on the flat upper terraces on
both banks of the Little River. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent.. The Gilead series is a very
deep, moderately.well drained series found in the uplands of the North Carolina Coastal
Plain. They formed from loamy and clayey marine sediments. The Gilead series is
found on lower terraces of the north. bank of Little River, with slopes of 8 to 15 percent.
The State series is found on the south floodplain and terraces of Little River. State soils
are very deep and well drained. They formed from loamy alluvial sediments. In the
study corridor, slopes are 0 to 3 percent, and State soils are occasionally flooded. The
Lynchburg series is on uplands along SR 1002 north of Bridge No. 212. Lynchburg
soils are very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils with slopes of 0 to 2 percent. They
are formed from loamy marine sediments. Cowarts soils are on upper terraces on the
south bank of Little River, with slopes of 6 to 10 percent. This series consists of very
deep, well drained soils in uplands on the Coastal Plain, formed from loamy marine
sediments (USDA 1994, Daniels et al. 1999).
Of the predominant soil map units in the study corridor, the NRCS lists the Wehadkee
series as hydric. In addition, two series have hydric soil inclusions: Goldsboro, with
inclusions of Rains soils, and Lynchburg, with inclusions of Toisnot, Grantham, and
Rains. Inclusions occur in depressions within the larger soil matrix, or around the edges
of the map unit. These hydric soils are saturated for a significant period during the
growing season, and support woody vegetation under natural conditions (USDA 1996).
The Rains series (Typic Paleaquults) is very deep, poorly drained, moderately
permeable, and formed in thick, loamy sediments on marine terraces. These soils are
on level flats or in depressions, with slopes of 0 to 2 percent, and are likely to have a
loamy sand surface texture. Toisnot loam (Typic Fragiaquults) is poorly drained and
found in the lower areas of the Lynchburg map units. The Grantham series (Typic
Paleaquults) is poorly drained silt loam in slight depressions within the Lynchburg map
units. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent (USDA 1994).
11

C. WATER RESOURCES
1. Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-04-06 of the Neuse River Basin (DWQ
1999). This area is part of USGS accounting unit 03020201 of the South Atlantic-Gulf
Coast Region. The section of Little River crossed by Bridge No. 212 has been assigned
Stream Index Number 27-57- 20.2) by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ 1998).
O~~o3 92
2. Water Resources Characteristics
The Little River has an average slope of 2.6 feet per mile (0.8 meters per 1.6
kilometers) as it meanders through -the Coastal Plain in its lower reaches. It is a third-
order baackwater stream that has some swamp-like characteristics, including slight
tannin staining and moderate flow. Within the study corridor, Little River is broad and
shallow, exhibiting weak sinuosity .and a weakly developed riffle and pool sequence.
Width of the stream was approximately 100 feet (30.5 meters) at the point of the bridge
crossing. During the field survey, water depths along the study corridor varied from 0 to
24 inches (0.0 to 61.0 centimeters). The water level was low, with 1.5 to 2 feet (45.7 to
61.0 centimeters) of exposed riverbank above the water surface.. Exposed bars of clay,
coarse sand, and organic material were seen within and beyond the 250-foot (76.2-
meter) length of the river within the study corridor. Large woody debris is abundant in
the streambed, as well as large rocks and pieces of concrete. The remains of an old
dam footing downstream of the present bridge protruded slightly above the water
surface. This old footing collects additional sand and debris as they flow down the river.
Emergent aquatic vegetation was observed along the stream banks, including
smartweed (Polygonum sp.), creeping seedbox (Ludwigia repens) and alligator weed
(Alfernanthera philoxeroides). Water clarity was good during the field visit. The
streambed was visible in most places, despite a rain event on the night before the field
visit. The substrate ranges from coarse sand in overwash areas to clay in the main
stream channel. The exposed stream banks are also composed of clay. Sedimentation
.and erosion are not apparent in the section of the river observed during the field visit.
The stream bank rises abruptly from the stream on the north shore to a level terrace.
On the south shore, west of the bridge, the bank rises steeply to a natural levee fronting
a backwater slough. Behind this slough, there is a gradual rise to the first river terrace.
The southwest bank of the river lacks a natural levee, and rises gradually to the first
river terrace.
12

The floodplain and terraces support mixed pine-hardwood forest, bottomland hardwood
forest, and levee and mud bar plant communities, as well as more disturbed and early-
successional areas. Three areas of hydric soils were located: 1) on the north bank of
Little River, east of Bridge No. 212, 2) on the south bank in a backwater slough behind a
natural levee west of the bridge, and 3) on the south bank east of the bridge. The
southeast area of hydric soils includes a small peninsula of organic material which
extends upstream into Little River.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of IelDrtt~ ~'arolina based on the
existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the
basin. A best usage classification of WS-IV NSW has been assigned to Little River.
The designation WS-IV denotes water supply waters that are located in moderately to
highly developed watersheds; point source discharges of treated wastewater are
permitted under certain restrictions, and local programs to control nonpoint source and
stormwater discharge of pollution are required. Suitable uses of these waters include
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife habitat, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to wading, boating, and other uses not
involving human body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. The
supplementary classification NSW denotes nutrient sensitive waters which need
additional nutrient management because they are subject to excessive growth of
microscopic and macroscopic vegetation (DWQ 1998). No designated Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply 1 (WS-I), or Water
Supply 11(WS-II) waters occur within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (previously known as the Division of
Environmental Management, Water Quality Section [DEM]) has initiated awhole-basin
approach to water quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water
quality for the proposed study corridor is summarized in the Neuse River basin
management plan. Water quality samples in 1995 indicated Good-Fair water based on
macroinvertebrate samples, but Good quality based on fish samples. Little River has
been monitored and sampled at three locations and has a use support rating of fully
supporting but threatened in 69 percent of its reaches. An additional 29 percent of Little
River waters are rated partially supporting. The Neuse sub-basin 03-04-06, containing
the entire Little River catchment from its headwaters at Moore's Millpond to its
confluence with the Neuse River near Goldsboro, supports major discharges from the
Kenly Regional WWTP (0.52 million gallons per day [2.0 million liters per day] permitted
flow). Minor discharges originate .from agricultural and forestry operations and a
growing component of small towns (DWQ 1999).
13

r
1
1
1
f
M
1
1
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
a) GeneralImpacts
Proposed project alternatives include complete bridging of Little River to maintain the
current water quality, aquatic habitat, and flow regime. Temporary construction impacts
due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through implementation of a
stringent erosion control schedule and the use of best management practices. The
contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as
outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of Erosion,
Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These
measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures
to control runoff; elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to
waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of
chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts
on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into steams by catch basins and
roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows
in Little River, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-term impacts
resulting from construction are expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts
to water resources, NCDOT "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters" (BMPs) will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
b) Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
There is potential that components of the existing bridge may be dropped into "waters of
the United States" during construction. Since Bridge No. 212 consists of reinforced
concrete deck, bent caps and columns there is a potential for approximately 115 cubic
yards (87.9 cubic meters} of temporary fill to result from bridge removal. In
consideration of surface water impacts, this project can be classified as Case 2, where
no in-stream work may occur during moratorium periods due to anadromous fish
migration. NCDOT will coordinate with the various resource agencies during project
planning to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge demolition are resolved.
NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal" (BMP-
BDR) must be applied for the removal of this bridge.
14

D. BIOTIC RESOURCES
1. Plant Communities
Six distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor: mixed pine-
hardwood forest, including successional shrub areas; Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype); Coastal Pain Levee Forest (Blackwater Subtype);
Sand and Mud Bar; Urban/Disturbed land; and Agricultural land. These plant
communities are described below.
a) Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest
Mixed pine-hardwood forest occurs on the terraces north and south of Little River and
continues up to the interstream divides outside of the study corridor. This community is
likely in a successional stage leading to Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, Coastal Plain
Subtype, described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) as occurring on north facing
slopes, ravines, and mesic upland areas historically protected from fire. Under natural
conditions, these forests are uneven-aged, with the canopy dominated by mesophytic
hardwoods. At the Little River study corridor, the canopy includes loblolly pine (Pious
taeda), black cherry (Prunus serotina), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), southern
red oak (Quercus falcata), water oak (Q. nigra), river birch (Betula nigra) and blackgum
(Nyssa sylvatica). The midstory and shrub layer are well-developed. Dominant species
are Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), red maple (Acer rubrum), blackberry (Rubus
argutus), and beautybeny (Callicarpa americans), with scattered winged elm (U/mus
slats) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) saplings. Vines are sparse to common
in more open patches, including muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), Carolina jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), and greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia). The understory is sparse, and includes netted chain fern
(Woodwardia areolata) and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea). This community type
exists in an early-successional shrub phase on the northwest bank of Little River,
adjacent to a residential lot. In addition to loblolly pine, black cherry, and red maple, the
developing canopy layer contains chinabeny (Melia azederach), black walnut (Juglans
nigra), black willow (Salix nigra), water ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), and swamp
cottonwood (Populus heterophylla). Shrubs include groundsel (Baccharis halimifolia)
and hardwood saplings. Goldenrod (Solidago sp.), broomsedge (Andropogon
virginicus), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and beggar-ticks (Bidens frondosa)
are dominant in the herb layer.
1~

b) Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater
Subtype)
~ Schafale and Weakley (1990) describe this community type as occurring in relict natural
~ levee deposits, point bar ridges, and other higher parts of river floodplains. Soils
include various bottomland mineral soils, which are seasonally to intermittently flooded.
1 At the study corridor, Coastal Bottomland Hardwoods occur in a backwater slough
~ fronted by a natural levee on the south bank of Little River. Another area of bottomland
~ hardwoods is adjacent to the north barik of the river, west of Bridge No. 212. Both
~ areas merge into mixed pine-hardwood forest as the land surface slopes upward from
~ the floodplain. Canopy vegetation consists of water ash, cherrybark oak (Quercus
~ pagoda), and river birch. The shrub layer includes black willow, groundsel, and young
' red maples. Herbs include smartweeds (Polygonum spp.), alligator-weed
(Alternanthera philoxeroides), camphor-weed (P/uchea camphorata), dog fennel,
~ beggar-ticks, and pokeweed (Phytolacca americans).
c) Coastal Plain Levee Forest (Blackwater Subtype)
1 Coastal Plain Levee Forest occurs on a natural levee on the southwest quadrant of the
1 study corridor, where the river bank extends slightly into the Little River. Schafale and
1 Weakley (1990) describe this community as occurring on natural levee deposits on
1 sandy, loamy, or mucky soils. The levee areas are often too small to be distinguished
1 on soil maps. Water flow and flooding regimes are highly variable, as is typical of
1 baackwater river systems. At Bridge No. 212, old, multi-stemmed, water ash trees
1 dominate the Levee Forest. No other canopy tree species are. common. The shrub
1 layer is sparse with a few groundsel bushes and large herbs such as beggar-ticks and
_ pokeweed. Herbs include dog fennel, climbing hempweed (Mikania scandens), and
goldenrod.
d) Sand and Mud Bar
Sand and Mud Bars occur along both banks of the Little River. Schafale and Weakley
(1990) define these areas as sand and mud deposits in and adjacent to streams, which
lack soil development. They do not support forest canopies. Within the Little River
study corridor, Sand and Mud Bars are composed of clay, coarse sand and gravel, or
organic material. A small wetland area on the north bank of Little River just east of
Bridge No. 212 has clay substrate and supports seedlings of chenybark oak, black
willow, and green ash. Herbs include seedbox (Ludwigia alfernifolia), creeping
seedbox, smartweed, soft rush (Juncus effusus), mallow (Hibiscus sp.), and camphor-
16

weed. On the southeast bank, a bar composed of coarse, organic material juts
upstream into the Little River. It supports no vegetation except for a few black willow
seedlings. The bar fronts a slough of stationary water, from which a clay mud bank
gradually rises. This bank is frequently flooded, and supports a mud bar community
composed in large part of a thick mat of smartweed. Other vegetation includes alligator-
weed, creeping seedbox, soft rush, sedges (Cyperaceae spp.), and a few scattered
black willow, green ash, and blackgum seedlings. Exposed clay riverbanks along the
study corridor also support small areas of Sand and Mud Bar community.
e) Urban/Disturbed Land
Urban/disturbed land occurs along the right of way of SR 1002, and at residential lots,
old home sites, and an agricultural storage operation along the study corridor. The
roadside area is approximately 20 feet (6.1 meters) wide. The roadside margin is
planted with bluegrass (Poa sp.) and fescue (Festuca sp.). Roadside ditches provide
stormwater drainage. At home and farming operation sites, disturbed land includes
planted grass lawns and other vegetation grading into early-successional stages of
mixed pine-hardwood forest. Canopy tree species found at these .sites include
chinaberry, loblolly pine, red maple, eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), pecan
(Carya illinoensis), sweetgum, catalpa (Catalpa sp.), and black cherry. Shrubs include
groundsel, blackberry, and Chinese privet. The herb layer is dense and rich in sunny
sites, with goldenrod, dog fennel, beggar-ticks, broomsedge, pokeweed, dock (Rumex
sp.), and mallow (Sida rhombifolia), along with planted and naturally occurring grasses
including bamboo grass (Dicanthelium scoparium).
f) Agricultural land
Large areas of agricultural land extend from the edges of the study corridor, including a
cotton field to the southwest, an active cow pasture to the northwest, and a fallow field
or pasture in the northeast section of the study corridor. Along with crop and pasture
plants, weedy species include sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia), evening primrose
(Oenothera biennis), and paspalum grass (Paspalum sp.). These areas are buffered
from the Little River by 300 to 600 feet (91.4 to 182.9 meters) of vegetated land, and are
not expected to contribute significant amounts of agricultural nutrients or sediment to
the river flow.
17

I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2. Wildlife
During the field survey, tracks of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and raccoon
(Procyon lotor) were observed within the study corridor. Some characteristic mammals
which are expected to frequent wooded and brushy river corridors in the upper Coastal
Plain include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), southeastem shrew (Sorex
longirostris), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans),
eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and mink (Mustela vision).
Bird species that were identified during the field survey are American robin (Turdus
migratorius), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhyncos), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus
bicolor), white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), and turkey vulture (Cathartes
aura). The semi-wooded riverside habitat might be expected to also support habitat for
other species, including wood duck (Aix sponsa), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus),
American kestrel (Falco sparverius), common snipe (Gallinago gallinago), mourning
dove (Zenaida macroura), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), common flicker
(Colaptes auratus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), eastern phoebe
(Sayornis phoebe), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis),
ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus),
yellow-romped warbler (Dendroica coronata), purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus),
American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), and eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed within the study corridor.
Species that might be expected in this habitat are eastern spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus
holbrook~~, Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhouse~~, northern cricket frog (Acris gryllus),
Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), southeastem five-lined skink (Eumeces
inexpectatus), eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos), king snake
(Lampropeltis getulus), brown snake (Storeria dekayi~, and eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sir
3. Aquatic Communities
No aquatic amphibian or reptile was observed during the field survey. Little River
provides suitable habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic reptiles including river cooter
(Pseudemys concinna), rainbow snake (Farancia erytrogramma), and banded water
snake (Nerodia fasciata). Typical amphibian species for this habitat type include dwarf
mudpuppy (Necturus punctatus), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), green
18

frog (Rana clamitans), and squirrel treefrog (Hyla squirella). No mollusks or arthropods
were observed. The NHP has documented the Neuse River waterdog (Necturus Iewis~)
approximately 2.2 miles (3.5 kilometers) northwest of the study corridor in the Little
River.
No sampling was undertaken in Little River to determine fishery potential. Small
minnows were seen during visual surveys, but no larger fish were noted. Species which
may be present within Little River include eastern silvery minnow (Hybognathus regius),
golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculafus), white
catfish (Ameiurus catus), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), and black crappie (Pomoxis
nigromaculatus). The NHP records the occurrence of the Roanoke bass (Ambloplites
cavifrons) just downstream of Bridge No. 212. The Roanoke bass has also been
observed approximately 1.8 miles (2.9 kilometers) northwest of the study corridor in the
Little River. Other species of special concern were recorded near a gaging station 2.2
miles (3.5.kilometers) northwest of the study site in the Little River. Species recorded at
this spot are the Pinewoods shiner (Lythrurus matutinus) and Carolina madtom (Noturus
furiosus). -
Since this project is in the Coastal Plain and includes the crossing of a stream
delineated on the most recent USGA 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, anadromous
fish passage should be considered in the timing of any proposed in-stream activities
associated with bridge replacement. Little River is a tributary of the Neuse River, so
there is a possibility of shortnose sturgeon among other more common, anadromous
fishes. Design and scheduling of bridge replacement shall avoid the necessity of in-
stream activities during the spring migration period (February 1 to June 15).
4. Anticipated. Impacts to Biotic Communities
a) Plant Communities
Plant community areas are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the projected right of way. Permanent impacts are considered to be
those impacts that occur within proposed cut and fill boundaries. Temporary impacts
are those impacts that occur between right of way boundaries and construction
easements.
A summary of potential impacts to individual plant communities at Bridge No. 212 for
Alternates 1-3 are presented in Table 1.
10

I Alternate 1 calls for a temporary detour west (upstream) of Bridge No. 212. Permanent
I impacts to plant communities resulting from bridge replacement in Alternate 1 are
I generally restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway
~ approach segments, resulting from improvements in road grading. Approximately 11
I percent of the impacts occur in disturbed land, with 89 percent occurring in the more
natural community types (mixed pine-hardwoods, bottomland hardwoods, levee forest,
~ and sand and mud bar communities). Temporary impacts for Altemate 1 involve a 1200
I foot (365.8 meter) long .easement, 150 feet (45.7 meters) wide at its widest point. This
I easement allows for construction of the temporary detour west of the existing bridge.
~ These impacts are comprised of approximately 86 percent natural communities and 14
~ percent disturbed land. After completion of the bridge replacement, the temporary
' .detour, including fill, roadbed, and bridge structure, will be removed and the affected
area replanted. Total impacts for Altemate 1 are almost twice those for Altemate 3, and
approximately 28 percent those for Altemate 2.
Altemate 2 calls for relocating the bridge to the west of the existing roadway. The
existing Bridge No. 212 and adjacent roadway would remain in use during construction
of the new bridge. Temporary impacts result from a construction easement and right-of-
way for the new roadway approach segments and bridge. Permanent impacts consist
of grading and fill for the new roadway segments. Approximately 48 percent of the area
impacted consists of natural communities, with 52 percent of impacts to disturbed land
on the existing roadway margins, residential and agricultural developments, and
agricultural land. Alternate 2 has the highest permanent impacts of the three
alternatives due to its long project. corridor and the relocation of the permanent roadway.
Permanent impacts are six to seven times larger than for Alternatives 1 and 3. At
completion of the new bridge and approach roadway, the existing Bridge. No. 212 and
adjacent road sections will be dismantled and replanted. This will involve approximately
1400 feet (42.7 meters) of roadway, with 0.96 acre (0.39 hectare) of pavement and 1.29
acre (0.52 hectare) of grassy right of way, for a total of 2.25 acres (0.91 hectare) to be
replanted.
Altemate 3 involves replacement of the bridge in place, with an off-site detour.
Permanent impacts to plant communities are identical to those in Altemate 1.
Temporary impacts are limited to construction easements of 100 feet (30.5 meters) in
width. Of the impacted 0.79 acre (0.32 hectare), 89 percent consists of natural
communities. Temporary impacts to plant communities are less for Altemate 3 because
the off-site detour produces no additional temporary impacts.
From an ecological perspective, impacts of upgrading existing road facilities, called for
20

in Altemates 1 and 3, are minimal. No new fragmentation of ~ plant communities will be
created, as the project will result only in relocation of community boundaries. Altemates
1 and 3 may only claim narrow strips of adjacent natural communities. Altemate 1
would require that at least temporary incursion -into mixed pine-hardwood forest,
bottomland hardwoods, levee forest, and sand and mud bar communities, resulting in
the removal of a few mature trees. However, on completion of roadway improvements,
temporary detours will be removed and natural communities will be restored. Alternate
2 would impact a larger portion of plant communities than the other two alternatives,
both on a temporary and a permanent basis. The. permanent impacts of Altemate 2 on
all community types, excluding urban/disturbed and agricultural, total 2.24 acres (0.91
hectare). These impacts may be partially offset by the reclamation of 2.25 acres (0.91
hectare) of land occupied by the existing bridge and adjacent approach.
Roadside forest ecotones typically serve as vectors for invasive species into local
natural communities. An example of an undesirable invasive species utilizing roadsides
is kudzu. The establishment of a hardy groundcover on road shoulders as soon as
practicable will limit the availability of construction areas to invasive and undesirable
plants.
21

