20071842 Ver 1_Application_20071031

.,. swF °~
'~ ,,,.
.Q~~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
October 26, 2007
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
ATTENTION: Mr. William Wescott
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir,
~~ ~,
,,~0
<~ ~', rte,
~'' <,v~:~'~'c~
y~~~f~
i ~Il'r ~~ r0~`C sy~
~5,:`~~.k~ '~:~J
~ .~.
~. % '~
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
071842
Subject: Application for Nationwide Permit 23, 401 Water Quality Certification, and
Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization for the Replacement of Bridge No. 17
over Caraway Creek on SR 1918; Wayne County; TIP Project B-4321; Federal
Aid Project No. BRSTP-1918(2); Debit $240.00 from WBS 33658.1.1.
Reference: NW 23 Permit, USACE Action ID 200610573, issued on March 7, 2006
Please find enclosed a debit ledger, site map, permit drawings, and half size plan sheets for the
above mentioned project. A Categorical Exclusion (CE) was completed for this project on
January 4, 2006, and distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies are available upon request.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 17
over Caraway Creek on the existing alignment, while using an off-site detour to maintain traffic
during construction. The proposed structure will be a 130-foot, 33-inch box beam bridge with 32
feet 10 inches of clear roadway width. The structure will provide two 12-foot travel lanes with
4.5-foot offsets. The roadway approaches will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes with 8-foot
shoulders, 4 feet of which will be paved. Proposed permanent impacts include 0.20 acre of
riverine wetland impacts.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
General Description: This project is located in the Neuse River Basin (Hydrologic Cataloging
Unit 03020201) on Caraway Creek [DWQ Index # 27-61 ], which is a Division of Water Quality
Class "C NSW' Water of the State. In addition to Caraway Creek, there is one unnamed,
intermittent tributary (UT) to Caraway Creek within the project area, as well as four jurisdictional
wetlands. The UT enters the creek north of the bridge, which has its headwaters in a wetland that
parallels SR 1918. The remaining wetlands are associated with Caraway Creek.
Caraway Creek is not designated as a North Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a national
Wild and Scenic River. No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality
Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-I), or Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur within 1.0 mile
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone]$ CAPITAL BLVD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SURE 240
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBS/TE: H'WW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC 27(iO4
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

of the project study area. Additionally, Caraway Creek is not listed on the Final 2006 303(d) list
of impaired waters due to sedimentation for the Neuse River Basin, nor does it drain into any
Section 303(d) waters within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Permanent Impacts: As stated above, there is 0.20 acre of permanent riverine wetland impacts on
this project. These impacts include 0.05 acre of wetland fill, 0.08 acre of excavation in wetlands,
and 0.07 acre of mechanized clearing in wetlands.
Temporar~Impacts: There are no temporary impacts proposed for this project.
Utility Impacts: No impacts to jurisdictional resources will occur due to relocation of utilities in
the project area.
Bridge Demolition: The superstructure for Bridge No. 17 is a reinforced concrete deck on timber
I-beams, with a substructure composed of timber caps on timber piles. Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed to prevent any temporary fill from
entering Waters of the United States.
Neuse River Buffer Rules
This project is located in the Neuse River Basin; therefore, the regulations pertaining to the Neuse
River Buffer Rules apply. There will be a total of 5,687 square feet (sgft) of impacts to riparian
buffers. This includes 5,122 sgft (3,360 sgft in Zone 1 and 1,762 sgft in Zone 2) due to the bye _
crow. According 'to the buffer rules, bridges are allowable. In addition, 565 sgft of Zone 2
impacts will occur from approach fill due to road crossings. This road crossing activity is
allowable because impacts are less than the 150-foot/0.3 acre threshold, for which mitigation is
required. Uses designated as allowable may proceed within the riparian buffer provided that there
are no practical alternatives to the requested use pursuant to Item (8) of this rule. There are no
practicable alternatives to bridge replacement over Caraway Creek.
In-Stream Work Moratorium
According to the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, anadromous fish species are found in this
portion of Caraway Creek; therefore, NCDOT will strictly adhere to all stream-crossing
guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium between
February 15 and June 15.
Avoidance and Minimization
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to "Waters
of the United States". Due to the presence of surface waters and wetlands within the project study
area, avoidance of all impacts is not possible. The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all
reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts.
Minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design. These included:
• NCDOT is replacing Bridge No. 17 in place and utilizing anoff--site detour.
• The proposed bridge will be 77 feet longer than the existing bridge, increasing the floodplain
under the bridge.
• Two preformed scour holes will be constructed to filter storm-water runoff.
• The roadway grade was kept as close as possible to the existing, minimizing fill height.
~ 3:1 slopes were used in jurisdictional areas
~ NCDOT will observe an in-stream construction moratorium from February 15 to June 15 and
utilize Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage.
B-4321 Permit Application
Page 2

Mitigation
Anticipated wetland impacts on this project exceed the threshold for mitigation, set at 0.10 acre.
A NCDOT restoration site located in the same Hydrologic Cataloging Unit has enough riverine
mitigation credit to cover the unavoidable impacts on this project (0.20 acre). Please see the
attached debit ledger for more information.
Federally Protected Species
As of May 10, 2007, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists one federally protected
species for Wayne County: red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). The red-cockaded
woodpecker is listed as endangered. There is no potential habitat in the project area; therefore the
biological conclusion is `No Effect'.
Included on the May 2007 Johnston County list is the Bald Eagle, which was de-listed on August
8, 2007 and no longer requires a biological conclusion. However, the Bald Eagle is still protected
under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act as well as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Suitable habitat in the form of large, open water bodies that provide nesting and foraging habitat
for the bald eagle is not found within 660 feet of the project area. In addition, a search of the NC
Natural Heritage Program database (updated September 2007) did not reveal any records of the
Bald Eagle within one mile of the project area.
Project Schedule
The project has a scheduled let of April 15, 2008 with a review date of February 26, 2008.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: All aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). A NWP 23
was issued for this project based on impacts calculated from the CE. However, impacts have
changed from those cited in the CE and the permit will have expired by the time this project goes
to construction. Therefore, the NCDOT requests that a new Nationwide Permit 23 authorize these
activities.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3632 will apply to this
project. The NCDOT will adhere to all standard conditions of the aforementioned certification.
However, Riparian Buffer Impacts require written concurrence from the North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Therefore, in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a), we are providing five copies of this
application to the NCDWQ for their review and approval. Authorization to debit the $240 Permit
Application Fee from WBS Element 33658.1.1 is hereby given.
Neuse River Riparian Buffer Authorization: NCDOT requests that the NC Division of Water
Quality review this application and issue a written approval for a Neuse Riparian Buffer
Authorization.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.html.
B-4321 Permit Application
Page 3

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Amy James at (919) 715-
7216.

Sincerely,
~.
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (5 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Richard E. Greene , P.E. Div. 4 Engineer
Mr. Jamie Guerrero, Div. 4 Environmental Officer
W/o attachment
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Wade Kirby, Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Carl Goode, PE, Human Environment Unit Head
Ms. LeiLani Paugh, NEU
Mr. Randy Griffin, NEU
B-4321 Permit Application
Page 4

New Hope Creek Mitigation Site Debit Ledger
The B-2963 New Hope Creek Mitigation Site in Durham County consists of an
abandoned portion of the roadbed for Old Farrington Road that was vacated when Jordan
Lake was created. The mitigation project involved removal of the fill associated with the
roadbed below the 240-foot contour. The 7,400 C.Y. of fill removal restored the natural
grade and connectivity of 2.5 acres of surrounding wetlands associated with Morgan
Creek. The site was originally debited 7,400 C.Y of flood storage capacity and 1.0 acre
for wetland impacts associated with project B-2923 and is now being debited 0.2 acres
for unavoidable impacts associated with B-4321. These debits are illustrated in the
following table.
Site TIP HUC River Basin Division
New Hope Bridge B-2963 3020201 Neuse 5
County Mitigation Type Original Available Debit Debit
Durham B-2963 B-4321
Riverine Wetland 2.5 1.3 1.0 0.2
Flood Storage 74000.Y 0 74000.Y.

Pemi~ Drawing
. 8ftNt l,~of g
i
___-----~ zu
___- -"_'"- 551 117
,,,
s~ i rvsE r
aaow SITE 13 :
__~,
-_,-`- _/'--~ 13 111
507 70 ~
--- - --'~~- -` 13 11 117
- ~ 111
---~~~-_'~ 55
'vVAYNE COUNTY `~`-- " -'~~ _,-
l-~
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
~~ ~~++ TT A~ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
YYGTL~L1~ WAYNE COUNTY
IMPACTS PROJECT: (B-4321)
BRIDGE N0.17 OVER
CARAWAY CREEg ON SR 1918
SHEET OF 1®15.`' 07

' NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES
1 Jo)zn L. WhiEfield
4 Lucinda S. I~earsall, Heirs
5 Mildred P. Bell
C // O Lynda P. Bell
6 Garry Van ®rEOn, Heirs
C ~ O Brenda Hancock
St~etx of ~~
ADDRESSES
1356 Old ME. Olive H~
Dudley, NC 28333
535 Pecan Rd.
Dudley, NC 28333
112 Brookside Dr.
Jacksonville, NC 2854!0
4129 Pecan Rd.
Dudley, NC 28333
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATIO\
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAYNE COUNTY
PROJECT: (B-321)
BRIDGE N0.17
OVER CARAWAY CREEg ON SR 1918
SHEET 1 OF 1
1/I5/07

Penult Drawing
sneec~ o>t~

WE TLAND PER MIT IMPA CT SUMMA RY
WE TLAND IMPA CTS SURFACE WATER IM PACTS

Site
No.

1

Station
(From/To)

16+58/19+50 L

Structure
Size /Type

BRIDGE
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
ac
Temp.
Fillln
Wetlands
ac
Excavation
in
Wetlands
ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
ac) Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
ac
Permanent
SW
impacts
ac
Temp.
SW
impacts
ac Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
ft Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
ft
Natural
Stream
Design
ft

2
20+50/23+50 L LT
ROADWAY CUT 0.05 0.02 0.05
0.06 0.02

TOTALS: 0.05 0.08 0.07
REVISIONS:
Revised (froMto) station to end at 19+50 to include wetland impacts right of -L- 6/20/07
Revised Mechanized Clearing Impacts at Bridge 7/30/07

8uf~er Drawing I
• Sheet _, f of J'~
__--
__----- 222
~^ __-- SB1
' ~ ~ ,,,
,.:) - SEE ~ NSET
~"'"~-- %~., eE~ow SITE ,3 ',
-~
1'= '
- - = __~ ; "
~~- ```` _,` _/'-~ 13 111
~`~s•~fi `'~ __ 581 75 ~
`` `~~~~~, ``` 13 11 117
~ 111
```~'~ _~~ __ 55
WAYNE COUNTY y-- " - "
} '~ .
S ?-'~ ~
'~ '~ Niida'1 i ~J`
~~~ +~ Tyr ~r_~ ~ i 1`•fe~~r - ~ :•' ~'~' J_ ' i -
rte. z t. ~ _ .~~,~ , _~` y _ _ ~ ~~
ti ~ - ~ __ ^- } j _
J r i - ~,r ~ ! ~ 1
!~.. ~ ~ _ Ir ~ r
~. f , i ~' ~ .-,'i
VICI11tITY MAP NTS \
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BUr~'Gll WAYNE COUNTY
IMPACTS PROJECT: (B-4321)
BRIDGE N0.17 OVER
CARAWAY CREEg ON SR 1918
SHEET OF 1 / 15 d 07

Buffer Orawin~ '
St>leet 2 of ~
BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACT BUFFER
TYPE ALLOWABLE MITIGABLE REPLACEMENT

SITE NO. STRUCTURE SIZE
/TYPE STATION
(FROM/TOl ROAD
CROSSING
BRIDGE PARALLEL
IMPACT ZONE 1
(ftZ) ZONE 2
(ft2) TOTAL
(ftZ) ZONE 1
(ft2) ZONE 2
(ftz) TOTAL
(ft2) ZONE 1
(ftz) ZONE 2
(ftZ)

1 2 S an Bride -L-16+58-17+gg X 3360 1762 5122

1
Roadwa Fill -L-16+30-16+58
-L- 17+gg-18+10
X
0
565
565

TOTAL: 3360 2327 5687
REVISIONS:
Revised Buffer Impacts at Bridge 7/30/07
Buffer impacts upstream and downstream are 90 feet
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAYNE COUNTY
PROJECT: 33658.1.1 (B-4321)
REV 7/30/07

Sheet`of 5,,,,,
BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLANDS IN BUFFER
ZONE 1 ZONE 2
Site Station ctt^z) (n^z)
1 18+6D111+DD •l_ _ __ 3D7 __` D !-
TOTAL 307 0
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAYNE COUNTY
PROJECT:33658.1.1 (B-0321)
REV 7/30/07

N
V
W
O

i~,
ti
h
U
O
U
See Sheet i-A For hdex of Sleets
N if ]B,
'. PROJECT '• A a
" 2 EEGIN I I
B PROJECT ~;
IB18 ~ I
192 ~
I
1981 \'~
I
1991 ~ \
s ~'
991 ` \ \
`\
1821 •\
}063
OIB ~
]061 •I 1921
019 2068 \ -
201
1021 2068
20u -
02i
059 \ ~ ~ ~~1`
3051 03 '
~2 J
939 - ,_,
205]
fil 2060 ` \
~ - _ ~ ~ \
085 1932
\i
MS 1921 ~
y~~2aB3 2012 \
t9]0
VICINITY MAP
LEGEND ~~~- S221dIPd Detour ROme
THIS PROJECT IS NOT
WITHIN M(INfC1PAL BOUNDA141ES.

waYxE covxTr
BuffN Dtawinp
Sheet.. oty~,
LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.17 OVER CARAWAY CREEK
ON SR 19181N GOLDSBORO
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING AND STRUCTURE
PRELIMINARY PLANS
00 NOT U96 60R CONbl7lIC810N
NCDOT CONTACT: CATHY NOUSER,P.E..PROJECT ENGINEER - P,CADWAY GES]GN °CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE ESTABUSNED BY METHOD ((I °

GRAPHIC SCALES

50 25 0 50 100
DESIGN DATA
ADT 2007 = 6200
PROJECT LENGTH

LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-4321 = 0.203 mi. Prepared In tro Office of:
WANG ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
CARY, MC.
FDR NORTH CAROi1N.9 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HYDRAULICS ENGINEER DIT'ISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NOR2Ti CAROLINA
ADT 2030 = 10800 z°az srANDARD sPECIF1cArroxs
PLANS DHV = 60 % LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-4321 = 0.025 mi. PE
RIGHT OF WAY DATE: P
E
GREG S
PURVIS sNa~ATURe PF
sa 25 0 50 Loa D = 10 % .
.
.
,
PROJECT ENGINEER ROADWA' DESIGN srArs DESrcN ExcDU~rc
T = 5 % ' TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT B-4321 = 0.228 mi. June 21, 2006 ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) y = 50 MPH
LETTING DATE:
SCOTT L. KENNEDY FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIO
10 5 Q 10 20
I FUNC. CLASS =
April l7
2007 PROJECr DESIGN ENGINEER
URBAN COLLECTOR , PR. APPROVED
PROFILE (VERTICAL) ` TTST 3 % DUAL 2 % s1cNAruRE DRrsroN ADMrxrszRAmR DATE

Tuner Drawirq
Sheet LS .,t . ~
.^'
-dL- 103 PINC 13+78.70 = o
-L- SKETCH SHOWING BRIDGE
o s
' ~~0.CElR REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.

sPECUauT.Drtcn 8-432( 4
_ -L- I
u zl+aa ro ~s+so ~. Lr
LT,
PISta 14+07,38 IN RElAT10NSHIP TO ROADWAY -L- STA. 17*77.39 19.58
SEE DETAIL II

P15fa 11+16.96
'
'
' p = 12' 34' SB.2"lLrJ N

D = ~ 35' 23.4" N I
^ mli G<<>v~~~J> ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
~ RW SHEEi N0.
ROADVIAY DESIGN nY0RM1Ua

(LTJ
15.6
p= O
S0
D = G' 21' 292"
92'
L = 233
ttrEll ~ mEm ~I ~ ~~Y.r.. -9L- 104 PINC 18+43.98 =
L = 225J0' d
T = 113.01' ~I ~ I Sto, ll+8B.00 -L- ~ -L- Srd. 22+40.05 w.7r LT.
~;~~ ~; ~\~ ~, ALLOWABLE ]MPA ZONE 2
id
d B
E ENGINEER ENGMEEA

PRELIMIN RY PLANS
m Nor MBR coxBP
r
UC
.
' n
r
ge
R = 1,025.00' b a1 ~ , nor
R

T = 11696
I ~ ,R = 16,000.00'