R ~ M ~t O to N OD M M O O r- N
O M ~ N ~- O O O O ~- O O O d0 M
~ O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O
7 C _
M O ~ ~~ O~ O O O O 'd' M 0 0 M ~t
~ fd N O •- O O O O O O ~ O O M ~-
` O E 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O
~ N d
Q ~
O
~ O d' ~t ~ to N 00 M O~ O O O O
Q. r O ~- O O O O O O O O O d; ~-
~ C O O O C O C O 0 0 0 0 O O
m
O ~
~--
N
~+ N
C ~ ~p M p r r (D N lA N O N O d' M r-
~ _ ~ N O 1n N O O O O ~ M O d; I~ ~?
V ~ ~ r O O O O O O O O O ~- O M y
v v ~ v v v
W
O ~ ~ •d
~. ~..
L ~
~ C ~ N m
O ~~ LL1 ~~ ~ M~ 11') O O O O O M 1. j 0~ N ~t ~
CO M N ~- O O O O M ~- 1` M N O
N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 00 00 00 Oo Oo cvo
N ~ ~ Q `° d
~ ~ a
N ~
3 ~ OO c0~ ccN u)N •-t~ ~-M C>O
~ O ~ ~ N ~ O O 0 0 d; ~ M r' ~t ~
,~ vj ~ O O C O 0 0 0 0 O O O O ~ O
v v v v ~ ~ ~
ML
W V
.-. r ti ti M ~ M O~ O O tfi ~
~ •~ ~ ~ N d; ~ O O O O ~ O O O d; M
;a_- ; F. O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O r O
.,,i v v ~1 v v
•~
~ _
~ ~ o`o =
V N m 0 C r p O t O O O O ~t N O O M~
(~ N N O ~- O 0 0 O O O O O O ~"~ ~
~ ~ ~~ ~ 0 0 O O C O 0 0 O O O O O O
[6 ~ .m ~ d
O cC Q ~
,~.,, O
to Q. m ~
U ~ ~ ~ O O ~- M f~ M 1~ M tp CEO O O O Q'
(6 D. sr N c*~ ~ O O O O ~- O O O O '~t
Q- M E O O O O O O G O O O G O ~- O
~ F~-
t6 (0
'++
C N c „o N c
o N ~+ a p N a s p a m n~ m ~~~ ~ 'a Q
~' ~ c 3 ~ w ~ 3 m ~ m -a -v ~ ~ ~ ~ c~a F-
a~ O m~ O N O ~p ~ m O C 0 L N J i J O
~ ~ ~. ~ X N LJ.. l6 O f~6 N J Ll. O ~ ~ O ~
m L ~ a ~= U m= V N D Q
Q a. U
N
N

b) Wildlife
Due #o the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement will not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal
populations. No significant habitat fragmentation is expected since most permanent
improvements will be restricted to or adjoining existing roadside margins. Construction
noise and associated disturbances will have short term impacts on avifauna and
migratory wildlife movement patterns. Long term impacts are expected to be
inconsequential for Alternate 3, with longer recovery periods expected for Alternates 1
and 2. After removal of temporary bridge structures and associated fill, the area will be
replanted.
c) Aquatic Communities
Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitats will be avoided by bridging the
systems to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. Short term impacts associated
with turbidity and suspended sediments will affect benthic populations. Temporary
impacts to downstream habitats from increased sediment during construction will be
minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
E. SPECIAL TOPICS
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within. the embankments of Little-River are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United
States" (33 CFR section 328.3). Little River can be characterized as a perennial stream
system with an consol'~dated bottom of clay mud.
Wetlands adjacent . to Little River are subject ~to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR section
328.3). These areas are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of Hydrology at or near the surface for a portion
(12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). NWI mapping indicates that a strip
of floodplain in the southwest quadrant of the study corridor exhibits characteristics of a
palustrine, broad-leaved, deciduous forest system that is seasonally flooded (PF01 C)
(Cowardin et al. 1979). This map unit corresponds to the backwater slough area behind
23

a natural levee that has been .described in this report as Coastal Plain Bottomland
~ Hardwood habitat. In addition, two other areas were found to contain hydric soils,
~ _ vegetation and wetland hydrology. One area, to the southeast of Bridge No. 212, is
~ described as Sand and Mud Bar habitat. A small area across Little River consists of the
same type of habitat.
The Neuse River Basin Rule applies to 50-foot (15.2-meter) wide riparian buffers
directly adjacent to surface waters in the Neuse River Basin. This rule does not apply to
portions of the riparian buffer where a use is existing and ongoing. Any change in land
use within the riparian buffer is characterized as an impact. The Nutrient Sensitive
Waters Management Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers
(15 A NCAC 2B .0259) provides a designation for uses that cause impacts to riparian
buffers within the Neuse Basin and affect their nutrient removal functions. Expected
activities involved with project development include roadway crossing for Altemates 1
and 2, and bridge replacement for all three altematives. For all three altematives,
greater than 150 linear feet (45.7 meters) of the banks of Little River (measured parallel
to the stream) will undergo temporary or permanent impacts. In addition, Altemates 1
and 2 involve temporary or permanent impacts to greater than 0.33 acre (0.13 hectare)
of stream buffer area (linear distance times buffer width). These impacts are
designated Allowable with Mitigation, if a determination of no practical altematives to the
proposed use has been granted by the Division of Water Quality prior to project
development. In addition, requirements for the Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program for
the Neuse basin must be met. The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy:
Mitigation Program for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers (15A NCAC
26.0260) outlines the requirements for mitigation. Mitigation may be performed by
payment of a mitigation fee, donation of property or interests in property, or riparian
buffer restoration.
Buffer and stream areas and reaches affected by Altemates 1, 2, and 3 are given in
Table 2.
Linear distance of "stream" impacted by each attemative is obtained from the width of
the bridge. Stream area is bridge width times stream width at the point of the bridge,
and describes the amount of stream surface that would be impacted by shading. Linear
distance of riparian buffer permanently impacted by each alternative has been
determined by the width of the cut and fill boundaries for road approaches. Linear
distance to be temporarily impacted has been calculated from the width of temporary
easements and proposed right of ways. Both distances were multiplied by two to
include both stream banks. Buffer area is calculated by multiplying buffer linear
24

x
distance by buffer width (50 feet, 15.2 meters).
All three altematives result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.05 acre (0.02
hectare) of waters of the United States, due to shading. Additional permanent
encroachment beyond design plans will be avoided. Alternate 3 avoids temporary
impacts to waters of the United States.
2. Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The COE has made available Nationwide Permit
(NWP) No. 23 (61 FR 65874, 65916; December 13, 1996) for CEs due to expected
minimal impact. DWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for
NWP No. 23. However, authorization for jurisdictional impacts through use of this
permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP No. 23 will not suffice,
minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are
expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE
District. Notification to the Wilmington COE office is required if this general permit is
utilized.
3. Buffer Rules
The Neuse River Basin Rule applies to 50-foot (15.2-meter) wide riparian buffers
directly adjacent to surface waters in the Neuse River Basin. This rule does not apply to
portions of the riparian buffer where a use is existing and ongoing. Any change in land
use within the riparian buffer is characterized as an impact. The Nutrient Sensitive
Waters Management Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers
(15 A NCAC 2B .0259) provides a designation for uses that cause impacts to riparian
buffers within the Neuse Basin and affect their nutrient removal functions. Expected
activities involved with project development include roadway crossing for Altemates 1
and 2, and bridge replacement for aii three altematives. For all three alternatives,
greater than 150 linear feet (45.7 meters) of the banks of Little River (measured parallel
to the stream) will undergo temporary or permanent impacts. ln~ addition, Altemates 1
and 2 involve temporary or permanent impacts to greater than 0.33 acre (0.13 hectare)
of stream buffer area (linear distance times buffer width). These impacts are
designated Allowable with Mitigation, if a determination of no practical altematives to the
proposed use has been granted by the Division of Water Quality prior to project
development. In addition, requirements for the Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program for
the Neuse basin must be met. The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy:
25

Mitigation Program for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers (15A NCAC
26.0260) outlines the requirements for mitigation. Mitigation may be performed by
payment of a mitigation fee, donation of property or interests in property, or riparian
buffer restoration.
Buffer and stream areas and reaches affected by Alternates 1, 2, and 3 are given in
Table 2.
4. Mitigation
Section 404 compensatory mitigation is not recommended for this project due to the
limited nature of project impacts to vegetated wetlands and open waters. However,
utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts. Fill or alteration of
streams may require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15 NCAC 2H
.0506(h). A final determination regarding Section 404 jurisdictional area mitigation rests
with the COE and DWQ.
All proposed alternatives will require riparian buffer mitigation due to the fact that
temporary impacts exceed 150 linear feet (45.7 meters) of riparian buffer. The area of
mitigation needed shall be determined by either the DWQ or a delegated local authority.
Options for meeting a mitigation determination include 1) payment of a compensatory
mitigation fee to the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund, 2) donation of real property or of
an interest in real property, or 3) restoration or enhancement of anon-forested riparian
buffer (15A NCAC 026.0242).
26

a> c
~ •-
` L
.i.~
~ ~
C ?~
_Y ~
.a
.~ c
U .
O ~
L ~~
.Q
C *~''
to O
a ~
~L
G ~
~ N
N ~
~ C
°~`'
~ Q
~ ~
c
O ~
V ~
N ~
•L U
~ ~
•~ L
O ~
.~ ~3
~ N
Q~
U
'p Rf
~ C
~ '~
a
N ~
~ ~
d~+
0 ~ ~
a 3
~ ° c
.~ ~
Fes- •a' o.
"~ N
N O
~ O O O
N D
r N O D O
~ v O OO ~ O O O O

M ~+
~
N

E
N
N _
O
O
O
d'
d'
M
O
O
O
~ ~ 0 0 v 0 0 O
°' a

~

Q
Q
O
O
~ _
~
~
O
O O
~ O O ~' ~t O O O O
O
L
r
C=,~ O ~ Ori ~ O O
M ~Mj' M N O O
~ ~- r
~~ O O
v N CO
`i 0 0
v O O
v

Z ,~,~
m
~ N
~
~ ~
~
N '~
C~ O
O N
O
~ ~t
M ~
O N
O O
O
Q ` ~ ~ 0 0 ~ v O O O
~ °' a
a a ~
J
Z cLa
Q
O .-.
M
O .-.
O
M ,~-.
~
N ...
~- .-.
O O
~ ~ M v? O O N t~
.~ 0 0 O Ci

U
Im ~ ...
_
~

~
~
(a
~

Nit _
0p
N
O
r
~t
O
O
N _
~
~
1`
M _
to
r
1~ f~
~ O
~ }.- ~- O O M O O O O O
~ ~~ `i u u v
~' N .~ ~ .~. ~-.
N
~ C
~
N ~ to
O N
O
~ ~
~„~ tf~
O N
O r- d'
r O

L
L CD
v
O
O ~ O O 0 0
.
Q~
a v v `

Q
~

Q O
N `-
-
p 0 0 ti ~ M r O O
~
..
(
O
'p N ~- 0 0 O O
~ .... v ~~
L

~ __
.~ U RS ~
. C
• U ~
.
~
~
~~
~-
~
~ i''
~
~ ~

~' Q
~
~~ ~
~
~ Q. m
~
~~ ~

a~
-~ v~ ~ -° ~
N

1
F. Rare and Protected Species
1. Federal-Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or officially Proposed
for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The terrn "Endangered species" is defined as "any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range", and the term "Threatened species" is defined as "any species which is likely to
become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Federal-protected species listed for
Johnston County (March 22, 2001 USFWS list) are listed in Table 3.
Table 3: Species name and status for federal-protected species in Johnston County per
tha March 22. 2001 USFWS list
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Red-cockaded
woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heferodon Endangered
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered
Michaux's sumac* Rhus michauxii Endangered
*Histonc occurrence in county -last seen more roan ou years ago
Red-cockaded Woodpecker -This small woodpecker (18 to 22 cm [7 to 8.5 inches]
long) has a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-white barred back.
Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be
absent or difficult to see (Potter et a/. 1980). Primary habitat consists of mature to over-
mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda), long-leaf (P.
palustris), slash (P. elliotti~~, and pond (P. serotina) pines (Thompson and Baker 1971).
Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally older than 70
years, that have been infected with red-heart disease.. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in
clusters, which are referred to as colonies (FWS 1985). The woodpecker drills holes
into the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup around
the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees. Pine flatwoods or pine-
dominated savannas that have been maintained by frequent natural fires serve as ideal
nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development of a thick understory may
result in abandonment of cavity trees. The woodpeckers utilize pine stands in close
28

proximity to the colony site for foraging. Foraging areas, depending on the quality of
habitat, have been found to range from 84 acres (34 hectares) to over 409 acres (165.5
hectares). Food sources include wood-boring insects, grubs, beetles, com worms and
other invertebrates found. within 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers) of the colony site. Stands
preferred by foraging birds are pines greater than 30 years of age a{though mixed
pine/hardwood stands are also used.
The study area contains pine trees, but no specimens old enough to be cavity tree
candidates or foraging areas for red-cockaded woodpeckers. The mixed pine-
hardwood communities in the study corridor also have well-developed shrub and
midstory layers, which red-cockaded woodpeckers avoid for both nesting and foraging.
According to NHP records, red-cockaded have been documented in Johnston County
within the last 20 years, but not within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor. No
red-cockaded woodpeckers were observed during the field visit.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The study corridor contains no suitable foraging or
nesting habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers. NHP records document no occurrences
of red-cockaded woodpeckers within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers} of the project corridor.
Based on NHP records, field observations, and professional judgement, the impact of
this project on the red-cockaded woodpecker is NO EFFECT.
Dwarf Wedgemussel -The dwarf wedgemussel is a small bivalve, 1 to 1.5 inches (25
to 38 millimeters) long, shaped like a rhomboid or trapezoid. Its shell is olive green to
dark brown with a bluish to silvery white interior grading to cream or salmon toward the
junction of the two valves. Little is known of the life history of the mussel. A fish
species or group of species functioning as a host for reproductive dispersal is not
known. The dwarf wedgemussel is apparently a favored food for muskrats in winter.
Once ranging from ~ Canada to the Neuse River in North Carolina, the dwarf
wedgemussel is now known only in the Connecticut River system, parts of the Choptank
and Potomac Rivers in Maryland, and the Tar and Neuse River systems in North
Carolina. Causes for decline are generally attributed to stream channelization,
sedimentation, and degraded water quality. This species is now known from Neuse
Basin in Orange, Wake, Johnston, and Nash Counties; and from Tar River Basin in
Granville, Vance, Johnston, Franklin, Halifax, and Nash Counties. In North Carolina,
the dwarf wedgemussel occurs mainly near the fall line, in deep runs over coarse
sands, in streams with moderate flow. It may also be found in gravel or mud bottoms
with submersed aquatic plants or under overhanging vegetation, especially just
downstream of debris and on banks of accreting sediment. (TSCFTM 1990)
29

1
r
Little River is a shallow Piedmont stream with low flow. It exhibits a weak sinuosity and
a weakly developed riffle and pool sequence. A coarse sand substrate exists in
overwash areas, and may provide suitable habitat for dwarf wedgemussels. Mussels
may also occur in the muddier pool bottoms adjacent to submerged logs and other
debris, especially in areas containing submersed aquatic vegetation. However, the
shallow depth of the stream may be detrimental to continued survival of the species.
NCDOT contracted the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Non Game
Program (NCWRC) to survey the project site for the dwarf wedgemussels. NCWRC
biologist visited the site on September 28, 2001. Surveys for mussels were conducted
from approximately 1300 feet (400 meters) downstream to 328 feet (100 meters)
upstream of the project crossing. A visual survey of the river was conducted by wading
in the water and looking for mussels using a batiscope. Six species of native fresh
water mussels were found during the survey. These species include the Roanoke
slabshell (Elliptio. roanokensis), Threatened in North Carolina and the eastern
lampmussel (Lampsillis radiata), which will be upgraded to Threatened in North Carolina
effective July 1, 2002. The dwarft wedgemussel was not found during the surveys.
According to NHP records, dwarf wedgemussels have been documented in Johnston
County within the last ~20 years. NHP records do not document the presence of
wedgemussels within 1.0 mite (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The study corridor contains potential habitat for dwarf
wedgemussels. NHP records document no occurrences of dwarf wedgemussels within
1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project corridor. Given the survey results, it is apparent
that the dwarf wedgemussel does not occur in the project area. Additionally, the Rains
Mill Dam is located at the site, which creates conditions that are typically unsuitable for
this species. This dam is scheduled for removal. It is unlikely that this species will be
impacted by the project bridge replacement project. However, because the species is
known to occur in the Little River, it is remotely possible that it may occur downstream
of the project area. Implementation of High Quality Water erosion control standards are
recommended to minimize the impacts to the mussel faunal (which includes two state-
listed species) occurring at the site as well as avoid potential impacts to populations that
may occur downstream of the project area. It is concluded the project construction is
"Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the dwarf wedgemussel. The USFWS was contacted in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act , as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.). The USFWS concurred (see concurrence letter in the Appendix) in the biological
conclusion of "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the dwarf wedgemussel.
30

Tar spinymussel -This small (2.4 inches [60 millimeters]) mollusk has an orange-
brown to dark brown shell of irregular oval shape. The interior of the shell is pink and
iridescent bluish white. Two or more linear ridges extend across the inside of the shell.
Most specimens have from a few to 12 .short (0.2 inches [5 millimeters]) spines
arranged in a row along both valves. The spines probably help to anchor the mollusk to
the substrate in its swiftwater habitat. Details of natural history and fish hosts are little
known. The Tar spinymussel is endemic to North Carolina. Its historic range probably
included most of the Tar River drainage, but only two isolated populations are known
today in this river system. The Tar spinymussel has also recently been found in the
Neuse River drainage. Preferred habitat is characterized by .fast flowing, well-
oxygenated, silt-free water with nearly neutral pH and a gravel or coarse sand
substrate. This habitat is usually associated with shallow water. The Tar spinymussel
faces habitat degradation from siltation, which destroys the gravel and coarse sand
riffles in which it occurs. Industrial and sewage effluents also degrade water quality.
(TSCFTM 1980, LeGrand and Hall 1999).
Based on the habitat requirements of the Tar spinymussel, Little River has very limited
potential for harboring this bivalve species. While coarse sand substrates occur in
some overwash areas of the stream, most of the substrate in the stream is clay. The
waters of Little River contained in the study area are neither fast flowing nor neutral in
pH. Like all blackwater streams, Little River has an acid pH value, rather than neutral.
No Tar spinymussel individuals or shells were observed during the site visit.
NCDOT contracted the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Non Game
Program (NCWRC) to survey the project site for the Tar spinymussels. NCWRC
biologists visited the site on September 28, 2001. Surveys for mussels were conducted
from approximately 400 meters downstream to 100 meters upstream of the project
crossing. A visual survey of the river was conducted by wading in the water and looking
for mussels using a batiscope. Six species of native fresh water mussels were found
during the survey. These species include the Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio. roanokensis),
Threatened in North Carolina and the eastern lampmussel (Lampsillis radiata), which
will be upgraded to Threatened in North Carolina effective July 1, 2002. The Tar
spinymussel was not found during the surveys. NHP records do not document the
presence of Tar spinymussels within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Little River provides less than favorable habitat for the
Tar spinymussel, due to its predominantly clay bottom, low,, flow, and acidity. NHP
31