% ~~
j ~" b'C~IN T(R, RROJECT 8-432(
~ l,~
SE _ .04 ^I ~ iv~ ~ nl I ruornK F ~t0. i3+13.00 -~ ~ ~ Dnnlcrn Drrcn
1 /~y, ~y~y,,,~5 cuss 'R' RIPRAP TD t
DS = 50mph ~ I ~ WOOG`' [ J1O ~l~W b(/t?lF ~ Y ~ ~/ FILTER fABRIC tB SY
~ tt1E 11 y TCJr~I M F\ SHOULDER BEAM GLITER \ _ _
a TYPE III
ro
~
B
O h

uns
~
~

I
L
CO STRUOT(ON
': BEG ^
+
p0
LT
~ A ~ ~ y. Y t (4' t 'T 'Y t t-y
CLASS IL . STA T9
e! I v:. I A ~ ~~ ~'~ I
'Y
- ne_ _ _ _ _ _ - = Q: .E Y ~~'
`
'
~ * I Iv000S
eL Y ~ F~y, * ~ ~ ~' ~
~
c
.I 1 ROC ;SiO. I~+SO.OO -L- ~~- 1 J ~eti~ V```III RIP RAP I y. Y~ 1
~~ ~ g ~ / ISTRU RE PAY TTEA¶ - e ~ Y, +` Y• ~ ~ I ~- _A ~
C -!- PC Sfo.r2+94.37. l ° E ~ =~ I ~'~* Ei -
L~ ~{- ?? Sfe.hu+r~41 r~ ~7 \ ~N 50'38'4B.4"E ~*~ R
- 1 ~ t r ~l 1 i ~~F\
TBDI W/FUT GRA1F .. ~
~
'
C
Y
~
~
~
I

~,_I ~
_ _ ~ y. ~
n
~7a115~
~
\

~ /
1 SPE
.
]AT DITCH I~ ]S'-CSP ~J 1
'E N ~ x-
1~ '
I
3! ; ~b PINC 9-1913 IsrA 14+50 TO ,ROD B LUG ~ 1 !+' ~ w% ~x~ R _~' _ _ _ _±-
z+ 1 15+ L LT SWSLEEVE I .Y+ . f cB' -
I
--C/F_.Fi~
S,T 19.92 SEE OETAJL a«1 ~I GASKET I r~ 1 ~
~ ---_
Y_-RC
~g _ ~c
-er_ .¢ ~ y, e_i
~ ~ 8
a ~ '~P 5' ~ B' ~ y~
i
F E
~
~
.. F. .Y
~
'I
I_oMSTE OB.B5 1 I -I- PT SILL ILT33.92
T
~
' ~ --
~
/
5r 5 ~ ~ ~~ II 1~~~ 1 i ,~ 'W C~ c ~~ p2' 44.5.
SH. BBLN GLITTER ,/~1 / P / I _ FI N 7• -.__.__
STA 16-I7.75 U L R) /~ _ ~ ,
TO BEGIN BRIDGE ®® F w ~-~~
x~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
'
R ~ ~~ ~
A
~
~ - - -
~
~
X
~~ ~ - -~ -a. ----
_~L_ C~_I 4 a G r ~___-__
, 4 SRryIB ppCAy
~^~ zres7 ro R
~
_
v ,15.26
= 5'A. IC.C9.54 i
x
~ Is eLK c
7
_
M
6
~ ~VI /,7f. ~ ~ T>'PE LB m R ~ - ~ 4
'
~ _r._.__ ~
-~- --X_GX cse
~

.
1 / ii A
c - --
rl
ti ~
I
_ p--__
x-__X
X
L
~
i;R 1 WOODS

~~ +00.00
' ~
` .
C
is 4 ~E FOW
MOGGS .'l~~ t'e~ ~a ~%
j~ ARE
imm ~' SOIAL oL15, RCP ~~. ~ ~ ~ I ,BqU~ ',/ L~ '"- ~ aB
G~
/
~
~ '-~q°'• J
,,,~x-
55.00 _ __
m n
/Irrr~'---~~~'~mp
~ 0
A G
l ti.r I
" RSA'- '
~"
I I
!J G4'04'022"E I -cam
R
~ 1
~J'~• ~t5
;~ x
~ S /
R sgcP ~,R REMDYE , ~,r~cc A ~ A a, ~,c9,; , f ' r 1 -L-
~~
z A~~ REARING,
/
~; /~ ~ ,w
, IB 1 P! Sta 20+78.62
-c- c--
Ic ~ . - `a ° e'r'~ 8 ~ Ri ''' ~~/
~ 1~ `
/
'
'
'
-
i ,
27
2B.D
!R7
COx: REMOVE I1O' c c
i=!r.--l ~ E ~ ;`~° iY 'Y 1BdIW~FIATGRAIE p= !6
~
~ J

_
1 p -
= - "~
I
I L= 330
33'
.., Sal 0
-O SP.R9 _-
H57 aa1~0 1
....:31C ?:..^AY ROAD 2
__ _ _ ~~
~'
h 63" 7~ j~I2' C ~I~"4[A~~ °
~~
d ~
14
.
L
Q ~ '9.
I G ~~ B.?^ ~ i~ I '. ~ / ~~ ^~' / '1
fif t 1
I Y~!I % I 'E1 ~ 1 T = I6rJ.3r'
'a o - ~ __ _ H I h I
a'
~ 1 ~E oa -PfsH~ I I 1 T ~ I R= IJ50.00'
N 5 ' 1 ~ d. 7r, o. rFC? i RCo r 24' RCP~© I / J ~ ~ '? I 1 ~ SE _ .D4
ICUSS II I lJ I SHOUIDEk BERM GUREA
~
~ ~
~

-L- PT .StQ. 22

+42.64
-~i-- ~~~C
-
RETAIN
(t'j L I I y. ~ END BRIDGE TO i X 1 2
^
''~- ( ~ ~i~ !RIP RAP
DS = 50mph
€~i I _ TIE TO 0.EMOVEi STRUCNRE :1 I l~ STA~8-75.00 0.L~E i 1 ~
0.Y ITEMI - ~ ~
~ 0 ~ J FASTING DrtC~i ' j
19+12
31
~ ~ -L- PC Sta
•
~
~ END T(R RROJEGT 8-4321
BPECIM LAT. DfiCH
STA 19+75 TO 1P+BD -l- AT l
SEE DETAIL tl END CONSTRL CTION
~ ~
.
.
, * •
ExcAVATE
~ is•°csP wrEteoNS
REMOVE ~ ~
~ ~
RCI ~ ~ ~
' i ~ ~ I 1 I $~TE ~ ' ;< ,
~
~
N
G
~ Pn r Sta, 23+50.00 -L-

I ~ ~

f.,1`"\. ~ ~
-~ I 1 ~
~y ~~y 1 ~ I
4~' 4Y ~
F I
0.06 B LUG W/ !F7~ - I ~
p
w0005
REMOVE
CE
A
I
~ ~ ~ ° 1 ~ ~i ~ ~ PAY tfElAl~~ i M ° 21 SLEEEEVE GASKET Lh' PREFORMED SCOUR HCNf PFS
I I I EST 910 C ~ ~ F g ~ STA.rlr+9gG7 IAT.V-0rtCH
~ ~ I ~ fl .~ ~ ° ~_HT vucus¢'B'urear Ct AIL `I
~ 5 F J 1 I '~~^~,~ Y' P- "~' S7A 18-00 70 5?ECIAL L~~'V GTCH
!I 70P OF L - ~'~ 5~4Ri8+7G.91R ~ 19+75 1L- RT rvo* ro Scoiel
r-J I ~ RANK -' 1"'>, BEE DETAIL d4
x [ 03' kT. I
F'
~ -~ ~ I ~~ -
CL. B. RIP'
RAP
~ ~
i~CTAL 'Z
lA'BRAL 'V' DITCH
~ROr+o xme'

~-.-~-.-~ Ffll
Ra.uro
Slane
o~n~~Jy p vv..

DE I AIL u3
SPEGAL Ln A ASE DITCH
INOt ra Scole~

N .~r i r
L ¢~
auna 3;i T
CF
tL 5o
I
~
~
_~
'~~ I ~ SPECIAL Ui. BABE DRCII V/iP5 ~~ f~"'l ~ x dl TONB r
J
rvor
_ 7 ~ STA 14-50 TO 15+001-L- RT~ ~~, 51'J. lE-3.3.U~ -~~ ~ Y, ,E FILTER ABAL[ 181 BY ural ,~ ~,~ ,~¢( rni Mn. D L0 F+.
- -__ I ~ ~ ~
_ _ _ _ -- ~ J ~ ~ SEE DETAIL t3 J crown 3 '~ S ooe ru.er NcA. o~ LO F!.
__ _ ~ 1 y;A I 1 PcRMANENT BOIL BBglll Ap~j~OJCI) ~,:,~_~I ~j' ~ ~i6L IOr ~JB.OO -L-DDE ZTCY v D so rmrlc ~- 5.0 Fi.
-- ~ ~ 11 REINFORCEMCidi ~ ~ 5101 ~ f ~E 111 D~~l ~ ° Y~ ~ ~
1 r MAT P50.ML?ZS SY g g~ Min, p= L0 Ff, TYGe of l'ner= Closs 'B' Rlo-Rao
'i'
1
`
I ~
~ U
~o
oe
o
., ~
U M n.0 A Fi.
Max. o= I 0 Ft.
B- 2.p ft.
~ L~
]

`jJ 4 l
I
^.
~ ~
L 1 ~ y
1 I
ti^''
STA 11+50
00 lT
TO SfA 15+60
00 LT
STA 18+00.00 RT. TO STA 19+75.00 RT. Type of Lner PSRM !Perm. Soil

Aeinf. Mott
r ~J
P-~ ~ L
~
.
.
.
.
--,
,
r
1 STA 19+75.00 RT. TO STA 22+50.00 RT
~'~
1 I (~ ppE _ ]1 Ly
. CL. B RIP-RAP = 61 TDNB
! I ,~,
~
'
}
1~ SIA 11+00.00 U. TO STA 27+BO.OD LT.
}
~~ X FILiffi FABRIC 181 BY STA 17+50.00 RT. TO STA 15+00.00 RT.

J I ~
!!
I ~ i PFAM. BOIL RFINF. M47 = 225 BY
'. '~ ~' I 1 ~ ~~ ?PRDGE HYu"RAULIC D.~TA ~ ~ ~
I
~ ~,
~ I DF~IGN DISCHARGE = 790 CFS i

'

l ~ ' '~. ~ ~ N Fi,C,.a! NGl' /J YR
' U~S~ ~
I I
~
S
~ EL = X9.33' ~ 6asr os~r~RGE _ Aso cFS ~ I I
I
I
'
~
'' I
I
I ~ 120
~
120 ' i /c = !50' ~ „aSE F-EOuENCY - X00 1
R
' =7-
,
~ I
p°o 1
1 ~ o ~ ~
~ ! K = d3~
~ DS = 5D MPH ~I
I I ~ SASE ~HN E!EVATION = 7',.T I I
TBM#2
Pl ~ 15+93.00 ~-olii. ~; r!N?GE = 19„0 CFS I I _ _I i
I vvERT,Ir vC ^ SC' ~
~
I
+^ i ~ VC ~_ ~~l6' I I 0/EFrOPFIh~ FEEDUENCY= *~OrJ YR ~ 40.16'RIGHT
' -
I
' Z' °'I
110 ' i K ~ 79 0/EP70PrC/
ELEVATION
;4G' 1 -I- STA.1B+3
1 p.91 I I 110
I
W ~ ~ I ~
^~~~~~ omwl i~
i I I
I ~ ~'I DS ~~= 45 ld P~
J ~ ~
-
~ u.,TE OF J L EV / /OS ~
26 83' RT
i W.S.ELEVATION ECEV.= 76.
'
2'
o

1 I I
TJ4
3
~
ROPOSED
°I !
° 47 DATE OF SUPVEY - 66.2
i
i I
I
'

L-
~
~
-' ~ I

LATERAL p
N
~+

! I
100
' .
$~3% ~
7 BADE v
ii RI
o i ~
~
BEGIN RIDGE END BRIDGE

P1= 1

9+40
00
o °
o

'V' DITCH a
t2 m 100
I
,
i ~J9.~
'' 3//j
3
~ Q:~ o~
~,~
~ I STA.11~B8.00
STA.16~58.00
I
~
EL = .
~2J0' °
o °
~
STA
21+0
00 LT a RH
Z
a