~ records do not document any occurrence of Tar spinymussels within 1.0 mile (1.6
~ kilometers) of the study corridor. Given the survey results, it is apparent that the Tar
1 spinymussel does not occur in the project area. Additionally, the Rains Mill Dam'is
located at the site, which creates conditions that are typically unsuitable for this species.
1 This dam is scheduled for removal. It is unlikely that this species will be impacted by
1 the bridge replacement project. However, because the species is known to occur in the
1 Little River, it is remotely possible that it may occur downstream of the project area.
~ Implementation of High Quality Water erosion control standards are recommended to
~ minimize the impacts to the mussel faunal (which includes two state-listed species)
` occurring at the site as well as avoid potential impacts to populations that may occur
~ downstream of the project area. It is concluded the project construction is "Not Likely to
Adversely Affect" the Tar spinymussel. The USFWS was contacted in accordance with
~ provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7
~ of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The USFWS
~ concurred (see concurrence letter in the Appendix) in the biological conclusion of "Not
1 Likely to Adversely Affect" the Tar spinymussel.
I
~ Michaux's sumac - Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous
~ shrub, usually less than 2 feet (0.6 meter) high. The alternate, compound leaves
~ consist of 9 to 13 hairy, round-based, toothed leaflets borne on a hairy rachis that may
1 be slightly winged (Radford et al. 1968). Small male and female flowers are produced
1 during June on separate plants; female flowers are produced on terminal, erect clusters,
1 which later produce small, hairy, red fruits (drupes) in August and September.
1 Michaux's sumac tends to grow in disturbed areas where competition is reduced by
periodic fire or other disturbances, and may grow along roadside margins or utility right-
1 of-ways. In the Piedmont, Michaux's sumac appears to prefer clay soil derived from
1 mafic rocks or sandy soil derived from granite; in the Sandhills, it prefers loamy swales
1 (Weakley 1993). Michaux's sumac ranges from south Virginia through Georgia in the
1 inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont.
Roadside margins within the study corridor support aroadside/disturbed land plant
community that may provide habitat for Michaux's sumac. However, an evaluation of
roadside and grassland areas indicates that regular maintenance has eliminated any
likelihood of Michaux's sumac occurring there. On June 25, 2001, NCDOT biologists
conducted a plant by plant survey in all areas along the project alignment that contained
potential habitat for Michaux's sumac. No specimens were found. Additionally, a
review of NHP files revealed no documentation of this species within 1.0 mile (1.6
kilometers) of the study corridor and this species has not been identified in Johnston
32

County within the past 50 years.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Portions of the study corridor occur in areas which
contain habitat suitable to Michaux's sumac; however, NHP files have no
documentation of this species within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor, and
a survey conducted by NCDOT biologist did not find this species. This species has not
been identified in Johnston County within the past 50 years. Therefore, project
construction will not affect Michaux's sumac. NO EFFECT
2. Federal Species of Concern
The March 22, 2001 USFWS list also includes a category of species designated as
"Federal species of concern" (FSC) in Johnston County. A species with this designation
is one that may or may not be fisted in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or
species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to
support listing). A list of FSC species occurring in Johnston County is given in Table 4.
Table 4: Species name, habitat potential within the study corridor, and state status for
species federally designated as FSC within Johnston County.
Common Name Scientific Name Potential Habitat State Status**

Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus . Yes SR
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata Yes T(PE)
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Yes T(PE)
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa No C
Green floater Lasmigona subviridis Yes E
Tar River crayfish Procambarus medialis No W3
Spring-flowered
goldenrod Solidago vema No E(PT)
Carolina asphodel* Tobeldia glabra No C
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var.
pusillum No E
F t_ast observed m ~onnston county netore ~atsr
'"`State Status Codes:
C -Candidate SC -Special Concern
E -Endangered SR -Significantly Rare
PE -Proposed Endangered T -Threatened
PT -Proposed Threatened W3 -Watch List: rare, but with uncertain documentation
33

I
1 The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for species listed.
NHP files do not document any occurrences of FSC species within 1.0 mile (1.6
1 kilometers) of the study corridor. However, the pinewoods shiner (Lythrurus matutinus)
1 is documented 6.0 miles (9.6 kilometers) northwest of Bridge No. 212.
1
I 3. State-Protected Species
1
I Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E),
' Threatened (T), Special Concern (SC), Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), or
I Proposed (P) (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand and Hall 1999) receive limited protection under
I the North- Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North
Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.). NHP records document
~ the occurrence of the Roanoke bass (Ambloplites cavifrons) in the project corridor, just
1 east (downstream) of Bridge No. 212. This fish has a state status of SR (a significantly
1 rare species that needs monitoring). The Roanoke bass has also been documented 1.8
~ miles (2.9 kilometers) northwest of the project corridor. The Neuse River waterdog
~ (Necturus lewis-~, a salamander, has been documented by the NHP approximately 2.2
~ miles (3.5 kilometers) to the northwest of the project corridor. Its state status is SC, a
1 species of special concern. The Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus), Neuse River
1 population, has also been documented 2.2 miles (3.5 kilometers) northwest of Bridge
1 No. 212. This fish has a state status of SC. Neither species was observed during the
1 course of the field visit. NHP documents a Significant Natural Heritage Area, the Little
1 River Aquatic Habitat, on the southern bank of Little River at the bridge site. Significant
Natural Heritage Areas are selected on the basis of the occurrence of rare plant and
1 animal species, rare or high quality natural communities and special animal habitats.
1 Little River Aquatic Habitat has a significance rating of A (NC DENR 1999). This rating
1 denotes nationally significant natural areas that contain examples of natural
1 communities, rare plant or animal populations, or geologic features that are among the
1 highest quality or best of their kind in the nation, or clusters of such elements that are
~ among the best in the nation.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on
34

Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their
undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable,opportunity to comment on such
undertakings. The project was coordinated with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) in accordance with the Advisory Council's regulations and
FHWA procedures.
B. Historic, Architecture
A field survey of the area of potential effects (APE) was conducted by Ko and
Associates on March 9, 2000. All structures within the APE were photographed and
submitted for review. Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT staff architectural historian, .reviewed
the maps and photographs in a meeting April 28, 2000, and determined that a technical
report evaluating two sites should be prepared. In October, 2000, Dr. Richard Mattson
conducted a field survey of the properties in question. His findings are detailed in the
technical report, Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report, dated December 20,
2000. Two properties =`house and outbuildings" and the Elijah Edgerton House -were
identified within the Area of Potential Effects and evaluated. Neither property is
recommended eligible for the National Register. The SHPO has reviewed the above
report and concurs with the findings (see letter attached in the Appendix).
C. Archaeology
In their letter of October 18, 2000, the Department of 'Cultural Resources noted that
Bridge No. 212 was in the proximity of a mill complex and requested additional
information. The mill and mill dam were removed by the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE). In a letter addressed to the USAGE and dated September 24, 1999, the
Department of Cultural Resources had "no comment" on the USAGE proposal to
remove the dam and mill. By telephone conversation on December 29, 2000, the
Department of Cultural Resources indicated that their letter of September 24, 1999,
addressing the USAGE proposal would. cover their concerns relative to NCDOT's
replacement of Bridge No. 212. No additional comments relative to archaeology have
been received from the Department of Cultural Resources.
35

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially
unsafe bridge.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
The studied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor is it a designated
bicycle route; therefore, no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this
' project.
No residential or business relocatees are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires afl federal agencies to consider the
impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland
soils, as designated by the United States Soil Conservation Service. The Act does not
expressly require a federal agency to modify any project solely to avoid or minimize the
effects of conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The Act merely requires that
before taking action or approving any action that would result in the conversion of
farmland, the federal agency examine the effects of the action using criteria provided by
the US Department of Agriculture. This bridge replacement project has been
coordinated with the US Department of Agriculture (see Form AD1006 in the Appendix).
The recommended altemate, Attemate 2, requires the conversion of 0.72 acre (.29
hectare) of prime and unique farmland and 0.28 acre (.11 hectare) of statewide local
and important farmland. The temporary detour altemate also affects 0.33 acre (.13
36

hectare) of prime and important farmland. The road closure alternate would not impact
farmland. The effects to farmland are minor and restoration of the abandoned
approaches may mitigate the conversion of farmland by the recommended alternate.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA).determined that prime farmlands
would be affected by the recommended alternative, thereby, meeting the requirements
of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 CFR Part 658).
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of National, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The 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. 40 CFR
Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment area.
The replacement of the. existing bridge will not increase or decrease traffic volumes
because of the project. The noise levels will increase during the construction period,
but will only be temporary. This evaluation completes the assessment. requirements for
highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for
air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act)
and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Waste Management revealed no leaking underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Due to the isolated nature of this bridge replacement project, no formal public
involvement program was initiated. A newsletter was sent to property owners in the
immediate vicinity in September 2000. A copy of the newsletter is included in the
Appendix. Letters were received from two (families) and from Board of Transportation
Member Durwood Stephenson citing contact with "a large contingen# of concerned area
citizens, including emergency services personnel, farmers, and area property owners",
all expressing concern about the project and requesting that traffic be maintained on
site during the replacement project.
37