I
z
3.9B0 a
~~~ ~~ I l 0 . .
. I r
-

-BL- STA. 6+08.85 ! °' ~ 3.8000~~ ~ ~'W ~m I ~ Cl STA 17+23~-L- ~
~'}~~ a ~
~8~.,
N ~I
~
wIW '1 1~5b',1C80' K = -I

GS - I

45 MPN ~
a ?
~
~ NI

~I Y
m I ~

q -

90
90 I i 44.65' LEFT =
~ ,
F
~
+ p, z ~ OOq ~ +-~ il~ 33" iBOX BEAM ~
~~
240
°
~
~
~ ~ a
L-
~ ~
w In ~
w
~-~ _
___- __ ~
J .~
_. -
k - _.._
~
~
-~.- STAl0~D9.94
' ~k~
/,.~ _
00
rl~ o of ~1
~1 N01 DECK DR
NS
!
° o ~ r 58p0 0 ~b. _ ~J I 1 1 1 ~
~'a ~ ~ i
1 ~
I
-~ -- ~
- -
.~_ -~ 3,450 o
30. 1
LT
i LEV.= 119.26' ~
m~iW I ol0 ~l0 c 0'., ~ 300%
H J I O C 'l~' -F197~9~~
__ i
1
l --f
1 6474'
+12
z
I '
-
1 __-' ?.'---- ~~
F 4. ° M°,
80 ~ ~
~
----
,0 0' o 'i ~ ~i [ - . ~o,:.
~ ~~~~ ml'0 0
r-
, .
l9.~% _ -
3. 00% o o m~~ °o BO

Q c, _iD O
~
IXCRYATE T
1 NG _
i
•o
P

I I I-_i
jf,
(
i
~Ipp
an w Cj w ~jm o. 1 ° b~ ;~: ~ I ° ,
NA M Q

~
~~ FI J O ul l 'it's
VI ~~ W Q' r-1 h >n ~ F%dAYATE TO NG
LATERAL ~ w ~m Q
srRUauaE PAY brut :j /
/
~`
A' \
/, h'
I 1 BT. 390 CYI
i j
---' -15pY
s~
1°Ie O

"
N N^
~ Q ~ W
F- J h W

I
1
70 '~, I
Q1 ~ 0]
Esr.91D cr
BASE DITCH ~ ~ ~'w ~

~ f
~~
I I
)
~ -
+~°
'
al
r
b N,W 70
~
wiPSRM I mw I I \ I ~I I 3.4000°/~i

~ ~ o
Lv
~n
w
I i SPECIAL I
~ / ~1

TO
i
STA. 15+~'~D0.00 RT.
~ LATERAL
~
, 'Y' DITCH
~ NN'SE AND WB~/
~ N uaps=6E.B ~
~ ~ ~I
~ ~ O O
° o
°
~ N' W
AL
~ ~
60
6Q o + o SPEC IAL LATERA L LATE

1 I

~
I
SjA.14+50.

~ LT
00
I

~ I

~
TIN ~

1
a•
'V' D

a

ITCH W/C

l. B RIP RA
'V'D

I
TCH

' 1
~ i TO STA.15
I 60.00 LT. Alo I 1 I

I

!

~ ! i

~~w ~
i
w TO T

STA. 19+7

.00 RT.

TO

TA. 22+5

.00 RT.
50 ~

I !
I I i , 50
I I
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

N
Fi
U
h
a
ti
IIh I
0
See Sheet f•A For Index of Sheets

N
s

PRELIMINARY PLANS
m ror us 1a oasnacnon
NCDOT CONTACT: CATHY HOUSER.P.E.PROJECT ENGINEER -ROADWAY DESIGN 'CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY METHOD Ill'

S~'A~C]E ®F N®I~TH CAI$®ILINA
I~IVISI®N ®F HIGHWAYS
WAY11tE C4U11lTY
LOCATION: BRIDGE 1110.17 OVER CARAWAY CREEK
ON SR 1918 IN GOLDSBORO
TYPE OF WORD GRADING, DRAINAGIry PAVING AND STRUCTURE
s mw wra r~oRS r pr 'i
B-4321 1
1111{ ~~ R~~r/ML OIO
33658.1.1 BRSTP-1918121 P.E.
VICINITY MAP
rer.~ }{-~- s~Ra n~1.. a~.r.
THIS PROJECT /S NOT
WITHIN YuNIC1PAL BOUNDARIES.

1
Note: Not to Scale
*S.U.E. = Subsurface Utility Engineering
ST?~TE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION O~ HIGHWAYS
CONVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
BOU11iDARlES AND PROPERTY RAILROADS.'
S
d
d
State line tan
ar
Gauge

County Line RR Signal Milepost ,,,~ „c
Township line -~ Sv"~ ~
City line _ RR Abandoned -- -^
Reservation Line - • - . - RR Dismantled -
Property Une RIGXT OF WAY.'
Existing Iron Pin a Bowline Control Poirt
Properly Comer -" Existing Right of Way Marker 0
Property Monument ~ Existing Right of Way Une -
Parcel/Sequence Number ® Proposed Right of Way Une -~
Existing Fence Une -"-"-"- Proposed Right of Way Une with
Proposed Woven Wire Fence ~- Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Proposed Chain Unk Fence -e-- Proposed Right of Way Une with
Concrote or Granite Marker
Proposed Barbed Wiro Fence ~'- Existing Control of Access
--~
Existing Wetland Boundary - - - -°- - - - Proposed Control of Aaess ~_
Proposed Weiland Boundary ~ Existing Eawment Line --E--
Existing Endangered Mimal Boundary `"- proposed Temporary Construction Eawmenf - e
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary °'- proposed Temporary Drainage Eawment- -~-
BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE.' Propowd Permanent Drainage Easement - - roe-
Gas Pump Vent or U~G Tank Cap o proposed permanent Utility Easement -nrr-
Sign g
well ROADS AND RELATED FE9TURES.•
Small Mine ~ busting Edge of Pavement -----
Foundation ~ 6dsting Curb -----

Aroa Outline
0 Proposed Slope Stakes Cut ~ - -
- - - -
Cemetery ~ Proposed Slope Stakes Fill - - - _v -- -
Building ~'~ Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp Curb Cut -
School ~
Curb Cut for Future Wheel Chair Ramp - cr
Church ~
Dam Existing Metal Guardrail
Proposed Guardrail '
HYDROLOGY.' Existing Cable Guideroil "
Stream or Body of Water ---- proposed Cable Guideroil "
Hydro, Pool or Rewrvoir r---- J
~-
Equality Symbol
Jurisdictional Stream -is-- - Pavement Removal
Buffer Zone t -ez , -
BufferZone 2 -u:- INEGETATION.•
Flow Arrow ~-•-- Single Tree 4
Disa
earin
Stream
g
pp ~------ Single Shrub o
~n9 ~'-•'•~-, ^ Hedge m"w^"^^^'^"
Wetland t Woods Une ''~
Proposed lateral, Tail, Head Ditch ~
~~ Orchard f3 Q 4 Q
Falw Sump ~','^> Vineyard ~~a
EXISTING STRUCTURES.'
MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert
Bridge wng Wall, Head Wall and End Wall
MINOR:
Head and End Wall
Pips Culvert
Foolbridgs
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB
Paved Ditch Gutter
Storm Sewer Manhole
Storm Sower
UTILITIES.'
POWER:
Existing Power Pole
Proposed Power Pole
Existing Joint Uw Pole
Proposed Joint Uw Pale
Power Manhole
Power Una Tower
Power Transformer
U~G Power Cable Hand Hole
H-Frame Pole
Recorded USG Power Line
Designated USG Power Line (S.U.E.')
WATER:
Water Manhole
Water Meter o
Water Valve
Wafer Hydrant Q
Recorded USG Wafer Uns ~-
~-] Designated USG Wafer Line (S.U.E.')-- -- ----~- - - -
~ cac ~ ~ Ab
G
d W
ove
roun
ater line uc .ofr
c ~ TV:
N Satellite Dish p
>---------~ TV Pedestal
^CB TV Tower
----- l4G TV Cable Hand Hole
® Recorded l4G TV Cable n
" Designated l1G TV Cable (S.U.E.'~ ----n----
Recorded USG Fiber Optic Cabk -
-n ~~-
l
b
~•
8
~--.
TELEPHONE:
6dsting Telephone Pole +
Proposed Telephone Pole -O•
Telephone Manhole 8
Telephone Booth D
Telephone Pedestal m
Telephone Cell Tower .ls
UG Telephone Cable Hand Hole
Recorded l1G Telephone Cable
Designated lLG Telephone Cable (S.U.E.'~- - - - -~- - - -
Recorded lYG Telephone Conduit ~~
Designated tYG Telephone Conduit (S.U.E.'}~ - - - -R- - - -
Remrded USG Fiber Optic Cable ~ ro-
Designated l1G• Fiber Optirs Cable (S.U.E.'}- - - - -~ ro- - -
Designated USG Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.'r- - - - -n ro- - -
GAS:
Gas Valve ~
Gas Meter
Recorded WG Gas Une a
Designated USG Gas Une (S.U.E.'J- ----~----
Above Ground Gas Uns "` `°'
SANRARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
Sanitary Sewer Cleanouf p
tLG Sanitary Sewer Une g
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer sic sou+Qy s...r
Recorded 55 Forced Main Une ~d-
Designated SS Forced Main Une (S.U.E.') - ----n,--__
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pde ~
Utility Pole with Base p
Util'ty Located Object p
Utility Traffic Signal Box m
Utility Unknown U~G Line -,~--.-
l1G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil 0
kG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil 0
ll~G Test Hole (S.U.E.') ~
Abandoned According to Utility Records - Ap~R
End of Information E.0.1.

RlaECr R961ElJCE Ho. a+xr
8-+'32! 2
N)ADWAY DESIGN M1flABdY a
L
PO AOT O~ 10/ CLlg1E0Ct17N
WANG RVIRN®IING
~ 7e.
I'-T' 32'-10' I I'-T'
4'-5' 12' 12' 4'-5'
6~i' ~
.02 POINT IO~j' ~
.02
O ~ ~ ~ O O ~ O
I-
12 BOx BEAM Ut~NTS = 36'
TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION
-L- Sto.16+58.00 to Sta. 17+88.00
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE

Preformed
Scour Hole (PSH)
(Rip Rap in basil
not shown far ciariTyi
3.0 ft. to 10.0 ft. of Permanent Soil
Reinforcement matting (PSR)
to be prescribed around perimeter
of scour hale (see plan views);
Shall be graded level.
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
A PROP. PgITLAItt CEYEMT WNCRE7E PAVFJENT
~.' PROP APPRO. 2' ASPNALT CORC. BUIFACE COUR/E,
TYPE ~.SB, AT AV AVERAGE AATE OF xx~ LR8 PER 80. rD:
D1 PROP. APPRW:, x.5' AIPINLT CORC. INIERYEDUTE COIRIBE;
TYPE I11.OB~ AT AR AYERA9E RATE OF xes Lab PER 90. YD.
E1 PROP. APPROZ. ~' AIPIMLr coRC. BABE oanRE,
TYPE B2S.OB, AT AR AYERAOE RATE OF ue LR8 PER 90. ro.
j EAATN WTERIAL
NDTEt ALL SLDPES hl (MESS OTRER~SE SPECIFEO
Section A-A
F/9
'ro
e P1pe0utletich PSR
_ _ d Natural
--~-r0 ,~;~- - -- --- ---~round-
obOaooooo ~ W
Liner: Class I Rip Rap
with Filter Fabric 6 ~ I.0 FT tuck
NOTE: '8' denotes size of basin; NOTE: The Permanent Soil Reinforcement
For example: S.Oft.x 5.Oft. PSH, 8=5.0 mooing (PSR) shall be seeded with native
grasses at instollation.
B D W d CLASS I DDE FILTER
STATION PSR RIP RAP (CU YD) FABRIC
FT. FT. FT. FTa TONS (SO YDl
16+68 -L- 5 1.5 5 0.5 li 22 15
17+92 -L- 5 1,5 5 0.5 II 22 15
TYPICAL SECTION N0. I
USE TYPICAL SECTION NO.IAS FOLLOWS
-L- Sta. 11+50.00 to Sto.16+58.00 (BEGIN BRIDGE)
-L- Sta. IT+88.00 (END BRIDGE) to Sta. 23+50.00
(Nat to wale)

~ '~ z
a~
a~
~ ~ a
a~ ~~
~~ ~~
o, < a s
°'
QD+S~j
i
W i
~ O.
~ f
~ ~.
M
,~:
IZ.
~~
~ I 'rC
I 00'SL +
I ~~
£~°!~
~s
~~~ 1 1
~~~ "~ ~ 1 I
~. I I
n~ M~ 1 I
~~ ~~ 1 I
1
8 ?/
~ ~ + er^ 1 r
~~~ 1 1
a~ ~~ ~ ~~
~ ~~ ~ ~
1 ~ 1 1
J 1 `
mi 1 O !~ 1
I I
1
o~ 1
~~ / ~~
O~~ ~ /
I
~~
1--
~1 ~
11
I 1
I
:I ~
I
I
I
1
~s
i> ~
~~ ~~. ~
~,
I ~~+
„~ ' ~ ~~
N J Z
m
a m I * ~ ~~Y!
1_1 I
°; ,ga ~
~~ $ ~ ''
ei~ ~o ~
cN C ~
J 1 ~
' o F ~~~
m J N
1 1
~i
.. xsxe~•
!•
W 3
as .t-,t t se
m~
'~ ~~ r
G 6 ' O
~~ 1 1
~ QI ~~
~a
z~ ~~ _ ~
~,
~d

Hi

$

'

S~ ~
~
t
~~ 1.~
1
O
~F ~ ~
11
" "
OhA ~`

~
~~ ~
ii ~ ~ F
_ 'S'd , d , ~ ~ ol~ 6N
~ ~ ~~ ~
N

N~~IrI W
J`
_~___ - SL
~
~
~~~~~ ~ '
mJ
~ ~~~~
~~~~~ ~- --
-
cc R/!
i `~~ ~q ~ p ~ Q
~40r,~~vi~ ~ '
~ ~
•. + ~
~~j m N J~
I +~
~~e~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~#
-~ o b ~ ~ 9
I ~~ M ~ ~ N q 1
J
~s.ee•
rrlx•~e" o~_
~ ~ y
~~ 2
m a
~~ ~
a~ g
°~ ~
~4~1
~~ .. -i JgN~ '1
~' ~~J 1~eW Jet
h JrW U1~~1

~~~ ~~ ~'_
$~ ~ ~ Z'
T
Zai j ~ I
I p,
~~ •«
4 LL
sg=
1'v
S ~ ~d~d
~~ ~~~v
1
1
MINI
~~i ~ f
I t
7

i i '11~
f
_~ ~
~ '~ ~.
~ (! N
i
; ~

~+ ~
~... ii
..
.i ii,
i
i- I ~ ~
t~ N
41 I li
l I~
14~ r~l~;!~~~~1 N
~~t~~i~}I ~ I
}~r°~
~ • • '
1 ~
I
i~~
#~ ~xl ~r
11 •
~~ !,~ 0~:
~ ~ ~ ~
~...
s
8 ~ ..}..

~~
6N
KI
V_
ti
U
0
a
ti
~~
i
V
i
r
h
N
M
M
M
i
d
1r
Nr,
r~:°'
:rw
et1P
5.:
v~...
YMi
FN.'
~` V
NIa
.«~
.,.«
See Sheet 1-A For Index of Sheets
N ~t sn
'.~ PROJECT ! ,.
" 3 BEG1N ~4 -
o PROJECT
- ~ 191i 1 % /
1811 ~
t9] ~
f/I 1991 \'•~
199
s '
991 ` \
II
1
19x1 , ~
38w ~
x91s ~
3061 fare
w9 z9s9 .~ -
zw -
xw9
3811 ~' -
8x~
056 \'~ 6~~•71'
a.
x1181 83 I
283
918 ..J
xan
of m9o
zo - 9~ I
466 193x i
x05 19x1 ~~ ~~
x~x9ex ~
z91z
~.9~9 i I
VICINITY MAP
LEGEND -•-~-~- Studied Detnnr Rwu
S~l°A'll°E ~1F N~dB°g°lE~ C.~ffB~~IN.~ p,,,,,~
d~dVI~I~N ~]F 1H[IG1HW.~~~ sn.~ .~
WAY11tE COU11tTY
LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.17 OVER CARAWAY CREEK
ON SR 1918 IN GOLDSBORD
TYPE OF WORK• GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING AND STRUCTURE
THIS PROJECT IS NOT
WlTH!N MUNICIPAL 80UNDARIES• NCOOT CONTACT: CATHY HOUSER,P.E,PROJECT ENGINEER - RCAfJrVAY GESIGN
PRELIMINARY PLANS
W NVI V96 P°R CdVSfR11C110N
"CLEARING ON TNlS PROJECT SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY METHOD 1I1 "

GRAPHIC SCALES
so 25 o so too
DESIGN DATA
ADT 2007 = 6200
PROJECT LENGTH

LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-4321 = 0
203 mi Preaered in tte Office of:
WANG ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
CARY, N.C.
FoR .vaere caxoarxA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HYDRAULICS ENGINEER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ADT 2030 = 10800 .
. zoa: srAnmARD sPECrFlranoxs
PLANS DHV = 60 % LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT 8-4321 = 0.025 mi. PE
50 25 0 50 t00 D = 10 % RIGHT OF WAY DATE: GREG 5
P
E
PURVIS sjGNAZ~` P
E
T = 5 % TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT B
4321 J
21
2006 ,
.
.
.
PRO~ECr rxcRf~~: - ROADWAY DESIGN .
srarE DESrcx excnuER

PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
t0 5 0 l0 20
V = 50 MPH
FUNC
CLASS = -
= 0.228 mi. une
,
LETTING DATE:

SCOTT L. KENNEDY ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINlSTRATIO
' . PROJECT DESIGN ENGAffFR
~ URBAN COLLECTOR April 17, 2007
PROFILE (VERTICAL ' TTST 3 % DUAL 2 % P~ R
srcxAruRE: ni
Sw
v wMnvlsrnaTOR Darn
.

e D~WR1g d

/
-L- SKETCH SHOWING BRIDGE YR U
~? REFERENCE ND. SHEET N0.
-BL- 103 PING 13+78
70
~
-L-
l+
6
96 Pl Sto 14+07.38 IN

~= 12'34'58
2"(LTI RELATIONSHIP TO ROADWAY
I p
.
-~ _ sP
STA. I7+77,39 19.58' L p STA n+aD T
DENOTF',S FILL IN Eau LAT. DDCN
o 47+sD ~- Lr
sEEDETULrT
8-4321 _4
,
1
PISta!
. .
'
'
"
^
w AND w,a
sN~rNO.
p= 0'50'15.6"fLTJ
D =0'21'292' 35
23.4
~
D = 5
L = 225.10' °'
T = 1
' '
TYPE 111 vi
rrPE IB ~; R
DENOTES EXCAVATi N -BL- ID4 PINC 18+43.98 =
$10
17+88
00 -L- ~ IN WETLAND oADwarDESIGN FnoRAUUu
ENGINEER ENGINffA

Z %
13.01 .
,
-L- STA. 22+go.os
~ w.lr Lr. PRELIMIN RY PLANS
T = ~1696 R = 1,025.00'
~ ~ o
~
I End BNd9E DENOTES MECHAN
~ lu Nm ua rnPRrnnvcrloN
R = 16.000.00' SE _ .04 r
~ a I
DS = S ,
r
•r 1 roP of
~to. 18+13.0 CLEARING DAYUCNr ara
RANI K ~'
~
10
°N5 qh
~.~~
j be~rN TIF PROJECT 8-4321 Gmph ~ a I
~
T
E
~ * * ~ Fns ~ euc
ie
sv
w'°°s ~ ~d '~~rb5` ~ ~ * * \
I~
~

STRUCTION
BEG CO
L IL
I ^ ~
T1TE III
I I
YP
III - - -
yfpb *\ SHOUIDE0. BERM GUTER
~,~ ~ END BRIDGE To _ _ _
Y t •E t ~
S
j ~
ITE 2
~ LI
, f *
t
F t~ ~
< I F . *~ SFA 19+00 LT 1 •E Y Y i
- - - - ~
` Q - -''.°
~ +
N
POC StO. l +50.00 -L - _
nR- _ _ _ _ _ - ~ *
cuss R t a 1
± F
~ ~e1 t * RIP RAP
ROODS ~eY Y d .E yv .R y. * X
~
F ~
*

-L- PC
Sta.12+94.37 ~ -~
p ~ ~
- ~ / 4
* .>( ~
RE PAY REM !
•1E
1'~
_ ~ ~* ~ 1 ` 1 ~
- - - -' ~ * ~
-eu--

I
°
10 PINC +1
5L- ~, -t- PT Sta.l
+1997 ** (~~'1~,f~ ,_
SPEC. T. DRCH `~~ _ J8'Yf ~ `/ f
23 = sTA I
s
r
\
9
~ / N 50'38'48.4'E :?'L~
. F ,Y iBDI W/FUT GRATE x- .'R' R ,-
---- '~ ~ne~ i ~ y * M * * ~D01~5 \ ~
*

I -
-I l
ST . I3+19.92
I +
o
o
.
u+ -a- LT ! Roo a wG 1 I
~ wrsLEEYE
~ ~ ~
I * ~ ~ x~-
~* r B. w ,/ R ~-
~
~ s
l ~ a ~
~
+~'~~~ $I~8' E t * .
15:51 SEE ETAIL A I GASKET 1
.
- -' _ C/f _ . F/ * .µ
_C
I
T9M • I -L- P7 S . 2+3392
19L ST A. 6+08.85
4a
65'LEFT

' ~ ~
SN.
2 STA1 +2
0 I: ~'
GUTTER REMOVE
245 Li8
1
i I
~ ti I W ~ c' q4.5' t
1 ~ F~ F1C . N 7"02~
----
~
• N
a p ~ r C
-~
~ -BL '~
J?
-__ --.
_-~
,
_! EV= I~?.2o'
= cTa.ID'e?.94
"0 ?'
K DH
' IS BL

. I
i TO BEGIN 1~G
BAIDGE EXISi
9 6tlDf.E ~'
"c5 ;r'FSN3 1 -
T F~
~
_~~~---
, q
nPE'n ix-x- -
- $ a

C ~
_ SR e
!918 PECAV ~1p
zresr rox
~ cse
- ~ I ,
~
f I
~ -
OW
`
Q
_ _x-~
C-_-_ - x
X X~~°;
-
~~r~~ W0005
it
~
I~ I __ W°Das L~e . - ~
OGE F
~Qm
;
' 1ie~ ~ X
', ~
+OD.00
55
00' m~
~~
~ - _
_
~~6 ~~
I ~ 6R>G6E EP F e6' ~5 WIRE
- I'rl. RCP
~ ~~"~
N
6
. ~
~~
~ 3 i ~~
GRA
Rj:P~ _- i
15 ~
~ ~
0
r
' N 64' O4' 022' E
~ R R
REMOVE ~ /
~ , /
~,: -
W
~
L-
7
3 cA~ BEARING,
i
k / - - c- I ~ cN-
o
c I
c
C
~~
`R ~° ~ ~ Iy~
'B ~ ~ ' * ~ I
to I Pf Sta 20+78.62

---L--
-- R
EArovF
car.
--,_ -
~ ~
a
q
-• ° ~ ~ _(Ir - / " E
me ~ { I :;1!
I CA(- lr * I p = 16' 2T 28.0" fRT)
J~ TBDI wYFUT GRATE D = 458'56J°
~ ..
TD saszr I ° &o I ~c
'aTP
" o a I a
- ~ P_ ~~ ~~
F
~
~
~ * ~ * * I L = 33033'
* 1
'
:r.role xcw Rarer z~esr I
9c,
3 I
,.L N o3' 47' 30.~2' E ~ ~ -LIS~'.~~ 5 q al o -
N' 1-, a 7" RRP ~ ~; -T _ '
iR[P
~
2A' RC ~
~
I~
I ~
~ ~
~ , r x ~ * I T = 166.31

~-PFSH I R = 1J5Q00'
g ~ *
* ~
P -L- PT Sta.22+4 2.64
--,W---
~' RETAIN I ~ ~C
~I I -+ C
l
~ 7 °a ~"~
~~~' ~nE7D ~~
~°'~ ,rn~l E%ISrING DRC}I
' RIP~RAPI
r ~ ~ *~ *
aEMOVE(~sraucTURE I~ I
dAY ITEM) (<
~I 1`' SE _ .O4
/
END 0.I GE TO ,X
r i DS = 50mph
sTAIB-TS.ooaT*
* ~
END T/P PROJECT 8-4321
STA 19+ sT'r0 1Z+50 ~_ Rr END CONSTRUCTION

rI ~
W0005 ~ ~ RCP I
_
°
~
i a I ~pyE REMOVE
~ ~}
FXGVATE7 t (
i0 NG `~.~ .R
m
u
~
~ ~
'R a -L- PC St0.I9+12.31
SI 1 X * 15'~SP wrF1BOW5
~
* SEE OETML Nl
anT
Sta. 23f50.00 -L-

~
~
~ ~ ~
n'I I ~~>°
~ ~~
~ IP
r
~ ~
EnA°'0 ~ sLE~BCasGi~ ~®-rREPDUwEn scouRNO~frFSNI
M • 21
l}yT.U(f
* eL sra
* pETAIL '2
AT
T

1r"
'
'
~
,~
J~''S3
;~~ -.T"' ~~
.~ I
~

i
r

't
'
~~

5 F 0
I
J _ _
_-~

7PECIrLL LAT. BATE DRCN W/P7kA1
~ I I *

l
TOP OF `_ ¢
BANR 'L~,'„`
~

~ w (
'
~
~~ I ,
~ * x0.16' ~GrIT V~OCLA ¢~B~RIPAAP DETAIL "

*c..V= 6.. STA 18-00 TO SPECiAI~rrAl 'V' DITCH
L- STA~B•30.9t4 19+75 111 RT IWOr !0 5cmel
w SEE DETML Y4
~ * 2p.83' RT.
Z, CL B. RIP RAp
l \
61 TONS
V
L
CH
I no~Lr° ScoDl'

nal ra FIII
0 .I 9aoe
Grouna v rva.
a DETAIL 3
SPECIAL La ALA ASE DITCH

I rvat t° Saplel
W , r I
rouna 3. A~ teR "ul

r T ADZ Slope
D F
_
'"~ __ IJ NiP
_,--
-
- I STA 12-5D TO 15+00 -L- 0.71
SEE DETAII R3 I ~1Q, 16+,
j3,QC -5,~
I~ f
X
~ ~~ * I * FILTER,FABRIC IBI SY na.urol ~ A,I p< Flu
z Min. D= IA FT.
Fllt
Mpx
C= L0 Ft tl
---
--

1~ ~
~7 ~~ L L~

/

~
PERMANENT 501E
REINFORCEMENT
MAT IPSaMl44s sr ~

I
UBCJI l1 A~p(OJCh ~ I
I ~~
S.ab //~~ ~
' ,I I
~~ 9ope
~ c~cp DDE ZZfE CY Grounc 3 t
~ ~ j~ f V KJiY.DO -1 - .v U ~°
r Begin Brr~ge * ~
~ ~ I Min. 0= I.0 Fi.
L
* .
.
er
Fcorlc p= 5.0 Ft.
7
Ype of Liner: Opss '8' Alp-R°D
ST0.18+00
00 RT
70 STA 19+75
011 RT I
LJ Min. D: I.0 Ft.
Max. d= L0 Ft.

d= 2.0 Fi,
j~ner= PSRM IPerm. Soil
O
eP f

I 0=~ ~
~ L
'
`
C_ -.
} \
~ ~
I STA IA+50.00 LT. iO SA 15+611.00 LT.
~ y
SA 19+75.00 IIT. TO STA 24+SO.OD RT.
~ .
.
.
.
DDE = 21 CY
CL B RIP~IAP = Al TONS
R
. M
f

~ l ~
y,r`~ X STA 41+00.00 IT. TO STA 47+50.011 LT.
FILTER FABRIC 1&1 SY STA 14+50.00 RT. i0 STA 15+00.00 IfT.

PERM. 501E REINF. MAT = 245 SY
I ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ BRIDGE h'YDRAULiC DATA ~ I I
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 79D CF5 I
-L I I ~
~ ~ ~ DESIGN FREQJENCY = ?o YR I
I j rl = I ro I ~ DESIGN HJ~' ELEVATION - 7?3'
I ~
120 I ( EL = 933'
1
~
I BASE DISCHARG = x,250 CFS
I W ° VC = 15L7 L- I BASE FRE~JENCr = !00 r,R 120
1 0° N
4
~ I P! ~
I
15+93
00
~
aASE ,~nv ELEVanON
= l~.r
rsM#2
=
5
DS MPH I
E .
_ ten, OVERTOPPING DISCHARG E = 1,580 CFS
i 1 +~
Z ~ ~
I~
I I
VC ~ r~
,- 3,6 ~ I OVERTOP,°ING FREQUENCY= '500 YR
~ ,
I
^
'
'
48.16' RIGHTI=
110
°
!7 < ~' I X 4 79

4 ~
h
OVERTOP,
ELE
/ATION = 3?.8 -L-15TA.18+3D.91 I
~ 110
`~-I ~ m w w J DS = 45 MPf DATE OP L;?GEY = 4/4/p5 26.83' RT ~
~ I
` 1 ~ ~ i WS.ELEVATICN EY
E
= 16
12' o

I ~
I
ly
q
3~
PROPOSED
of
'
°
AT DATE OF SURVEY = 05.8' .
.
I
J
to
100
33>
1 ~~ /_

J4j

~RADE
o
~
+ ~ o
'" BEGIN BRIDG E

~

I END

B

RIDGE
_
L
~
o °o LATERAL

'
'
~
~ n a 100
~

~ m +
3/1%
`~ . a
Ql
l,
o
STA 16 58.0
~
0
STA.
17
88.00
~ PI - l +40,00

' 0

°
0 V
DITCH N N
598Q -. ~~ ^ m r ho I EL = 2.10 o + o STA. 21+0 .00 LT. Z F J
- BL- STA. 6 08.85 ~ °
° 3,800p~ `~
~ v~,~W Qm CL S TA 17+23 -L- , . i
I _
~
1 _
~~ o r Y
-
90 ~' 44.65' LEF
STA 10+ T =
09
94 i i~
u
IIA
Y O ~
oc ~80p •. ~
Oo~
H
2 `~~ y vii w
~
L
° -`~~ ~`
400 ~ 1~5
33"
~ b',1~80'
BOX BEAM 1 ~ GS = 5 MPH
~ <
~ ~
O0 ~
w H m
~
W ~
____
i _~
' - _.._~~
~ 90
. n
I ~ o ~I . \
L-
0
~ ~ 5. ~ I ~~ I
N0~ DECK D NS I - __
- -
: -.. ~
g 450 fp
ELEV. = 11 9.26' F-I~ of uTl o I ~I .300°/ `' o ° ' ~ _ - - - -- ~ 4. - I

80 ~
~ ^~ '~
~
h c
° R
o
_-
r 1
_--.; ~
---- --1 474
(+12.6 .
__ - - Rt o uT
~' I I ~ W Fa• ~ ~ ~
N O
Q~
I b
p i ~ ) ~/ EXCAVATE iO NG ~ 0 + i P

UtiTERAL of

I w I
v~i
I
w ,,
O
c9 in
~i~ ~~
+I
Im
I _^'-~
ExAVAhTONG
!~
\

. ~
EST. 390 CYe

---5
5~
fb
p 0
N

~ ~
a nl

~ ~
~ Q
In
W
~~ I 8
45E DITCH ~ N W m ~~ (STRUCNRE PAY ITFMI ~ ~
~ m
- ~
~~ j ~ N Q <
m
.
~
WkPSRM ~~
~
W EsT9aD cr
I , I
I ~ I I
I
~--- , +
° o
~ Q~
r ~ W ~ ~0
SPECIAL ~ ~
y' 3.4000k~~

~ Rv d
m IA W
60 T STA. I5+11 00.00 RT.
LATERAL
'V' DITCH uwSE AND ws
N L'405=66.
~
/

~ o
$ ° ~
o I
'F^
W
SPECI
AL
~ I I I S~A14+50.
~ 0 LT. I ~ °~° +,o SPE~ IALLATE L LATE
'
' bO
Tb STA15 60
00 LLI ~ 'V'~
mm m ITCH W/C L.B RIP RA D
N TCH
1 . l
I
50
Nw wI
W TO1
5TA19+75.00 RT.
TO
A.22+5
.00 Ri.
I 50
I I
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

w
Z
N'~
~wH
~~
v'KK
~WE
rtiG
YFZ
~~_
WaA
q~~
~~
~.
~ ~
m sneer _ .,,..~ g
PROD. REFf CE N0.
SHEEf N0.

10 1
0 1
D 1
0 1
0 1
0
7I0
510 8-4321 X-4

i
'

i

!

i 1

, 1

I

CNAN
LEAKIN

ED
G
1 0
1 0
1 0 I
1 0 1
0 1
0

I
!

~
! EXCAVA
IN T ON
DS

SITE

1
i
N FIL L IN
1
i
_
1d _
--- 4U0)f i m 0.0100
---~~ D5
I

I

-- /~

~/ 8107 ~ ~~~
\

~
~

;-!

_

-

-

I i I ,

i
I

i

I -
d9.90
--
_--
---
-
~

~
~
~ ~ ~
~ E
I kCAVATIO
WETLAN©
! ~ I

I I

I I
~ ~ ~ ~ 0.0100 m o.01~ '

--~---~-- i ~ ~ II
Flu I
~ WET ~
N
N ~
! I
~
~ ~
5:,
/ ~ _
~
i 81b~ ~ ~~ OS
~
MEC
HANIZED

i

_
~

~
~
\

I a
! r

- CLEA

~tING
---=--

I
-

---
-
---

---

~

-
~

~

i

~ 18+©0
00
I --
---

`

--

--
'

I
I
i !
! j . i ~

I ~ I
~ a:~
aes ,
o j
~ -- ---- ---_ ---- ~ _
~ I
I !
i

i
I I

I '

I
! ~ ' ~ ~
! !

I
I
!
!
I !
' ai ~ I i
l ! ry
i i. i

~ l'1
0.0100 im oozoo

J
I
i
I ~ i
y
~ ~
~ I ~ ~ ~

_-------
_
~ j
' ~
~
, -~ ~
,- --- -1 ---- ___ --- -

1 _

--

' ~
~_ --1--- ~---- ~ - ~

68 ----
~

.29 ----
~ ~
~ ---
~ ~_
- ---- ---- f----- ---
---
----

-- ~

--

---.~

---

_
i

I
I

I

!
I I

i
I II
I
i

! i
~
I
to

~
~
! ~ ~ 0,01 ~ aoloa

1
~_

~
~

I
_ I / / ~ 91
C n ~
{
~
_

_- i ~.----1

---

- -
i

---

- - - -

--

-

-1

-_---

.--
-/

/

!
\

\

\ ~

I
I
,

I

,
I 17+ 0.00 ~_ ~' ~~- - --- --- -- ----I --
lsa lao l~0 1 0 1 D lao ~ eo ~ ~ as ~ 0 24 1 1D
~
~
~O
o
0

100

110

1
0

0

~ r ^
141f1 ~ I

I
~

~ vBB7Bn vBB;tvnBy
w
w
a
w
w
w
Z
G
~~a
No-
M~w
~~
~~f
~~a
~~~
~ti~
w~~,
»a=
w~~
m ~a
Sheet ~ - 8'
~ ' PROD. REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
°
1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 8-4321 X-5
1 D 1 00 9 1D 70 ~0 1 1
1 10 1 0 1 0 1 0
1
0
EXCAVA ON
~ I IN WE r D i
MECHANIZ
~

~ LEARING „ SITE 2

~ I ~ ~
-__
---~
---- ~
--

-
--
--

-
~
B m
Y 41 --

~

_
1~1

_

I 7

81.10
I

7;1 ---_ ---
---

-_--

~-

-

- --

--

--

--
83.31 ---_ ---- _-

21 + ~.0~
~
EX
+--
IN
ATION
ETLAND

~
ME CHANIZED I
CL EARING

~
'
~ 1 Q.U7W ~m
QW

_ I
-

--_

---_

---

---

-

---- 4:
~
~
~
i. _
W
B 11

_

-__
1~'

87.00

I
3:1
---
---
---
---- -
---
'I
~ ~ ~ --- --- --- --- --_
~ ~
j
~ 21 + 0,00

i ~
~
I
I
i ~ ~ ~
~ i to

~

~

1

i O.Od~
m 0.6400 ;
~ 1

~
~
~ ~
~
I
~
~ ---~ ---- ---1
~ ----
i ~----~
~~ ~ ~ Bl
~B9
~~~~
(:1
_
---
--- -
--- ---
- -__-
--- _-
-_ ~ ~ -
~ ---- ---- ---- L-_- -_- L--_ ~--_ ---- ---- ----

~~ ~

~

~~ ~ 20+
~~.Q BO.7D ~ --- -
~
~I I
~

__ - ~m
0.0400
_ aaoo

I ~

~
i ~
-
i _r
_- __ - ~ B7 e6 `-~ ~ 7
- --
-
3;1 ---- --
--
---
----
--_

X
7.67 ---- -
--
--
----
--
~ ~
2c+o
o.oo
i
1
~i i I

_ --- -
o.o34c ~
m c.c~0

---

--- __ ~ __
-,
- \
19+ 0.00 ~

:7 1:1
__

----

---

--

--
I 75.06 --- --- ---
MEC IZED
EXCA ATION CLEARI NG
IN 1"{E TLAND ~
I
I I
I a

7a i ~.0~~ ',m
0,01D0
sH.
of
Flu IN
SITE
1
--- _ - WETLAND

1 ~ BII5 8 ~
~
--- --__ /
19+
0.00

~~

--- -

--

~~ ~
1So ldo 10 140 lio lbo an
ao
zo
t -
o
1
zn
~D
o a 10
to
1D
1o
i
o. 1.
0

rernm u~awuui
r
w
a
w
u
a
Z
%~
~~t
t`o-`_;
~s¢
u nz
V.~_
K 4.:
"„~=
ad.r
H ~'°,
` ~
V ~ I ~ PAOJ. ~ CE N0. SHEET NO.

o
150 ldo loo t o ljo I
~ ~ B-4321 x-6

~ i

j i i l

i bo
i

I elo

I
;
I

~ ~O z 1 lp

I
~
1 0
1 0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0
I
I
I I '
I i
i
I

I
I
I I

I

I

' ~
~ i I I j ~ ~ i
~
i

I I I
i i
i,

~

I

'

I

I

'
ii
~ I i
~. ~
~
' !
'
ii
~ ~ ~

j
i,

'
_
. -
--L-'--,----~-__-1--- ~ ---~

'
I ~

--
__
1 i

~
----

~

~ ~~-

li ~~ I

I I
--- 42 -- ~
f,

-~----
94 ~I ~-

--

-

---

---

---

~

-
}---

-_

--

---

_
I
I i I
~ ~ ~ ' ~

I
', I ~ I

I I I
I ~
24+00.00 I ~ ~
~ I ~ ~ ', i ICI ~
i ~ ~
~ I
'

i
i ', , j I

I
'
~
~~
~ ~
~
I,
j
I
~ j ~
I

I -~ ~ ;~ I9~CHANIZED ~ i I
CLEARING
i ,

I ~ I I ,

'
i

,
_
_
--~
_ _ _
- _ I
i - -~-----~-- I
___ ~
I --~----=---=----- ~~ --
-----
i I I ~

----, --- i P

14.0010 a
0.0410
'-~~~ I i ~

o ~_-,----

---'----

~

I

----

i

'

---
-----~

--'

--
i
I I I
I I ~
i ~

I
I
~ 23+50.00
I
~~
I
~~

i

~ 1

it

~ i
V

CA ATION

IN

~ WETLANDS j

I

I

i

'
i
~ I
~
~
, i ~ ~
_

_j_
- - -- _
-- -
- - -
i - _
- -
yi - j ~ MECHANIZED ~
CLEARING

i

- -- -- _ ~ ~

1

. ~
~"

P

OQ M
I
ZOO
- - 0.0400
- -
~ ~

I

I ~ ~~ ~ ~
I
l , 89
18 91143 ~-T ~.~'-
---
~ -i
--- --
--
~..