1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
IX. AGENCY COORDINATION
Letters requesting comments and environmental input were sent to the following
agencies:
US Army Corps of Engineers- Wilmington District
*US Fish and Wildlife Service
*US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
State Clearinghouse
*NC Department of Cultural Resources
NC Department of Public Instruction
*NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC Wildlife Commission
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Natural Heritage Program
County Manager, Johnston County
Chairman, Johnston County Commissioners
Superintendent, Johnston County Public Schools
Johnston County Emergency Management Services
Chief, Boone Hill Fire District
Sheriff, Johnston County
Asterisks (*) indicates agencies from which written comments were received.
Comments were also received from the Town of Princeton and the Princeton Volunteer
Fire Department. The comments are included in the appendix of this report.
38

~~
._. ~•\?i ~ \. •~ • r~' __• 1336
`a ~ 1337 D
\\~~ ~ ~tl
' `,~ \\D \~~` :f: __. ~ 7336 1324 1320
,~ ' .. D -_
~~ ~ ~ ._, 1336 1} 't= 1427
•1\"b ~ . \C~a 1335 . t: 1331
~~ 1324 1364
~ 1334 N•hulq• 1426
4 1333 ~~
',BRIDGE NO. 212 ~,~ ~~, _~;% . `' ,~
~, ~~ its •3 ' 13x2 .t'
g\~o ~°,: H ~4'' ._. ~`~,~ • Idol laa2 r,,~, ror.l.~ae
~" d ~~~ 1341
• \S \y \ ~ \ \~ ~i \' 1339 1341
~ ~~ _ ~ \~~\`~, • 1333
` \ `,; `~ •" ' 1340 1324~,~p..
~~ \~_\~~~ ~~ ~ \9 '-. FIn61•Y 1337-' nJN`4 .
t4 ~7
3 _'~: 1_2S 1320 ,

C
.w
~s' a oI

1
~' •.'(•. Iooz

Pbasant
• 1aa6 141a 141s
- `'~''

131e
~
~ a,
\ 002
a '
~
\~ N • ,
(~:• FqY 1234
1
30 ~(
Fy ~. 333 1412
323
1320
~~ _
.
., ~ 1332
~~ :f:

.~ \. •r
~j~,
"~` '
` Rook.-- 1 .
X330 Ch. ~~; ~ Ic
-
~ •
1_31 1
1234 143
~F.~ ~ (R Z
~J~
•~
~ \•a.
• i. V
1433144
1 ~~ 1317
ms R(~
~j
~

' • 1229 .D .

~
1~\
1400
i
\` ' 14
~ /- '
32
138I~ 1329
,'
123z
123a~

13
26

`~s • EGn^zsr
Ch Izes 1~ _

+
~yy;, - ~ 1287 ~•
126- 1327
\N \ !~ 12~
~- - 1235
- ,237 lzs9' r
H
• '!233
G~•
~~8

2133 /

C> ROSEWOOD
~,

~

\`~'
~ :. 1226 lz3a -
a
^ ~ 2128 y Rmsr~aod (LINING)

. 4p07 GOLDStORO

N
_
7227 KING)
}~ \~ 1227 :)`; , N)l. 1,797

O H` - . ~ O i
T Baeigr
• ~J~~jp s ~ 1 ne
~~d 1~
• , i
a.e 3 + ~
Hdt^ Leten
! `~ -•, ~ NORTS CAROLIIdA DSPARTIl~TP OF TRANSPORTATION
e4nee^a7•
_ PROJBR.'f DBV~.OhP~1T AIQD
+•gr ~; ~ BNV11tODl~NTAL ANAi.TBffi FRANC'S
,....
BRIDGE N0. 212
SR 1002 OVER LITTLE RIVER
JOHNSTON COUNTY
B-3865
VICINITY MAP
0 I 2 3
GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES) FIGURE (

`~~ 2~

~,C~ ~' ~E

'~7 ~
., I~~ T~
S'TU~T~1 ~ ~~~IL~ LT~'~"I' ~

qr ~~ to ,~ gr z~_
Es=; . „/z ...~

i

~I

' \~ ~ ~ i ~~cg, '4~ ~ :r. - 1343
~*_'. ~ FRFMONT
\~~ \~ y ` ~~4>, :}: ~ ~~ lool 1x42 .,~, fOt.1.7l6
q: ° __;. \ ~ ~ _ ~' r\~ 13:1
\~ ~ ~~` •~r ~~ ~^ ~ ~ II ~\~s\ _~`N~~• ; 1333 1339
\~ ' \~ \\ 1340 '324
~ ~i cg~ • _ -'4' 1336
__ \ ~. lq ~,~ \~t~ ~ 139 p 1
`6`.F_ ~t: \;D \d ;f. ~ 1~ 1324 7320
d~ .. ,~ 1 ~. '• _- 136 •__ ;{', t427
~~ ~, ~~~ '~~ '~ '~:!'' - ,} 1336
~ \a
13za 1264
Q~ i334 NdwM• 7426 -
'~ •~` BRIDGE NO. 212 \a ~o =~%,~ 1333 v,+•
~ ~ r 3~ ._. ,~;~ 1320
J ~ ~ ~ Q' ',t•1 1002 1446 1414 ' ~, ~' 336
\'t ~,~ 1415 1318
S
Cp~ ~ \c~s \, \& \cl 1002 .X,ft '234 1333 1412 __
' .J ,a \ ~ 'Q2 • 1330 G1. 1~ 1323 13T7 ~+~ 1
d , \a \ ~ ~ ' ~' 1332
\~ ~ \~ : ~; LIttN
Rook.-. t324
13_d d-;
\s ~ ~ ~'f' `~s~ ~ ~ .ii I~
\ 7331 lZi3 143c
\°b G `\~yt) \\ \~ ., f: 1433114 1:.45 ~__ R731_7_
\ • 1729 1 1408 ~~(
~\~ I ~~
\E \' \y. E, 1381 ~ 1432 1329
y '~N • ~
.~Y~ ' 1232 1~' 1326 y
~``i' \U` • ~~ 285 128- ~ .
1287 ~~\••///
\~.y \~t ~ %2G 7 31 1235 1267 1327
1237 1259 r
\ ~ 1z33 - - i f~
' ~~.8~• 2133 / ~' ROSEWOOD
\~ .. 1226 123a I Y \ (UNINC) GOIDSRORO
_. ~`~ ~,~. 1227 122 , }; 2e !I . •,!D] NO
~ i
s .2 STUDIED DETOUR ROUTES
O H ~ ,~ p ~
7 ~Nq
l~
Levef
No7~LaA! - ~
~ N•.T• e
•O
NORTH CAROLIIdA DSPARTII<SNT OF TRADTBPORTATHlN
PROJSf.'T DEVBI.OPDIBNT AND
~`' ..~...~'. BNVHtOI[B~DITAL ANALl8l8 BRANCH
BRIDGE N0. 212
SR 1002 OVER LITTLE RIVER
JOHNSTON COUNTY
B-3865
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTES
0 I 2 3
GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES) FIGURE 6

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA
REPLACE BRIDGE N0. 212 ON SR 1002
OVER LITTLE RIVER
JOHNSTON COUNTY
B-3865
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: RURAL MAJOR COLLECTOR
POSTED SPEED: 55 MPH
ESTIMATED ADT: 2000 ADT = 3,600
2025 ADT = 6,800
TTST = 2%
DUAL = 4%
DHV = 9%
DIR = 60%
DESIGN SPEED: 60 MPH
MAXIMUM RATE OF SUPERELEVATION: 0.08 ft/ft
MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE: 4°45'
NO SPIRALS
MAXIMUM GRADE: 6%
MINIMUM DESIRABLE K FACTORS: Ksag = 120 TO 160 Kcrest = 190 TO 310
SHOULDER WIDTH & TYPE :2.0 fit FDPS 8.0 fit TOTAL (II.Oft WITH GUARDRAIL)
LANE WIDTHS: 12.0 ft
BRIDGE DECK WIDTH: 30.Oft CLEAR
6' 12' MIN. 8' 12' ~ 12' ~ 8'
VAR. SLOPE 18' DES. `GRADE
.-~~~ ~ ~ 2" ~ / POINT 2'L
9. ( ` ~.08 ~ ~ .02 .02 _ ~ .081 /
6• 6,
6-~ 2~
30' '
Ali' WITH GUARDRAIL
APPROACH ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
30'
BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
I
3' 12' I 12' 3'
P
NT
OI
~
.02
.02
~ ~
VAR. SLOPE
FIGURE 7
NOTE: KO & ASSOC. 5-03-00
HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL DESIGN PREPARED BY: DATE:
EXCEPTIONS MAY BE REQUIRED. APPROVED BY: DATE:

1
1
/
1
1
1
1 ii
~~ ~ •-
1 ~~ ~
1 ~i
1 ~ ~'
/ ~ ~
1
1
1
1
1
1 .
/ ~ NATIONAL fL00D INSURANCE PR06RAM
1
/
FLQODWAY
FkODD BQIINDARY AND
~LOOQWAy MAP
JOH~`~N COUiV1'Y,~
NOR~'H CAROLINA
(UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
PANEL 115 Of 180
(SEE NIAP INDEX FiaR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1'000 O 1000 FEET
a~ ~
,~~