~
i .

23+00.00 I 1:
88.64
j '

~ - ---- ~----1 --- ----} .-_- ---- --
~
~
~ ~
~~ ~
! j '
~ ~
SITE
2

I ~ ~
I

~
I I
~

i
' ~ ~ ~
- ~
__________ _ __ i

I EXCAV
IN W ATION
ETLANDS
~
~
"'
I° 0
0400

I _
---
---
--
--
- -~
_

/ .
~ --
I ~
I
I i ~

' '~ I ~
1
J, 87. 6

~
89
X94 I
22+0.00 ~ ~ -!

87.36
~ ~ --- 1--- _--1 -_-

---

---

--
~' ~
I ~ ~ ~
~
. ~ i
i
i
( i
i
EXCAVATI ON I
~ ~

I ~

i

~
~
~~

I i
I
~

IN WET

DS

j

w

a
~
~
I
~ ~ i

i ~
' ~

i
I
150 140 130 10 10 10 ~

10

O _

--

j

Tq i

_--_ __

1

S _---

~

4b

--
3:I
85.63

1
4;1
~i
~
--

2p 1
_
~
i
---
89!59
~f
22+QQ,QO
0 1

4,j
I
~~~ +

1

2'

-
-~----V-

84.90

4'0 ~0

-

0

---

--

1
0

0

0

-- -

1 0

--

D

---

an

-_

,,~
,~

--_

,

4

Wayne County
Bridge No. 17 on SR 1918 Over Caraway Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1918(2)
State Project No. 33658.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4321
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
-g.~ -~~.
DATE ~~ Gregory J. Tho , Ph. D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch, NCDOT
~ ' ;' ,
C -G D~ ~
DATE Y~~Jo F. Sullivan, III, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

Wayne County
Bridge No. 17 on SR 1918 Over Caraway Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1918(2)
State Project No. 33658.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4321
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December 2005
Document Prepared by:
Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
.P
Greg urvis, P. E.
Project Manager
Wang, Ph.D.;
`~~.~~o~.H CAR~~~ ~,,~~
tQQ' ~~
• ~,ie
• ~e~ :.
'ti N ti4:~ c~
G~ ~ GENE
'~I ~ hh~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
'~~~~G~~i„p-'-~`~~`12' ~ 5-09
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
.~~~
Wade Kirby, P. ., P. G
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Wayne County
Bridge No. 17 on SR 1918 Over Caraway Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1918(2)
State Project No. 33658.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4321
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's
Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities, NCDOT's
Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, General Certification
C nditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been
a~reed to by NCDOT:
Division Four
The Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be implemented, as applicable.
A moratorium for in-stream activities will be in place from February 15 to June 15 due to Anadromous
Fish in the project area.
Road closure will be coordinated with the Wayne County Schools and Wayne County Office of
Emergency Services prior to construction.
Project Services/Traffic Control
Due to concern for the length of road closure with a proposed detour route, accelerated construction
methods will be taken into account during the fmal design phase of the project. Consideration should be
given to moving the letting date from February to April of the same year, so that the date of availability is
June.
Page 1 of 1
Categorical Exclusion
Docember 2005

Wayne County
Bridge No. 17 on SR 1918 Over Caraway Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1918(2)
State Project No. 33658.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4321
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 17 is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and 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
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 11.2 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient. The existing bridge does not meet NCDOT Bridge Policy standards for clear deck
width. The replacement of an inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic
operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1918 is classified as an urban collector. Land use in the project area is predominantly
woodlands, light residential and farmland. Undeveloped woodlands are adjacent on the north and
south sides of the study area. There is farmland to the east of the existing bridge.
Bridge No. 17 was constructed in 1953. The existing structure is 53 feet in length, consisting of
three spans with the maximum span at approximately 18 feet. The clear roadway width is 24.0
feet, providing two ten-foot travel lanes with two-foot gutters. The superstructure consists of a
reinforced concrete floor on timber joists. The substructure consists of timber caps on timber
piles. The bed to crown height is 16.3 feet and the normal depth of flow is 1.7 feet. The posted
weight limit is 17 tons for single vehicles (SV) and 25 tons for truck-tractors semi-trailers
(TTST).
The existing bridge and approaches on SR 1918 is tangent. There is an approximate 980-foot
radius curve located approximately 70 feet southwest of the existing structure and a 1,140-foot
radius curve located approximately 20 feet northeast of the existing structure. SR 1918 consists
of two 9.5-foot lanes with nine-foot shoulders.
The estimated 2004 average daily traffic volume is 5,600 vehicles per day (vpd). The projected
traffic volume is expected to increase to 10,800 vpd by the design year 2030. The volumes
include three percent TTST and two percent dual tired vehicles.
The speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge is posted at 45 mph. There are 35 mph advisory signs
for the existing horizontal curves on the east and west sides of the existing bridge.
There are aerial power and telephone lines crossing on the southeast side of the existing bridge.
Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
There were seven accidents reported for the three-year period of May 1, 2001 to Apri130, 2004

Ten school buses cross this bridge twice daily.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The proposed structure for will provide a 32-foot 10 inch clear deck width providing two 12-foot
travel lanes with four feet five inches between the edge of travelway and the face of the bridge
rail. The existing bridge navigational clearance will be maintained.
The proposed approach roadway will consist of a 24-foot travel way providing for two 12-foot
travel lanes with eight-foot shoulders including four foot paved shoulders. The design speed will
be 50 mph.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, Bridge No. 17 will be replaced with an approximate
130-foot bridge. The grade of the roadway will match the elevation of the existing roadway since
lowering the grade could cause the road to be flooded by Caraway Creek. The minimum deck
grade will be 0.3%. The opening size of the proposed structure may increase or decrease as
necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined from a more detailed hydraulic analysis to
be performed during the fmal design phase of the project.
B. Build Alternatives
Two (2) build alternatives studied for replacing the existing bridge are described below.
Alternate A (Preferred) replaces the bridge at the existing location. During construction, traffic
will be maintained by an off-site detour route along SR 1928 (Mitchell Road), SR 1932 (Emmaus
Church Road), SR 1930 (Outlaw Road), and SR 1927 (Genoa Road) approximately 6.6 miles in
length. The length of approach work will be approximately 508 feet on the southwest side of the
bridge and approximately 562 feet on the northeast side of the bridge.
Alternate B replaces the bridge on new alignment south of the existing bridge. During
construction traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge. During the construction of the tie-
ins traffic will be maintained on the off-site detour. The length of approach work will be
approximately 418 feet on the southwest side of the bridge and approximately 787 feet on the
northeast side of the bridge. Alternate B was not chosen because it has comparatively higher
natural environment impacts and construction cost.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
The "Do-Nothing" Alternative will eventually necessitate removal of the bridge and closing of
the road. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1918.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.

D. Preferred Alternative
Alternate A, replacing the existing bridge at the existing location, while maintaining traffic by an
off-site detour route is the preferred alternate. Alternate A was selected because of the
comparatively lower construction cost, lower environmental impacts, and lesser construction time
associated with it.
The Division Engineer concurs with Altemate A as the preferred alternative.
Alternate A is estimated to cost $1,416,000. A breakdown of the estimated cost is shown in Item
V (Table 1).
IV. DESIGN EXCEPTIONS ANTICIPATED
No design exceptions will be required.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs, based on current 2005 prices, are as follows:
Table 1. -Estimated Costs
Alternate A
:(Preferred) Alternate B
Structure Removal (existing) $ 19,000 $ 19,000
Structure (proposed) 468,000 468,000
Roadway Approaches 404,000 465,500
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 255,000 282,500
Engineering and Contingencies 204,000 215,000
ROW/Contt. Easements/Lltilities: 66,000 101,000

~TbTAL $ 1,416,Ob0. , ~ $ 1551;OOt1
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement
Program, is $1,400,000 including $100,000 for right-of--way, $1,150,000 for construction, and
$150,000 for prior year costs.
VI. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of sources
including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (SW Goldsboro, NC 7.5 minute
quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping
(SW Goldsboro, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS;
formerly the Soils Conservation Service) soils mapping (SCS 1974), N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) proposed Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitats, and recent aerial
photography furnished by NCDOT.

Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) with adjustments for updated nomenclature (Kartesz
1998). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979) and/or the
N.C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands
(1996). Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat requirements and distributions were determined by
supportive literature (Martof et al. 1980, Potter et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick 1991,
Palmer and Braswell 1995, and Rohde et al. 1994). Water quality information for area streams and
tributaries was derived from available sources (DWQ 2002, DWQ 2001). Quantitative sampling was
not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current USFWS listing of federally protected species with ranges extending into Wayne
County (February 25, 2003 USFWS list) is considered in this report. In addition, NHP records
documenting the presence of federally or state listed species were consulted before commencing field
investigations. Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitats proposed by the WRC (December
11, 1998 listing) were consulted to determine the presence of Proposed Critical Habitats for aquatic
species.
The project area was walked and visually surveyed for significant features. Special concerns
evaluated in the field include 1) potential protected species habitat and 2) wetlands and water quality
protection of Caraway Creek.
B. Physiography and Soils
The project area is located within the Rolling Coastal Plain (Level III) ecoregion of North Cazolina.
The dissected Rolling Coastal Plain extends south from Virginia and covers much of the northern
upper coastal plain of North Cazolina. Relief, elevation, dissection, and stream gradients aze generally
greater than in the adjacent ecoregion to the east, and soils tend to be better drained. It also has a
slightly cooler and shorter growing season, but is a productive agricultural region with typical crops
of corn, soybeans, tobacco, cotton, sweet potatoes, peanuts, and wheat. The region appeazs to be
biologically less diverse than the coastal plain regions to the south.
Elevations within the project azea range from a high of approximately 130 feet National Geodetic
Vertical Datum (NGVD) to a low of approximately 70 feet NGVD within the stream channel. Land
uses within the project vicinity consist of woodlands, agriculture, and residential lots.
Based on soil mapping for Wayne County (SCS 1974), the project area is underlain by five soil series
including Kinston loam (Typic Fluvaquent), Lucy loamy sand (Arenic Paleudults), Norfolk sandy
loam (Typic Paleudults), Troup sand (Grossarenic Kandiudults), and Wagram loamy sand (Arenic
Kandiudults). Within the project azea, Kinston and Wagram soils occur along the stream and adjacent
wetlands, and Troup, Lucy, and Norfolk soils aze found on higher elevations at the northeastern and
southwestern ends of the project area. Kinston is considered hydric in Wayne County by the Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (1997) and underlies approximately 3.5 acres or 23 percent
of the project azea.
The Kinston series consists of very deep, poorly drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in
stratified loamy and sandy recent alluvium. These soils are found on floodplains with slopes ranging
from 0 to 2 percent. The seasonal high water table is at the surface.
4

The Lucy series consists of very deep, well-drained, moderately permeable soils on uplands. They
formed in sandy and loamy marine and fluvial sediments of the Coastal Plain. Slopes range from 0 to
45 percent. The depth to the seasonal water table is greater than 5 feet.
The Norfolk series consists of well-drained, nearly level to sloping soils on broad, smooth, slightly
convex divides. These soils formed in Coastal Plain sediments. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent.
The depth to the seasonal water table is greater than 5 feet
The Troup series consists of deep, somewhat excessively drained, moderately permeable soils with
thick sandy surface and subsurface layers and loamy subsoils. They formed in unconsolidated sandy
and loamy marine sediments on Coastal Plain uplands. Slopes range from 0 to 40 percent. The depth
to the seasonal water table is greater than 5 feet.
The Wagram series consists of well-drained, nearly level to strongly sloping soils on smooth, slightly
convex and rounded sides of broad divides. These soils formed in Coastal Plain sediments. Slopes
range from 0 to 15 percent. The depth to the seasonal water table is greater than 5 het.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The project area is located within sub-basin 03-04-12 of the Neuse River Basin (DWQ 2001).
This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020201 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region. The
structure targeted for replacement spans Caraway Creek and the adjacent floodplain. The portion
of Caraway Creek that lies within the project area has been assigned Stream Index Number 27-61
by DWQ (2002). Also included within the project area is a UT to Caraway Creek.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Caraway Creek enters the project area from the southeast as a well-defined, third-order, perennial
stream with moderate flow over a sand and silt substrate. At Bridge No. 17, Caraway Creek is
approximately 8 feet wide. The banks of Caraway Creek are approximately 2 feet high and are
moderately sloping. During field investigations, the water level was approximately 8-12 inches
deep. Water clarity was moderate to poor, with some visibility to the substrate, and flow velocity
was moderate. No persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was observed within the stream.
Opportunities for habitat within Caraway Creek include overhanging trees, undercut banks, fallen
logs, and leaf packs.
The UT to Caraway Creek is located in the north quadrant of the project area north of SR 1918. .
The UT to Caraway Creek is a barely defined, first-order, brief reach of intermittent stream with
low flow over a sand and silt substrate. The UT to Caraway Creek flows from northeast to
southwest. The upper extent of the stream is forked with the northern fork measuring 14 linear
feet and the southern fork measuring 16 linear feet. Below the confluence of the two forks, the
stream measures 64 linear feet before losing stream characteristics for a total of 94 linear feet.
Above the stream is a wide, flat, two-pronged wetland that narrows due to topography and cuts
down through the soil to form the beginning of the two forks of the stream. At the bottom of the
stream, the land surface levels out and the water is dispersed into a wide wetland with no defined
stream-like channels. The UT to Caraway Creek is approximately 2 feet wide. The banks of the
UT to Caraway Creek are approximately 1 foot high. During field investigations, the water level
was approximately 1 inch deep. Water clarity was good, and flow velocity was slow. No

persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was observed within the stream. There are not many
opportunities for habitat within the UT Caraway Creek except some leaf packs and dead
branches.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assembled a draft list of impaired
waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, hereafter
referred to as the N.C. 2004 Section 303(d) draft list. The list is a comprehensive public
accounting of all impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that does not meet water
quality standards including designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria, and anti-degradation
requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. The standards violation may be due to an individual
pollutant, multiple pollutants, pollution, or an unknown cause of impairment. The impairment
could be from point sources, nonpoint sources, and/or atmospheric deposition. Some sources of
impairment exist across state lines. North Carolina's methodology is strongly based on the
aquatic life use support guidelines available in the Section 305(b) guidelines (EPA-841-B-97-
002A and -002B). Those streams attaining only Partially Supporting (PS) or Not Supporting
(NS) status are listed on the N.C. 2004 Section 303(d) draft list. Streams are further categorized
into one ~ six parts within the N.C. 2004 Section 303(d) draft list, according to source of
impairment and degree of rehabilitation required for the stream to adequately support aquatic life.
Within Parts 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the list, North Carolina has developed a priority ranking scheme
(low, medium, high) that reflects the relative value and benefits those waterbodies provide to the
State. Caraway Creek is not listed on any section of the N.C. 2004 Section 303(d) draft list.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A Best Usage
Classification of C NSW has been assigned to this reach of Caraway Creek. Class C waters aze
suitable for aquatic life propagation and protection, agriculture, and secondary recreation.
Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not involving human body contact
with waters on an organized or frequent basis. Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) are areas with
water quality problems associated with excessive plant growth resulting from nutrient
enrichment. No designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
Water Supply I (WS-I) waters, Water Supply II (WS-II) waters, or watershed Critical Areas
(CA) occur within 1.0 mile of the project area (DWQ 2002). The UT to Caraway Creek has not
been assigned an individual water quality classification and is therefore considered to have the
same classification as this reach of Caraway Creek.
The DWQ has initiated awhole-basin approach to water quality management for the 17 river
basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed project azea is summarized in the Neuse
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (DWQ 2001). Caraway Creek is currently designated by
DWQ as Supporting its designated uses. No benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring stations
occur within 1.0 mile of the project area (DWQ 2001).
Sub-basin 03-04-12 of the Neuse River Basin supports 13 permitted, point source discharges with
a total dischazge of greater than 20 million gallons per day. No sources discharge into Caraway
Creek. Major non-point sources of pollution within the Neuse River Basin include runoff from
construction activities, agriculture, failing septic systems, straight pipes, roads, pazking lots, and
rooftops. Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are major problems associated with non-point source
discharges (DWQ 2001).
The WRC has developed a Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat database to enhance
planning and impact analysis in azeas proposed by WRC as being critical due to the presence of
6

Endangered or Threatened aquatic species. No Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat
occurs within the project area.
3. Anticipated Impacts
a) GeneralImpacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area may result from activities associated with
project construction. Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on
streambanks, riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used
in revegetation, and pavementlculvert installation. The following impacts to surface water
resources could result from the construction activities mentioned above.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion
in the project area.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
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 (BMPs). 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 streams by catch basins and roadside
vegetation.
b) Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the
NCDOT and all potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition
and removal. These guidelines are presented in three NCDOT documents entitled "Pre-
Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal", "Policy: Bridge Demolition
and Removal in Waters of the United States", and "Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal" (all documents dated 9/20/99). Guidelines followed for bridge
demolition and removal are in addition to those implemented for Best Management Practices
for the Protection of Surface Waters.

The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in
Caraway Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. The maximum potential of
fill that may fall into Caraway Creek during demolition is approximately 10 cubic yards.
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 will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
The replacement of Bridge No. 17 can be classified as Case 2 which allows no work at all in
the water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval
recruitment into nursery areas. Anadromous fish species are found in this portion of Caraway
Creek; therefore, NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish
passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to June 15. There may be
additional restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Two distinct plant communities were identified within the project area: hazdwood forest, and
disturbed/maintained land, (Figure 6). Plant communities are listed in order of their
predominance within the project area.
a) Disturbed/Maintained land
Disturbed/maintained land includes roadside shoulders, pastures, and residential yazds. This
community predominantly supports aherb/grass assemblage along with some shrubs and
trees. Most of this azea is maintained by mowing or agricultural activities. Groundcover
includes seeded and native grasses and weedy forts including fescue (Festuca sp.), dog-
fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), pokeweed (Phytolacca
americana), wild onion (Allium canadense), vetch (Vicia sp.), kudzu (Pueraria lobata),
henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), soft rush (Juncus effusus) and jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis). Trees and shrubs include a single row of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
located in between the pasture and SR 1918 in the eastern quadrant of the project area. There
are also loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), redbud (Cercis canadensis), and red maple (Ater
rubrum) located in residential yards. This community occupies approximately 10 acres of the
project area.
Terrestrial mammal species adapted to maintained disturbed areas such as those found in the
project area include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), least shrew (Cryptotis parva),
eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), house mouse (Mus
musculus), and red fox (Vulpes vulpes).
Birds observed within open and/or disturbed areas include American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla) and blue grosbeak
(Guiraca caerulea). Other avian species which might frequent this community include,
eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), common grackle
(Quiscalus quiscula), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and European stazling (Sturnus
vulgaris).

No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed during the site visit. Terrestrial
reptile and amphibian species that might find habitat in disturbed parts of the project area
include eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus),
worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), brown snake (Storeria dekayi), and redbelly snake
(Storeria occipitomaculata).
b) Hardwood Forest
This community includes all of the wooded areas contained within the project area. This
community resembles a Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) as described
by Schafale and Weakley. One area has been recently cleared and contains large stumps and
exposed soil. This cleared area is located in the northeast quadrant. The cleared area starts at
the northeastern boundary of the project area and runs southwest between wetland Site 1 and
the southwestern boundary of the project area for approximately 600 feet (Figure 6). The
cleared area is approximately 0.3 acre. Other than the cleared area, this community is well-
developed with a broken canopy consisting of some large, mature trees along with a sparse
understory. A dense herbaceous/vine layer is present due to penetration of sunlight through
the canopy. Four wet areas are found within this community.
In the mesic portions of this community, the canopy is vegetated by tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), water oak (Quercus nigra), red
maple, willow oak (Quercus phellos), and American elm (Ulmus americana). The
sapling/shrub layer includes those species within the canopy layer as well as American holly
(Ilex opaca), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), white oak (Quercus alba), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), and sugarberry (Celtic laevigata). Vines include greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica).
Wet areas exist along the floodplain of Caraway Creek as well as within linear depressions
found in the north quadrant. These linear depressions are parallel to the north side of SR
1918 and run from the northeast boundary of the project area to the floodplain of Caraway
Creek (Figure 6). Trees in wet areas consist of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black
willow (Saliz nigra), river birch (Betula nigra), and sycamore. The herbaceous layer
includes soft rush, jewelweed, sedge (Carex sp.), netted-chain fern (Woodwardia areolata),
and lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus). This community occupies approximately 5 acres of the
project area.
No terrestrial mammals were observed during the site visit. Tracks from raccoon (Procyon
lotor) were noted. Some mammal species which may inhabit hardwood forests within the
project region include gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), red bat (Lasiurus borealis),
eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), white-footed
mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum), silver-haired bat
(Lasionycteris noctivagans), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), striped skunk (Mephitis
mephitis), and bobcat (Fells rufus).
Observed bird species in these forested areas include Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), great crested flycatcher
(Myiarchus crinitus), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), and yellow-breasted chat (Icteria
virens). Forest-dwelling birds of the project region include northern cardinal, blue gray
gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), eastern towhee
9

(Pipilo erythrophthalmus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), Carolina chickadee (Poecile
carolinensis), and brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum).
One terrestrial reptile, American toad (Bufo americanus), was observed. Terrestrial reptiles
and amphibians within this forested community might include eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), broadhead skink (Eumeces
laticeps), ground skink (Scincella lateralis), black racer (Coluber constrictor), and rat snake
(Elaphe obsoleta).
Many of these wildlife species are very adaptable and can eat a wide variety of plant and
animal material when the preferred food is absent. Many of these species can be found
within disturbed areas, brushy edges of the forest, within heavy underbrush, or amongst
shrubby plants. Migration between communities of the project area may be frequent based on
the needs of each species for food, cover, protection from predators, and nesting.
2. Aquatic Communities
Limited investigations resulted in no observations of aquatic or semi-aquatic species. Species
expected to occur within the project area vicinity include green frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel
frog (Rana palustris), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), eastern musk turtle (Sternotherus
odoratus), painted turtle (Chrysemys pitta), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), and eastern
ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus).
No sampling was undertaken in Caraway Creek to determine fishery potential and no fish species
were observed during the field survey. Fish species that may be present in this reach of Caraway
Creek include alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), both of
which are anadromous, redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas), comely shiner (Notropis amoenus), and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus).
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Plant communities were delineated to determine the approximate area and location of each within
the project area (Figure 6). Plant community impacts are based on cut-and-fill areas for each
alternative. A summary of permanent plant community impacts is presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Plant Community Impacts for Each Alternative
L' ,tie- ~~^-: v -y e .:.

' ~ i ~"~ *
Alter
na~e~~ ~~ P y7 ~+A ~~ ti...i=:
t . ,;d~ant
Comm~inity
e ~
~`~`e
E
~ ~`
e ~~
e
l'ri
f
. a ~.
ty ~. .
;
Maintained/Disturbed 1.85 1.93
Hardwood Forest 0.34 0.15

-.~. ~~
"Areas are given in acres
The majority of impacts associated with both alternatives will occur within disturbed/maintained
land. Alternate A will impact approximately two times the area of relatively undisturbed
community. Most of this difference between alternatives will occur within hardwood forest. With
respect to Alternate B, losses to plant communities may be offset by the rehabilitation of the old
roadway once construction of the new road and bridge is complete. For either alternate, no
significant habitat fragmentation is expected as a result of project activities since potential
10

improvements will be restricted to adjoining roadside margins. Construction noise and associated
disturbances are anticipated to have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife
movement patterns.
No Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat exists within or near the project area. Impacts
associated with turbidity and suspended sediments resulting from bridge replacement will be
minimized through the use of silt curtains and the implementation of stringent erosion control
measures. The replacement of Bridge No. 17 can be classified as Case 2, which allows no work at
all in the water during moratorium periods, associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval
' recruitment into nursery areas. Anadromous fish species are found in this portion of Caraway
Creek; therefore, NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish
passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to June 15.
Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat are anticipated to be avoided by bridging the
stream system to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. Short-term impacts associated with
turbidity and suspended sediments may affect benthic populations. Temporary impacts to
downstream habitat 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 Caraway Creek and the UT to Caraway Creek are
subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the
United States (33 CFR Section 328.3). Caraway Creek exhibits characteristics of awell-defined,
third-order, perennial stream with moderate flow over a sand and silt substrate. Caraway Creek
can be classified as riverine, lower perennial with an unconsolidated bottom composed primarily
of sand (1Z2UB2) (Figure 6). The UT to Caraway Creek exhibits characteristics of a defined,
first-order, intermittent stream with low flow over a sand and silt substrate. The UT to Caraway
Creek can be classified as riverine, lower perennial with an unconsolidated bottom comprised
mostly of sand (1t2UB2) (Figure 6).
Vegetated wetlands 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). The project area contains four vegetated wetland
areas (Figure 6, Sites 1-4). These four wetland areas are in the process of being confirmed as
jurisdictional by USACE.
NWI mapping indicates that all wetlands within the project area are characterized as palustrine,
forested with broad-leaved deciduous trees, and temporarily flooded (PFO1 A). Two wet areas
within the project area can be can be characterized as PFOIA, while the remaining wet areas are
characterized as palustrine, forested with broad-leaved deciduous trees, and saturated (PFO 1 B),
and palustrine, emergent, persistent, and saturated (PEM 1 B).
A forested wetland occurs in the north quadrant of the project area (Figure 6, Site 1). The
wetland occurs in the form of multiple linear depressions that are parallel to the northside of SR
1918. The linear depressions run from the northeast boundary of the project area southwesterly
and then westerly until exiting the project boundary. Linking the upper and lower portions of this
wet area is the UT to Caraway Creek (Figure 6). Water creating this wet area comes from springs
at the northeastern boundary of the project area. This wetland may be characterized as palustrine,
11

forested with broad-leaved deciduous trees, and saturated (PFO1B). Soils exhibit hydric
chromas, while hydrology indicators are saturation and oxidized rhizospheres.
Another forested wetland occurs within the north quadrant of the project area (Figure 6, Site 2).
One section of this wetland occurs within the floodplain of Caraway Creek on the north side of
the stream while the other section occurs on the slope adjacent to the floodplain. It is very similar
to the forested linear wetlands located in the north quadrant except that due to its location in the
floodplain, it is subject to irregular overbank flows. Sources of water for this wet area also
include upslope springs and water draining from the adjacent roadway. The floodplain portion of
this wetland may be characterized as palustrine, forested with broad-leaved deciduous trees, and
temporarily flooded (PFOIA). The portion located on the adjacent slope can be characterized as
palustrine, forested with broad-leaved deciduous trees, and saturated (PFO1B). Soils exhibit
hydric chromas, while hydrology indicators are inundation and oxidized rhizospheres.
A third forested wetland occurs in the west quadrant of the project area (Figure 6, Site 3) on the
south side of Caraway Creek with one section located in the floodplain and the other section
located on the adjacent slope. The source of water for the sloped portion comes from a pipe at the
southwest boundary of the wetland, which drains a large church yard and parking lot, as well as
some seepage from springs. The wetland located in the floodplain is subject to irregular overbank
flows. The floodplain portion of this wetland may be characterized as palustrine, forested with
broad-leaved deciduous trees, and temporarily flooded (PFO 1 A). The portion located on the
adjacent slope can be characterized as palustrine, forested with broad-leaved deciduous trees, and
saturated (PFO1B). Soils exhibit hydric chromas, while hydrology indicators are saturation and
oxidized rhizospheres.
A fourth wetland occurs in the east quadrant of the project area (Figure 6, Site 4). The wetland
extends from the north side of Caraway Creek to the lower portion of the pasture. The portion
within the floodplain is subject to irregular overbank flows. The source of water for the portion
located within the sloped pasture is groundwater seepage. The portion near the stream can be
defined as palustrine, forested with broad-leaved deciduous trees, and temporarily flooded
(PFOIA) while the portion that extends into the pasture can be defined as palustrine, emergent,
persistent, and saturated (PEM1B). Soils exhibit hydric chromas, while hydrology indicators are
saturation and oxidized rhizospheres.
12

Jurisdictional areas located within alternative cut-fill limits are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Jurisdictional Area Impacts for Alternatives
Jurisdictional
Areas Cowardin
Classification Alternate A*

(Preferred)
Alternate B*
Site 1 PFO1B 0.03 0.03
Site 2 PFO1B ------ -----
Site 2 PFOIA ------ ------
Site 3 PFO1B ------ ------
Site 3 PFOIA ------ ------
Site 4 PFO1B 0.04 0.24
Site 4 PFOIA ------ 0.05
Total _ ~ 0.07 - .. ~,. ; ~. ~ . 032 ~ .
*Areas are given in acres.
Alternate B impacts approximately four times the area of wetlands when compared to Alternate
A. The majority of these impacts occur within Site 4 (Figure 6) in the east quadrant of the project
area.
Bridge No. 17 was built in 1953 with a superstructure composed of reinforced concrete deck and
railings on timber joists. The substructure consists of timber caps on timber piles. The maximum
potential fill that may be deposited into Caraway Creek during bridge demolition is
approximately 10 cubic yards. The replacement of Bridge No. 17 can be classified as Case 2,
which allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods, associated with fish
migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas. Anadromous fish species are
found in this portion of Caraway Creek; therefore, NCDOT should follow all stream crossing
guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February
15 to June 15.
2. Permits
a). Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
This project may be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The -USAGE has made available Nationwide Permit
(NWP) 23 (67 FR 2020, 2082; January 15, 2002) for CEs due to minimal impacts to waters of
the U.S. expected with bridge construction. Activities under this permit are categorically
excluded from environmental documentation because they are included within a category of
activities that neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
and natural environment. Activities authorized under nationwide permits must satisfy all
terms and conditions of the particular permit.
13

b). Section 401 Water Quality Certification
DWQ has made available a Genera1401 Water Quality Certification for NWP 23 (GC 3403).
If temporary structures are necessary for construction activities, access fills, or dewatering of
the site, then a NWP 33 (67 FR 2020, 2087; January 15, 2002) permit and the associated
General 401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3366) will be required. Impacts to vegetated
wetlands may be authorized under NWP 3 (67 FR 2020, 2078) and the associated General
401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3376). In the event that NWPs 23, 33, and 3 will not
suffice, impacts attributed to bridge replacement and associated approach improvements may
qualify under General Bridge Permit (GP) 031 issued by the Wilmington USACE District.
DWQ has made available a Genera1401 Water Quality Certification for GP 031 (GC 3404).
Notification to the Wilmington USACE District office is required if this general permit is
utilized. Since the bridge replacement proposes to undertake uses designated as Allowable
under the Neuse River Basin Rule, a request fora "no practicable alternatives" determination
will be made to DWQ.
c). Bridge Demolition and Removal
If no practical alternative exists to remove the current bridge other than to drop it into the
water, prior to removal of debris off-site, fill related to demolition procedures will need to be
considered during the permitting process. A worst-case scenario will be assumed with the
understanding that if there is any other practical method available, the bridge will not be
dropped into the water. The worst-case scenario associated with the bridge removal is
expected to be 10 cubic yards of temporary fill. Permitting will be coordinated such that any
permit needed for bridge construction will also address issues related to bridge demolition.
3. Riparian Buffer Protection Rules for the Neuse River Basin
The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of
Riparian Buffers for the Neuse River Basin (15A NCAC 02B .0259) provides a designation for
uses that cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Neuse River Basin. The Neuse River Basin
Rule applies to 50-foot wide riparian buffers (measured perpendicular to the stream) directly
adjacent to surface waters in the Neuse River Basin. Designated surface waters are indicated on
USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps and county soil surveys. Within the project area, Caraway
Creek and the UT to Caraway Creek are the only features subject to the riparian buffer rule
(Figure 6).
Changes in land use within the buffer area are considered to be buffer impacts. Land use changes
within the riparian buffer are defined as being Exempt, Allowable, Allowable with Mitigation, or
Prohibited. The Exempt designation refers to uses allowed within the buffer. The Allowable
designation refers to uses that may proceed within the riparian buffer provided there are no
practical alternatives, and that written authorization from the DWQ is obtained prior to project
development. The Allowable with Mitigation designation refers to uses that are allowed, given
there are no practical alternatives, and appropriate mitigation plans have been approved. The
Prohibited designation refers to uses that are prohibited without a variance. Exemptions to the
riparian buffer rule include the footprint of existing uses that are present and ongoing. Both
alternatives for the replacement of Bridge No. 17 impact less than 150 feet of riparian buffer and
are therefore Allowable under the Neuse River Basin Rules.
14

4. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of
waters of the United States, and specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the
scope and degree• of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and
logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, right-of--way widths, fill
slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. All efforts will be made to decrease impacts to surface
waters. The proposed project will replace the bridge in the existing location and utilize 3:1 fill
slopes in wetland areas to minimize impacts.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters of the
United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized
that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit
action. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h), DWQ may require compensatory mitigation
for projects with greater to or equal than 1.0 acre of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or greater
than or equal to 150 linear feet of total perennial stream impacts. Furthermore, in accordance
with 67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002, the USACE requires compensatory mitigation when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. The size and
type of the proposed project impact and the function and value of the impacted aquatic resource
are factors considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable
adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, preservation and enhancement, and
creation of waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken first in areas adjacent
to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Mitigation for Section 404 jurisdictional areas may not need to be proposed for this project due to
the potentially limited nature of the project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is
recommended in an effort to minimize impacts. Temporary impacts to floodplains associated
with construction activities could be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native riparian
species and removal of temporary fill material upon project completion. A final determination
regarding mitigation rests with the USACE and DWQ.
15

F. Rare and Protected Species
1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or officially Proposed