/.,
~I\\\\\\*\\\I
~~

O
X
o ~
c_J
G !~ ww~~
° ~ SITE ~
~ -
/ a. /
~ ~~
// ~ % ~
i
~~~ ~ . -'
'N
0:
~~
~,
11
~~
~l
i~
``
O
FIGURE 8

/.
/-
1
1
1
1
1

1
r
1
1
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Feld Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 2763fr3726
Apri18, 2002
Drew Joyner, P.E.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mail Service Center 1548
Raleigh, NC 26799-1548
Dear Mr. Joyner:
Thank you for your February 20, 20021etter requesting concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) regazding impacts to federally protected species from the replacement of bridge number
212 on SR 1002 (B-3865), in Johnston County, North Carolina. This letter is provided in accordance
with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Service's March 26, 2002
letter concurred with NCDOT's biological conclusion of "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" for the dwarf
wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), however, that letter did not address the Taz spiny mussel
(Elliptio lanceolata). This letter supercedes our March 26, 20021etter.
Based on a review of our records and the information provided, the Service concurs with NCDOT's
biological conclusion of "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" for the dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon) and the Tar spiny mussel (Elliptio lanceolata). Please note, however, that this determination
is based on our current knowledge of the occurrences of federally listed species in Johnston County and
the surveys that have been conducted on the proposed alignment. We believe that the requirements of
section 7(a)(2) 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.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this document. Please advise us of any changes
in project plans. If you have any questions iegazding these comments, please, contact Dale Suiter at (919)
856-4520 Ext. 18.
Sincerely,
9~- ~ ~~
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
~,,~ Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: USACE (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ (John Hennessey)
FWSJR4:DSuiter:919.856.4520xI8/Johnston B-3865-2.wpd

PtM NT ` h , United States Department of the Interior
Qr Z
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field o~«
Post 08'ue Box 33726
*'~~cN ~ ~ `9 Raleigh. North Carolina 276$6-3726
November 1, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your August 22, 2000 request for information from. the U.S. Fisli and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 212 on SR
1002 over the Little River near Princeton, Johnston County, North Carolina (PIN B-3865. This report
provides scoprng information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal
and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project. .
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to facilitate a
thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Watrr Act Amendments of 1977. In regard
to avoidance and nunimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed highway projects be aligned
along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously developed areas in order to
minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological
value important to the watershed and region should be avoided. Crossings of streams and associated
wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where
bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes
without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and
median widths should be reduced through wetland areas. Roadway embanlmzents and fill areas should
be stabilized by using appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should.occur. outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Princeton 7.5 Minute Quadrangle shows wetland
resources in the project vicinity. However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of
a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel
using an acceptable wetland classification methodology. Therefore, in addition to the above guidance,
we recommend that the environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient
detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action.
1. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S.; including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National

~ Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 [`-o s of
` F.ngineerc Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
~ (Corps).
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
' identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation. plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to protect
mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be explored at the outset.
~ The document presents a number of scenarios for replacing the bridge, ranging from rehabilitating the
existing structure in-place, to replacing the bridge on existing location with on-site and off-site detours,
' to replacing the bridge on new location. The Service recommends that each bridge be replaced on the
' existing alignment with anoff-site detour.
~ The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) that aze known to occur in Johnston County. Be aware that the Dwarf- wedge mussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon) occurs in the Little River in Johnston County. The Service recommends that
habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the available habitats nt the respective
` project sites. ff suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, biological surveys for the
listed species should be performed. Environmental documentation that includes survey methodologies,
results, and NCDOT's recommendations based on those.results, should be provided to this office for
review and comment.
e FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further biological
~ reseazch and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa. Although FSC's
' receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their
potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if found. The North Cazolina
Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on species under state protection.

The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us during
the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the impacts of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom McCartney at
[phone], ext. 32.
Sincerel ~~
~T
. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures.
cc: - .. -
COE,Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
' NCDNR, Noithside, NC (David Cox)
' FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:10/31/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\lbrdgjoh.nst

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
JACKSON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Green salamander Aneides aeneus FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Endangered
Cazolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered
Olive darter Percina squamata FSC
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC
Iavertebrates
Appalachian ellctoe Alasmidonta raveneliana .Endangered
French Broad crayfish Cambarus rebunus FSC
Whitewater crayfish ostracod Dactyloctythere prinsi -FSC
Tawny crescent butterfly Phycoides batesii maconensis FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria dance FSC
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fraseri ~ FSC
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis ~ FSC
Manhart's sedge Carex manhartii FSC
Tall larkspur Delphinium ezaltatum FSC
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Swamp pink Helonias bullata Threatened
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides ~ Threatened
Butternut ~ Juglans cinerea FSC
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri ~ FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Carolina saxifrage Sax~aga caroliniana FSC
Divided-leaf ragwort Senecio millefolium FSC
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
Nonvascular Plants
Gorge moss Bryocrumia vivicolor FSC
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort PIagioehila sullivantii var. spinigera FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii vaz. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila virgiiiica var. caroliniarsa FSC
Cazolina star-moss Plagiomnium carolinianum (=Mnium FSC
caroliniaman)
A liverwort Sphenolobopsis pearsonii FSC
JOHNSTON COUNTY "
Vertebrates
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis . Endangered
"lanuarv / S. 1999 ~ Paee 25 of 49

/~
1
' CObI14ION NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Invertebrates -
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Tar spinymussei Elliptio steinstansana Endangered
' Yellow lance- Elliptio lanceolata FSC
Atlantic pigtoe

Y
ll
l Fusconaia masoni
FSC
e
ow
ampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC
' Green floater Lasmigona subviridis FSC
` Tar River crayfish Procambarus medians FSC
Vascular Plants
' Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii ~~g~d*

~ Spring-flowering goldenrod
~ Solidago verna ~ FSC
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabm FSC*
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusillum FSC
~

~ JONES COUN'T'Y
-.
Vertebrates - -
' American alliga#or Alligator missusippiensis T(S/A)
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus - FSC*
Red-cockaded woodpecker ~ Picoides borealis Endangered
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito errpito FSC
'
Invertebrates
Croatan crayfish Procambarus plumimanus FSC
-
t Vascular Plants
Carolina spleenwort ~
' Asplenium heteroresiliens FSC
Chapman
s sedge Carex chapmanii FSC
/ Venus flytrap - Dionea muscipula FSC
' Carolina bogmint ~4facbridea caroliniana - FSC**
Godfrey's sandwort
S Minuartia godfreyi FSC
avanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata FSC
Carolina goldenrod Solidago pulchra ~ FSC -
' Spring flowering goldenrod Solidago verna FSC
~ LEE COUNTY -
1 .-
' Critical Habitat Designation: -
Cape Fear shiner,Netropis
fr
Ch
h meldstocholas -Approximately OS river mile of Bear Creek,
om
at
am County Road 2156 Bridge downstream to the Rocky River, then downstream
t in the Rocky River (approximately 42 river miles) to the Deep River, then downstream in
' the Deep River (approximately 2.6 river miles) to a point 03 river mile below the Moncure,
North Carolina, U~. Geological Survey Gaging Station. Constituent elements include clean
streams with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates with pools, riffles, shallow runs and
' slackwater areas with large rock outcrops and side channels and pools withwater ofgood
1 quality with relatively low silt toads. -
January 1 S, 1999 Page 26 of 49

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
~.
3T 1 (To be comp/eted by Federa! Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request I ~ _ 2 ~ _ db
Name Of Project ~ ~Q /. ~ Federal Agency Involved r'~ IeYQ
Proposed Land Use * v ~i County And State I - Q p ~
•+~aea~warve ana Haan
PART 111 (To be completed by Federal Agency) site,/( 1 Site a' Site C Site D
A. Tote) Acres To Be Converted Directly /. / ~~, Z 5 I 1-
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly ~
C. Total Acres In Site ~. ~ 5 , 2
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum
Q9-- Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(6) Points
_ 1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By_State And Local Government ~_ _ ~ a
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area ~ ~ ~ S ~ J 5 ~ - ~---
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
1 5 1
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average ~ ~ ~ f
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland ~ ~ ~j ~ ~
9. Availabili Of Farm Su ort Services Q
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Com atibilit With Existin A ricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 '~ ~ "7
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part VJ ~~ t00
l;otal Site Asse sment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment
160
~~
Q
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) ' I 260 j
Site Se{ected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ^ No ^
Reason For Selection:

1
N' at5La7Eo
~~orw.~~
• North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jet~'rey J. Crow, Director
February 20, 2001 .
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: .David Brook {~~ ~~ ~~~..._.
Deputy State Histon Preservation Officer
Re: Replace Bridge No. 212 on SR 1002 over Little River, TIP B-3865
Johnston County, ER 00-8474
Thank you for your letter of January 12, 2001, transmitting the survey report by Mattson, Alexander &
Associates, Inc., concenng the above project.
For.purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that
the following properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
- House and Outbuildings
- Elijah Edgerton House-
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 any questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919 733-4763.
cc: Nicholas Graf _
Mary Pope. Furr -
Administration
Restoration
Survey & Planning
Location
507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC
515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC
515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC
Mailing Address Telephoae/Faz
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone].733-8653
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 (919) 733-b547.71~-4801
4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone].715-4801

d~ STATF a
.-~r•+~
~ ~
s
r •
• ~..
m~~.,•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office '
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jx, Governor Division of Archives and Histc
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Direct