(P) for such listing are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term "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).
One federally protected species is listed for Wayne County (February 25, 2003 USFWS list): red-
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). This species is federally listed as Endangered.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches long) has a black head, prominent white cheek
patches, and ablack-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 al. 1980). Primary habitat
consists of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly, long-leaf (P.
palustris), slash (P. elliottii), 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 (USFWS 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 orpine-dominated savannas that have been
maintained by frequent natural fires serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker
Development of a dense understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
The project area supports no suitable mature pine trees; therefore, no suitable habitat for red-
cockaded woodpecker occurs within the project area. NHP has no record of occurrences of red-
cockaded woodpecker within a 2.0-mile radius of the project area. Consequently, the proposed
bridge replacement will have "No Effect" on red-cockaded woodpeckers.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The February 25, 2003 USFWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
species of concern" (FSC). A species with this designation is one that may or may not be listed in
the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient information to support listing). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection under the ESA for the species listed. FSC species listed for Wayne County are
presented in Table 4. NHP files list no documentation for FSC species within 2.0 miles of the
project area, and no FSC species were observed during field investigations.
16

Table 4: Federal S ecies of Concern

Common Name
Scientific Name Potential
Habitat
State Status**
Neuse madtom Noturus furiosus Yes SC
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus Yes SR
Rafinesque's big- Corynorhinus rafinesquii Yes T
Southern hognose Heterodon simus Yes SC
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni No E
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis No SR-T
*Historic record--the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago
**State Status: E = Endangered; T =Threatened; SR =Significantly Rare; SR-T =Significantly Rare Throughout their
ranges (fewer than 100 populations total) (Amoroso 2002; L.eGrand and Ha112001).
VII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal
agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted
projects) on properties listed 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.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on July 30, 2003. All structures
within the APE were photographed, and later an NCDOT staff architectural historian reviewed these
photographs. There were 17 structures within the APE over fifty years of age, and all were
determined to be ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places by the NCDOT staff
architectural historian. The photographs were shown to the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
in a meeting on September 30, 2003. At that meeting HPO staff concurred that none of the 17
structures were eligible for the National Register and a form was signed that reflects these findings.
Therefore there are no National Register listed or National Register eligible properties within the APE
for this project. Copies of all correspondence and the concurrence form are included in Appendix A.
C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject project. There are no known
archaeological sites within the proposed project area, and no archaeological investigation needed to
be conducted (see letter dated May 6, 2005 in Appendix A).
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant
environmental consequences.
17

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 regulation. No substantial change
in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will be limited.
No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
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.
There are no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or
local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The proposed project will not require right-of--way acquisition or easement from any land protected under
section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303).
No North Carolina Geodetic Survey control monuments will be impacted during construction of this
project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the
potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction projects.
Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Since there are no prime or important farmlands in the immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge the
Farmland Protection Policy does not apply.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included the regional emission
analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
This project is located in Wayne County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable, because the proposed project
is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air
quality of this attainment area.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. Therefore, the project's impact
on noise and air quality will not be substantial.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA
and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department of Human
Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no hazardous waste sites in the project area. No
facility with Underground Storage Tanks (UST) was identified in the project vicinity.
18

Wayne County is a participant in the Federal Flood Insurance Program. The existing bridge is not located
within a study area, but is affected by flooding from backwaters of the Neuse River. The new structure
should be designed to match or lower the existing 100-year storm elevation upstream of the roadway.
Since the proposed replacement for Bridge No. 17 would be a structure similar in waterway opening size,
it is not anticipated that it will have any significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain. The
proposed alternatives will not modify flow characteristics and will have a minimal impact on floodplains
due to roadway encroachment. The existing drainage patterns and groundwater will not be affected.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project.
IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A mailing list was developed based upon property owners located near the bridge. Approximately
eighteen names are included on the list. Newsletters were mailed early in the planning process to the
nearby property owners and local officials. A copy of the newsletter is attached in Appendix D. A
Citizen's Informational Workshop was held on February 28, 2005 at Southern Wayne High School in
Dudley. There were no attendees to the workshop and no comments were received.
X. UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
No unresolved issues or areas of controversy have been identified during the planning process and none
are anticipated.
XI. AGENCY COMMENTS
Scoping letters were. sent to the following agencies listed below. Agencies that responded are marked
with an asterisk (*). Comment letters are included in Appendix A.
Federal Agencies
US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh*
US Army Corps of Engineers -Washington
US Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington
Environmental Protection Agency -Raleigh
National Marine Fisheries -Beaufort
US Geological Survey -Raleigh
State A eg ncies
NC Wildlife Resources Commission*
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Cultural Resources*
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
19

Reeional and Local Agencies
Wayne County Schools
Wayne County Schools -Transportation Department
Wayne County
Wayne County EMS*
Down East & Eastern Carolina RPO
The following are comments received during the scoping process:
1. United States Department of the Interior -Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: "Wetland, forest and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practical."
Response: The preferred alternate, Alternative A, replaces the existing bridge in the existing
location and minimizes natural environment impacts.
Comment: "Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site
bridges."
Response: An off-site detour will be utilized for this project.
Comment: "Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish
spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.....The general moratorium period for anadromous
fish is February 15-June 30."
Response: An in-water work moratorium will be in effect from February 15 to June 15 due to
Anadromous Fish in the project area.
Comment: "The bridge design should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology
or impede fish passage."
Response: The bridge will be replaced in the existing location and the final bridge length will be
determined during final design.
Comment: "Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in
damming or constriction of the channel or flood plain."
Response: The bridge will be replaced in the existing location and the final bridge length will be
determined during final design
2. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Anadromous species are found
in this portion of Carraway Creek, including alewife and blueback herring. NCDOT should
follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work
moratorium from February 15 to June 15."
Response: The bridge will be replaced in the existing location and an in-water work moratorium
will be in effect from February 15 to June 15 due to Anadromous Fish in the project area.
20

3. Wayne County Schools
Comment: "... we can use an alternate route to make the necessary stops."
Response: An off-site detour will be utilized for this project.
4. Wayne County Office of Emergency Services
Comment: "We have no issues with the proposed bridge replacement. We do ask to be notified
prior to the bridge being closed in order to notify appropriate responders."
Response: The project commitments include notifying the Office of Emergency Services prior
to construction.
21

FIGURE S
Figure 1- Vicinity Map
Figure 2A - Alternate A (Preferred)
Figure 2B- Alternate B
Figure 3 - Photographs of Bridge No. 17
Figure 4 - Typical Roadway Section
Figure 5 - FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 6 - Natural Communities Map
~~

~~ SB 1
~ ~ ~A°
.~
,F
• ••, '~
• ~•
• ~ ~~~ ~ ~ 1917 \
~'
n~a • •~~ ~
•• -
,•
1994 •~
•
•
1993 ,~ •
•• ~
~ •
• •
•
994 ~ ••
2063
2048 ,
i
2067 ~ 1928
S 2049 2066 ;
089 •~
027 •~
Emmaw : ••.
Ch. '
2oz 02
:057 ~ •
•
81 2080 ~~~~ ~•
~~I
058 ~ ~ 8100^ i
-~ Chap 1932 ~•
•
.~\ .
205 927 '•~
802082 _- ~' ~ ~
201 '~ •
1
1930 ~
LEGEND
~.~.~~~ Studied Detour
Route
-- ,..~....: ~ 1
~H J ~~S,.° T:O N ~ ~
~`~ri4•r s F. -;.r
~41M N;~. ~/ ~ :
II Ry..~ " • ® r
v v ~ rl
:~ 0a-
/ '~'+:.
\. e.. \
+~,\...~
- 1r
s a~,.. .._ f• .
t,....'~i ~ ~ G•s~tna.n
~j~' W A
'rCS~
a;.
a \
\
-- i ~
-..,~; \
Cun.a ~
m ,G
S66f0 ~
~r...,.;.;r.
F r e ~l
11 \

G. z; ~
!)
~"~
u ' r'
~.,,x,
_._1._ :, ~~~
1i ` E +
m '
r
is
Sm~;!n
m ~,
~~
1 V ! '
I L 1
1 0 1 2 MILES
1 0 1 2 KILOMETERS
SCALE
WAYNE COUNTY
BRIDGE N0.17 ON SR 1918
OVER CARAWAY CREEK
TTP NO B-4321
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1
. NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAR27NENT' OF TRANSPORTATION
I ~ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT'
~' • ..~ 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

rf
~^ G5Cr5,6rUr
D ^ OE~'Z92
t ^ Yl39E'
T ^ ~'
R ^ X0.00'
IN T!P PP ~. 8-4321
P0C S-a u+§ppp -~~
.-.
~.
•
M 6!
/ I ~ .yo
`~
I I 75' TAPER e +
I I '
~-~ L.
J~

-~-
~^ rzx56~2rtrr
D ^ S!5'2J.~
C ^ 22S1G'
T ^ M!A-
R ^ r,QZS,pp'
DS ^ SGgoe
LEGEND
- BUD.DINGS
- BA7STING RIGHT OF WAY
Q PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
Act EASEMENTS
ExrsTrxc RoADweY
® E>~smvc RDADwer ro BE RESURFACED
PROPOSED ROADWAY
- rROPOSSO sTRUCrvRES,rsunm,
CURB AND GUTISR
ESrSTING srRUCruRES,rsraxD,cuRe
AND GUTTER m BE REMOVED
u11~s,RrVER,srREAMS,AND PONDS
® TEMPORARY DETOUR
® TBMMIRARY DETOUR STRUCTURE
0~ PRESENT ADT (28011
$~ FUTUlP6 ADT (IYZS)
-'1
,F
.~
~~
..
waa; I
I
~; ~ ~
..,
~,
~ ..
•
i i IX.
i ~
~___I
r ~ I~ ~
~~ CCa~n
.7~W
•
0

N3D0 -L-
I?!O~h
w 50la'1Rt'E
I x/
.. ~ ~~
_~
r •i,`i
i% /
ay
~~
2~ , ._

~+
~~ ~
d g
p O
75'TAPER +
Ex. RFW
0 ^ ~~I}}~/~E~~ ~R~~ r~~
^ .N1I..i.I
T ^ ~ 1.- rl 7~R
R ^ IJSQ,00'
~ : ate,,, R rrP -~-
:~~ PO'l S-a 23+5AA0 -L-
PRELIMINARY PLANS
0o xor vu ra cox~rRUerpn
INCOMPLETE PLANS
no wor ueR roR .i. ernu^rrpN
100 0 50 100 FEET
15 0 IS 30 METERS
scACE
0 -~
;, •
;';•
;~
~,
I~
,~
..
..
..
,;
~~
~'
~,
~I
~~
i
I ~ ; ~• -~_
+'"" °•, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
' PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 6
.~'".•~''~, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
WAYNE covNTY
BRIDGE N0.17 ON SR 1918
OVER CARAWAY CREEK
TIP N0.8-4321
1 " ~ 50' ALTERNATE A
1 cm 6 m (PREFERRED)
FIGURE 2A

r r ~
~~
L'
-G-
~ ocri
D • 6'S-~2,r
L • r5r,A6'
r ^ rat,
~ + '~' R ^ 8J5,00'
~ ^ 30 YPx
y
o ~°
•
:~ ~
Pr5f0. A~~O ^L-
,'
,~
~~
',
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
' ---
' ~ °~~
~~,
~~
.,
..~
~~ ~ ,
~,
~ ~ ', '~/
~'
'---'
f-1 ~ 1 ~
o~
~ f
•
0
LEGEND
® BUa~Ixcs
- »rlsrrxc wear of wer
PROPOSED RIGRi' OF WAY
ALL EASEMENTS
Q Exrs2nvc RDADwAr
® EXISTING ROADWAY 111 BE RESURFACED
Q PROPOSED ROADWAY
- PROPOSED STRUCTURES, ISLAND,
CURB AND GUTTER
exrsravc srRDCruRES, rsLAlm, cuRB
AND GU27ER TO BB REMOVED
LARE$ LAVER, STREAMS, AND PONDS
® TEMPORARY DETOUR
® TEMPORARY DETOUR STRUCTURE
PRESENT ADT (2001)
tTrruRE ADT (2015)
100 0 50 100 FEET
is o u ~o MEiEEs
scALE
1
I
,~.~~

. C~'~
--~~
so ~ ~
i~~~ ~
~~/
i~
f~~

tOSF. q/~

TAPER
EX/Sf
^L'
~ ~~~PJ~fRTJ
D • *~6'YdT
T ^ M9Qr'
OS ^^ 501~N
-~ -
PRELIMINARY PLANS
^o x^r va roR consTavcrmN
INCOMPLETE PLANS
OO NOT U! POO E/• ACW111T^N
"°"' ° ,

~, °
~'' ~ "°'°°~° NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 6'
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
WAYNE COUNTY
BRIDGE N0.17 ON SR 1918
OVER CARAWAY CREEK
TIP N0. B-4321
1 " . SO' ALTERNATE B
lcm = 6m
FIGURE 2B

• ~., ,• ~~ "- <,;~.: i •i.i -a y. - ..~ -:- -s~<x~z+.(e-;:. :: - _. v __.._._ -~- - ~ -a.+~ w fs.o.p. »w ::riNr.. .y
I ~~~~ I r'
£ ~ R i f` p Hyr
J
~ ~ f. - ,~~ ~ r..Y,? ¢s t F; } Y , tea= ~.i .. " ,~
t ~S~ ~ ? ~, -~{.: YNr~.i ,per., ~ ~
~ ~ _
II
iw ~ _f
K
v~ ~ .
•.. 1F ".1^ t .w .r
p' i ~ ~
~~~.-
,, ,.
,tea ~,; fir.'.. w
Y~ r
~~~ '6. ~Q~iTIIW~~ffi
E~ i . w ~.
3 ... ~ %Y ..' ".`
~r. ~y `~•'l~F~«F~' ii. ~S i
f .a(AS~f: wa~~~XlM~ ~y.__._.~... .,.,~,..( . marraen-n..~w.wwrs x.~tl~....+.m..r.~n..nmr..+.a.w~r.:.:.,.. _...... . _ _ _. .._._
B-4321
Replacement of Bridge
No. 17 on SR 1918
®ver Caravaay creek
Wayne Coa~nty
q
~w ~~

~~•
~- ,
~~

s~ A ;~s
r
~
~,.
~*`
~
,. q
.

1 OIII~+.L
.. I • ~ I Ir-o- Mrr. 6' •. 10'-O'
w w 1
v~~ E
~~ +•
~.. ~ A2 .O ~+ ` I
6t 1 ~i • ~ ~ I
A2 A2
ORIGMI-L
sio e ~ TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTI0111 `~"ND
•• MIEN TIESE 06TANCES ~OICATE SLOPES OUTSIDE TIE LMTS fqI
TO 3s 1. TIE OISTnNCE BECOMES V~RMMBLE ~ TIE MIAII.OR Ml1.
SLOPE MuNTn~EO.
TRAFFIC DATA
ADT 2002 5,200 LOS B
ADT 2004 5,600 LOS C
~•
1'- ~•- • 1 1 ~•-s- 1•-r ADT 2030 10,800 LOS C
DUAL 2%
A2 ~ TTST 3%
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION:
TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTl011t URBAN coLLECTOR
EXISTING BRIDGE LENGTH IS 53 f T.

KEY TO MAP

FLOODING EFFECTS
FROM NEUSE RIVER
f '~ '~,
~ ,
1500-Year Flood Boundary
X100-Year Flood Boundarv
I
FLOODWAY FRINGE FLOODWAY
100-Year Flood Boundary
500-Year Flood Boundary
jApproximate 100-Year
Flood Boundary
'Cross Section Line A A
;Elevation Reference Mark RM7 X
'River Mile • M1.5
NORTH CAROIJNA
DEPARTMHNT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
WAYNE COUNTS'
BRIDGE N0.17 ON SR 1918
OVER CARAWAY CREEK
TIP NO.8-4321
FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP
FIGURE S
' NOTES TO USER
'.Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections
Viand interpolated between cross sections. The floodways were
based on hydraulic considerations with regard to requirements
Iof the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ~
This map was prepared to facilitate floodplain management
;activities only; it may not show all special flood hazard areas
in the community or all planimetric features outside of the fiood-
plain. Refer to the latest official Flood Insurance Rate Map
'for any additional areas of special flood hazard.
;Floodway widths in some areas may be too narrow to show to
;scale. Refer to Floodway Data Table where floodway width is-
;shown at 1/20 inch.
For adjoining map panels, see separately printed Index to Map
'Panels.

~M yip ~,..~ ~~ - }^` ~ ~~~ ~ 7 [ ~ ~Y' j
$ • r
+ y * ~ ~ rt
B ~ ~-~ 4 • r
r'~ ~ .~ ;
h . ~: -.
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~.
~V ~ c~°~ ~ ~ ~~
..~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ OJT ~Gar~vva±~ Cr.~ '_ it:a ~r
~ ~ ,, ~ -
- ~`'
x F~OUJ `;Ij~ ~; ~ A
."' ,~`
~,
,.
-~_ ~
-"-„-~,
~~ ,~~
~_.. ~,
~~ ,
y„
~.,~t~, ,
s ik~f,
a
_ ._ , ,.
`. _._..
+l
..... _ _+r..
;fit r ~ ~Ir ~ ~ ~ '.~
z. '-,M 1
~ ~ w'~ ~7J ~ xi~ } ~ ~ flII'1~ ~ I } a rn
~r
k'~ ~,~ 1 ~ Project Area
~ ~ I
~, ~ ~ ~ Bridge Idc~~. 1 T
'. ~ ~ ~ . Streams
'1r ~ J
;~. ~b ~f, ' UVetlands -Jurisdictional
' ~ ~"' ~ ~'' [~ tdeuse River i~asin Fyule 8~affer
i.~~ "", ` . ~ Hard+nrood Forest
~ Maintainad~aisturL~ed.
«, a ,'
'~` ~ ~ ',
---, ~. i

APPENDIX A
Comments received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Feld Office
Post OfFce Boz 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
January 13, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
_~ ~::~
~~
~~
,~, i
o c~
-, z~
~Q
~•.~ ~~ ~m
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed replacement of the following
nine bridges:
• B-4018, Beaufort County, Bridge No. 104 on NC 32 over Broad Creek
• B-4019, Beaufort County, Bridge No. 103 on NC 32 over Runyon Creek
• B-4020, Beaufort/Pitt County, Bridge No. 8 on SR 1403 over Tranters Creek
• B-4055, Carteret County, Bridge No. 22 on SR 1124 over Branch of Newport River
• B-4132, Halifax County, Bridge No. 97 on NC 561 over Looking Glass Swamp
• B-4172, Lenoir County, Bridge No. 9 on NC 55 over Jericho Run
• B-4212, Northampton County, Bridge No. 77 on NC 35 over Kirby's Creek
• B-4321, Wayne County, Bridge No. 17 on SR 1918 over Carraway Creek
• B-4326, Wilson County, Bridge No. 79 on SR 1001 over Bloomery Swamp
These comments provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and sectron 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
For bridge replacement projects, the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland, forest and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practical;
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should 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 via conservation easements, land trusts or by

other means should be explored at the outset;
3. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of
fish and wildlife habitat. At the completion of construction, the detour area should be
entirely removed and the impacted areas be planted with appropriate vegetation, including
trees if necessary;
4. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 -June 30;
5. New bridges should be long enough to allow for sufficient wildlife passage along stream
corridors;
6. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented;
7. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a
vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream: This buffer should be large enough
to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
8. The bridge designs should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology or
impede fish passage. To the extent possible, piers and bents should be placed outside the
bank-full width of the stream;
9. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. If spanning the flood plain is not feasible,
culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to restore some of
the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of flood waters
within the affected area.
A list of federally protected species for each county in North Carolina can be found at h ://nc-
es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html . Additional information about the habitats in which each species is
often found can also be found at http://endangered.fws.gov . Please note, the use of the North
Cazolina Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if
suitable habitat occurs near the project site. If suitable habitat exists in the project azea, we
recommend that biological surveys for the listed species be conducted and submitted to us for
review. All survey documentation must include survey methodologies and results.
We do not have any specific comments for the individual projects, with the exception of the
following two:

B-400, BeaufortlPitt County -There is a past occurrence of the West Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus) less than one mile south of the project area. The Service's
Guidelines For Avoiding Impacts To The West Indian Manatee: Precautionary
Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters should be
implemented to minimize impacts to this species. These guidelines can be found at
http://nc-es.fws. og v~publications.html .
B-4055, Carteret County -There are known occurrences ofred-cockaded woodpeckers
(Picoides borealis) and rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) within two
and three miles, respectively, of the project area. If habitat for these or any other listed
species occurs at the site, appropriate surveys should be conducted. In addition, this site
occurs within the Croatan Game Lands area. Impacts to this protected area should be
minimized to the maximum extent practical.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that maybe required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. 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. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that maybe directly or indirectly affected;
4. 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 (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat and waters of the US;

7. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
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 our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
~~~~~~~
c-~
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Mike Bell, USACE, Washington, NC
Bill Biddlecome, USACE, Washington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