October 18, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Bmok ~~ ~ ~~~ (~1~t~.
Deputy State Histonc Preservation Officer
Re: Bridge #212 on SR 1002 over Little River Creek, B-3865, Johnston County, ER 01-7364
We have reviewed the subject project and note that it is in close proximity to a mill complex. We
will require additional information concerning the age of the mill and the possible affects of the
project on the complex.
The above comments aremade 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, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
Roy Shelton, FHwA
Location Mslling Address Telephone/Fas
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 733-8i
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] - 715-2i
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] • 715-4!
SURVEY d PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC - 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] • 715-4.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION ~~ '~ D WATER CONSERVATION
~O
~~' FS~P '~~ X00
MEMORANDUM• ~°yF~r H~rc~y S~ ber 7, 2000
~ P
TO: Melba McGee ~~'~ gF~'~OPME~ 0Q'P~
~ NAIYS~s
FROM: David Harrison ~~~
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Project B-3865 (Johnston County).
If additional land is needed beyond the existing right-of--way, the
environmental assessment should include information on adverse impacts to
Prime or Statewide Important Farmland.
The definition of Prime or Statewide Important Farmland is based on the
soil series and not on its current land use. Areas that are developed or aze within
municipal boundaries aze exempt from consideration as Prime or Important
Farmland.
For additional information, contact the soils specialists with the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh, NC at [phone].
cc: William D. Gilmore
.~®
i
~m
1614 MAIL SERVICE CENTER. RALEIOM~ NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1614

DMSION OF PARKS ANO RECREATION
Y ,
. ~.
:. i
J ~ ....t:..~
. ~•
_ ~...~ ,
.~i., , JYr e y
t.' ifi ..: :.. ? S
~.
_ ~-1: x''.31-~ ~.J
.t .~f~.v~ ..tit
~~ ~:J?w~[[+~ .rte.
y SIR!- ~_'ir...
MEMORANDUM
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
October 6, 2000
TO: Drew Joyner
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, DOT
FROM: Stephen Hall ~ 1 ~-
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 2i2 on SR 1002 over the Little River
REFERENCE: B-865
The Natural Heritage Program database contains a record for the Carolina madtom
(Noturus furiousus), state listed as Special Concern, from the Little iZiver at this bridge
crossing. In order to pmtect habitat quality for this species and other aquatic organisms,
we recommend the following:
• follow all best mazlagementpractices for the control of erosion and sedimentation
• do not allow wet concrete to come into contact with the water
• do not place weep holes directly over the channel
/sph
1615 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2769 9-1 6 1.
PHONE [phone]t81 FAX [phone]:
AN EQVAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 5096 RECYCLED/1096 POST-CONSUMER PAPEF

11®~~ ®~ ~~~VJ~~®1V
l~ S~issroners
vViOiarrr E. Omrond 116 S. Pine Street WatEer Martin, Jr
PO box 67 David Starl'ag
Manor Pe+o Tem Princeton, North Carolina 27569 Larry ~,~,,,~,,,
Eddie Haddock
PHONE: [phone] • FAX: [phone]
Town Cleric Chief of Police
Marla Ashworth Edward Lewis
MAfOfNAAMfAMANfAfAAtANAAMiAM+M~MARRtff AAAf AAfRAAAAA+AAAAAMAfNAl4AAAAAMMAMIIlAfMfAfiAIMAANNRfAAMAAA
March 13, 2001
Mr. Drew Joyner, P. E.
Project Engineer
NCDOT-PDEA
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Joyner,
The Princeton Town Board of Commissioners would like to advocate that on-site detour be
utilized in the replacement of Bridge No. 212 on SR 1002 over Little River in Johnston Countyl.
Numerous atizens in Princeton utilize this route to Keny and Wayne County and it would be a
hardship on these people if this road were to be closed during the bridge replacement.
`Si/ncerely,
Marla H. Ashworth
Town Clerk
"Peaceful, Pleasant, Progressive and Proud"

Q~~~~
~~
PRINCETON VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC.
P. O. Box 631
Princeton, North Carolina 27569
November 3, 2000
Mr. Durwood Stephenson
1090 W. Market Street
Smithfield, NC 27577
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
This letter is in reference to the planned bridge replacement on Rains' Mill Road at the Little ~
River, north of Princeton. This project was referred to in a letter to me from William Gilmore with the i
DOT as B-3865, bridge no. 212 on SR 1002 over the Little River. I am submitting this correspondence in
my capacity as Chief of the Princeton Volunteer Fue Department, Inc.
My understanding is that there are 2 proposals for traffic routing being considered during the
construction phase of the project. One plan calls for an on-site detour while the other involves an off-site
detour.
We strongly recommend the .proposal, which includes the on-site detour for a number of reasons.
Fast, it has been determined that anoff-site detour will add 10 plus miles and 15 or more minutes to
response time for emergency vehicles. As you know; as little as 2 minutes in an emergency situation can
make the difference between life and death. Not only will the local residences and. daily users of the bridge
be impacted, but also the entire Princeton community could be adversely affected by delayed response time
due to our mutual aid agreements with surrounding departments. For example, a downtown Princeton
business engulfed in flames could require assistance from 3 different departments (Nahunta, Little River,
and Kenly) which would access Rains' Mill Bridge, and anoff-site detour would significantly hamper, if not
totally eliminate their ability to provide a timely and effective response.
Therefore, we see the total and uninterrupted access of Rains' Mill Road (SR 1002) as the only
viable option for the projection of life and~propeity for all concerned. ~ _
Sincerely,
'~
Ken Starling, Chief

f
q[€q€~~''-
Y
~~
~'
~?,
~~:
~~:
~::
.. _ ~_.._.,. ,... ._ ~ ., .._. _,. ...,K. _<
1"`a
.....,.. r 1 . J ~,3 ~ ,... .,.., ,,. _
.'~"s tea: s~ .: _ . ~.ior~ ri~c~s ~~ r ~~L<~ ~.c~st: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °z~°y~ ~ -~ ~e ~~€i~e U2
'-`~-~.. ~~~ i~~~;
'°~E~~~~°~~~~~.. ~9-~5~-~E~~~~xtaa~si X37,
~-~ ~~.~~ i~r~lcrs~ss~sciates.~c~a~z
f~"~y~'~yt8 ~~~ ~;~t~,~irt3#?. .~ ~ ,as_u ~.}:~,~3~t' p+ ~'~eje~~ g~gii~
~; ~.~5~~~,C~~` sic s. ~~~... _ F,~_. ,.. 1 i''~ I _ ~ ~.~"~... ~~Li`,
~w's?'`d€.°E ~y~~aF~ s~}~sg~~~¢ : ~~,e¢„< _L~? C:'~2G` _ ~~c .46~~ ~ :~~~~ ~w~ ~f'.a~~T
Utl~'LYE~Sf~$ tci`I `~7ao, w f.:??s~,.eGEC,`C~;'~f'u ~ i+~4~x~%LF?, 1'~J<ti `p I ~~~~ ~Jk`~
f,~DE?~...ectc~.~"' w~ l~F ~~~~, `. r r -~~~ SA~@EIS1UEl ~~8~-
^! E-. ,
,...-

r-'
d
.,..~ ~'
Q

CUB--~ a~ `7 0
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
November 1, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
~. ~ `
.t 4-, ~~~~ ~, ~ ~ao~
~°v~
Thank you for your August 22, 2000 request for information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 212 on SR
1002 over the Little River near Princeton, Johnston County, North Carolina (PIN B-3865. This report
provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal
and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to facilitate a
thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977. In regard
to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed highway projects be aligned
along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously developed areas in order to
minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological
value important to the watershed and region should be avoided. Crossings of streams and associated
wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where
bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes
without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and
median widths should be reduced through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should
be stabilized by using appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Princeton 7.5 Minute Quadrangle shows wetland
resources in the project vicinity. However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of
a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel
using an acceptable wetland classification methodology. Therefore, in addition to the above guidance,
we recommend that the environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient.
detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action.
1. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National

Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 ,o ~ of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Mam~al and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps).
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to protect
mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be explored at the outset.
The document presents a number of scenarios for replacing the bridge, ranging from rehabilitating the
existing structure in-place, to replacing the bridge on existing location with on-site and off-site detours,
to replacing the bridge on new location. The Service recommends that each bridge be replaced on-the
existing alignment with an off-site detour.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Johnston County. Be aware that the Dwarf- wedge mussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon) occurs in the Little River in Johnston County. The Service recommends that
habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the available habitats at the respective
project sites. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, biological surveys for the
listed species should be performed. Environmental documentation that includes survey methodologies,
results, and NCDOT's recommendations based on those results, should be provided to this office for
review and comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further biological
research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa. Although FSC's
receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their
potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if found. The North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us during
the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the impacts of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom McCartney at
[phone], ext. 32.
Sincerel~~~
y~ k~~
. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer) /
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NCDNR, Northside, NC (David Cox)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:10/31/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\lbrdgjoh.nst

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
JACKSON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Green salamander Aneides aeneus FSC
Hellbender ~ Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Endangered
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered
Olive darter Percina squamata FSC
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana ~ Endangered
French Broad crayfish Cambarus reburrus FSC
Whitewater crayfish ostracod Dacryloctythere prinsi FSC
Tawny crescent butterfly Phycoides batesii maconensis FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria Jana. FSC
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fraseri FSC
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis FSC
Manhart's sedge Car~z manhartii FSC
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpicrea FSC
Swamp pink Helonias bullata Threatened
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Divided-leaf ragwort Senecio millefolium FSC
Mountain catchflY Silene ovata FSC
Nonvascular Plants
Gorge moss Bryocrumia vivicolor FSC
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana FSC
Carolina star-moss Plagiomnium carolinianum (=Mnium FSC
carolinianum)

A liverwort
Sphenolobopsis pearsonii _
FSC
JOHNSTON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis . Endangered
January 1 S, 1999 Page 1S of 49

CO~II-ION NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata FSC
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Green floater Lasmigona subviridis FSC
Tar River crayfish Procambarus medialis FSC
Vascular Plants
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauzii Endangered*
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna FSC
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra FSC*
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusillum FSC
JONES COUNTY
Vertebrates
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC*
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito FSC
Invertebrates
Croatan crayfish Procambarus-plumimanus FSC
Vascular Plants
Carolina spleenwort Asplenium heteroresiliens FSC
Chapman's sedge Carex chapmanii FSC
Venus flytrap Dionea muscipula FSC
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana FSC**
Godfrey's sandwort Minuartia godfreyi FSC
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata FSC
Carolina goldenrod Solidago pulchra FSC
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna FSC
LEE COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation:
Cape Fear shiner, Netropis mekistocholas -Approximately 0:5 river mile of Bear Creek,
from Chatham County Road 2156 Bridge downstream to the Rocky River, then downstream
in the Rocky River (approximately 4.2 river miles) to the Deep River, then downstream in
the Deep River (approximately 2.6 river miles) to a point 0.3 river mile below the Moncure,
North Carolina, U:S. Geological Survey Gaging Station. Constituent elements include clean
streams with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates with pools, riffles, shallow runs and
slackwater areas with large rock outcrops and side channels and pools with water of good
quality with relatively low silt loads.
January 1 S, 1999 Page 26 of 49