_ ~ North CarolinaWildlife Resources Commission _®
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Elmo Vance
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator ,°~ 1~~~/ `-J
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 5, 2004
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Beaufort, Carteret, Halifax, Lenoir,
Northampton, Wayne, and Wilson counties. TIP Nos. B-4018, B-4019, B-4020,
B-4055', B-4132, B-4172, B-4212, B-4321, and B-4326.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1 %21 ~~ail Service Center • Raleigh, NC: 27699-17Z 1
._ ,.. .... ~-.~ ~„ ioi _ C,_.. /i11 G: 77L 7/_.12

Bridge Memo 2 February 5, 2004
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr.~~I' -k Lo.,~~..
1 should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be 'K~~° °dt
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:

' Bridge Memo 3 February 5, 2004
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year f~oodplam. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
B-4018, Beaufort County, Bridge No. 104 over Broad Creek on NC 32. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Adult and juvenile anadromous species are found in
this portion of Broad Creek, including striped bass, American shad, ever herring, and
hickory shad. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish
passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to September 30.
Standard recommendations apply.

Bridge Memo 4 February 5, 2004 '
2. B-4019, Beaufort County, Bridge No. 103 over Runyon Creek on NC 32. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Adult and juvenile anadromous species
are found in this portion of Runyon Creek, including striped bass, American shad, river
herring, and hickory shad. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for
anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to
September 30. Standard recommendations apply.
3. B-4020, Beaufort County, Bridge No. 8 over Tranter's Creek on SR 1403. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Adult and juvenile anadromous species
are found in this portion of Tranter's Creek, including striped bass, American shad, river
herring, and hickory shad. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for
anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to
September 30. Standard recommendations apply.
4. B-4055, Carteret County, Bridge No. 22 over Branch of Newport River on SR 1124. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Adult and juvenile anadromous species
are found in this area, including striped bass, American shad, blueback herring, and
hickory shad. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish
passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to September 30.
Standard recommendations apply.
5. B-4132, Halifax County, Bridge No. 97 over Looking Glass Swamp on NC 561. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Anadromous species are found in this
portion of Looking Glass Swamp, including alewife and blueback herring. NCDOT
should follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an
in-water work moratorium from February 15 to June 15. Standard recommendations
apply.
6. B-4172, Lenoir County, Bridge No. 9 over Jericho Run on NC 55. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
7. B-4212, Northampton County, Bridge No. 77 over Kirby's Creek on NC 35. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Anadromous species are found in this
portion of Kirby's Creek, including alewife and blueback herring. NCDOT should
follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water
work moratorium from February 15 to June 15. Standard recommendations apply.
8. B-4321, Wayne County, Bridge No. 17 over Caraway Creek on SR 1918. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Anadromous species are found in this
portion of Caraway Creek, including alewife and blueback herring. NCDOT should
follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water
work moratorium from February 15 to June 15. Standard recommendations apply.
9. B-4326, Wilson County, Bridge No. 79 over Bloomery Swamp on SR 1001. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shallowed during initial bridge installation.
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box

Bridge Memo 5 February 5, 2004
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
Cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

10~09i2003 09:42 NC DOT PDEA ~ 96779744
e
Federal Aid N BRSTP-1918(2) TIP ~ B-4321 County: Wayne
CONCUI?iIRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLIE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER ~ fri)<CTORIC PLACES
Project Description' Replace Bridge No. 17 on SR 191 B over creek
On 09/30!2003, represeatsuves of the
(~ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
(~.~ Federal Highway Adtnittistratioa (PHWA)
North Caroline State 1•Iistotic Proscrvation Office {HPO)
Other
Reviewed the subject project at
^ Scoping meeting
Historic enchitcctural rnsourccs photograph review aessioNconaultation
^ Other
All parties pr+a9ent agreed
[j These are no properties over fifty years oid within. the project's urea of potential effects.
N0.667 D02
Than ore ao properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
L~/ There are properties over fitly yoars old within'the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on she
histories! information ayeileble and the photographs of each. property, the property identified as
}~ 1 - l 1 O 3 g rite G,P _ ~` 1 ~" is considered sot eligible for the National
/Regis sod no further valuation of is tteceesary.
L1/ There are ao National Register-listed or Study Listed properties arithin the project's area of potential effects.
~Atl properties greater then 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for hierorie arehitceture with Section 106 of the National Historic
P servetion Act and C,S 121.12(a) has been. completed for this project.
ere are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed:
FNWA, for the Divis on Administrator, arothor-Federal Agency
~~ ~l.L_J
Date
~i ~/ ~ ~Jr~ : r-~~f' f~~t/G~
Representative, WI'O Date
State Historic Preservation Officer
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of [his form and the attached list will be included.

~ 2;~~ i i£;i'~; -~a~
i,=1 T 3Ls==x~1:~
~~~~;~~~
~ MQY 1 2 2005
~.~n~.
::
~' ,~ .yam -~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resource~k :~~ `-<< `~
State Historic Preservation Office
Paer B. Sandbeck, Adminirtrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
Map 6, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck p~S~l,~lla~C.L
SUBJECT: Federal Categorical Exclusion, Bridge 17 on SR 1918 over Caraway Creek, TIP B-4321,
Wayne County, ER 04-0108
Thank you for your letter of March 22, 2005, transmitting the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the above
project. We believe the CE adequately addresses our concerns for historic resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations fox 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. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: John F. Sullivan
NCDOT, Federal Highway Administration
Lo~doo Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Stt«t, Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Service Center, Raingh NC 27699-4617 (91733-4763/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Ralegh NC 4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Smet, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699617 [phone]/715-4801

~~,.:~
I~~$~
.~ `~.
North Carolina Departmernt of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Mic6at:1 F. Easlry, Govetaor
Lisbeth G Evans, Soaeorry
lefftey J. Crow, Depvry Secretary
O>~ee of Archives snd I~itsory
February 18, 2004
MEMORANDUM
Division off~istorital Resources
David L S. Brook, Director
TO: StaceyBaldavin - ~.~rr~)~ ~q~„
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
NCDOT Division of Iii hways
FROM: David Brook t~ ~,
SUBJECT: Request for Commeau for Group 50 Bridge Replataemeau:
Bridge No. 104 on NC 32 over Broad Creek,1i-4018, Beaufort County, ER04-0102
Bridge No. 103 on NC 32 over Runyon Creek, B-4019, Beaufort County, ER04-0103
Bridge No. B on SR 7403 over Traacers Creek, 8020, Beaufozt/Pirt Counties, ER04-0104
Bridge No. 22 oa SR 1124 over Branch of Newport Rivet, 8-4055, Casteret County, ER04-0105
Bridge No. 97 on I`'C SG l over Looking Glass Swamp, 84132, Halifax County, ER04-0106
Bridge No. 9 oa NC 55 over Jericho Rua, B-4172, Lenoir County, ER04-0107
Badge No. 77 on NC 35 over I{irby's Creek, B-4212, Northampton County, ER04-0078
Bridge No. 17 oa SR 1918 over Credt, B-4321, Wayne County, ER04-0108_.
Bridge No. 79 oa SR 1001 over Bloomay Savamp, B-4326, Wilson County, ER04-0109
Thank you for your lemrs of January 8, 2004, conceasiag the above projects.
We are unable co comment oa the potential effect of these projects on ettlt:tual historic resources until ave recave
further infoanation.
Phase forward a labeled 7S minutt USGS quadrangle soap for each of the above projects dearly indicating the
pzoject viclairy, location, sad termini. Ice addition, please include the acme of the quadrangle map.
These are no known archaeological sits within. t6c proposed project area. Based oa our knowledge of the area, is
is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be ctigiblc for toadusioa is the National Register of
Historic Places will be affacted by the project We, therefore, recommend that.no archaeological investigation be
conducted is connection with this project
Two topics of the resulting archaeological survey.repon, as well as one copy of the approprsate site forms,
should be foravardcd to cts for review sad comment as soon as they rite available sad well is advance of any
construcvon activities.
wM.hpadersate.ecm
~~
I.oeatloa 1Ndlieg Addtex TNe'badEa:
ADMJNISTBATION SOT N. Blamt SL Relei~+, NC 4617 Ma-1 Setvier Censer, Raleig!< NC 2769916 t7 (919) 7334763.733.6653
RESTORATION 315 N Blount S4 Rakirh. NC 161 T Maif 5wvia Caxcr. Ralci~ NC 216994617 (919) 733.6Sa7.71S4W 1
SURVEY A PI.AI~llvINC 515 tJ. Blount 5t Rokiglt NC .161.1 Nail Service Ctsvet. Raleigh. NC 276994617 (919) 733~d763 .715J801

-- - - - -- __ ..~ ..... ..," . ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -... NU. 5~ D05
• February I8, 2004 ,
Page 2
The above commc~rs arc madc pursuant to Section lOG of the Nanonnl Histoflc Preservation Au and the
Advisory Couual on Histo>;c Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Pan 800.
Thank you for you: cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comauar,
eont~ct Renee Gledhill-Easley, envitotltnental revieroc coordinator, ar 919/733-4763. In all future communication..
concerning this project, please cite the above referenced trseking number.
cc_ w Mary Pope Futr, NCDOT
Man Wilkerson, NCDOT

03/31/2005 09:51 919705657a
WA'YNE911 PArE 01
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SER YICES
COUNTY OF WAyN,E
Fire Marshal/)emergency ManagetnenV911 Communications
134 N. John Street, P.O, Box 227
Goldsboro, NC 27533
[phone] FAX: [phone]
E-mail: wce esn~net
)oe Gurley, Dircctor
Mel Powers, Deputy Director $latr Tyndall, EMS Manager
Bryaa Taylor, Fire Inspector Trey Rhodes, Traiaung Officer
Delbert Edwards, Cottttn. Supervisor Nannette Sutton, Office Mgr
Janice White, Office Asst.
FASCI:MILE ~ ~~~,
t
TO: r~ • r ~ . t FAX NUMBER: S ~-
CC:
FROIVI: ~~~ 7~ s.J~ D,A,TE: 3-- 3/- DS
Total of pages includiztg cover sheet 3

MEMO
TO: William T. Good Jr. PE
FROM: Buddy Smith
RE: Bridge Replacements
DATE: Apri12, 2003
In reference to your memo concerning the replacement of two bridges in Wayne County.
Bridge No 17 SR 1918 has twelve (12) school buses crossings each day. However, we
can use an alternate route to make the necessary stops. Q~43 ~ I
Bridge No 21 on NC 222 has eight (8) school bus crossings each day. We can use an
alternate route to make the necessary stops. (3 . x}31 q
If you need any additional information, please let me know.

APPENDIX B
Newsletter
Official Workshop Announcement
Workshop Handout

NEWSLETTER
Wayne County
For Replacement of Bridge No. i7
Over Caraway Creek On SR 1918
TIP Project No. B-4321
Citizens Informational Workshop
Monday February 28, 2005 from 4.30 PM to 7 30 PM, at Southern
Wayne
This newsletter is published by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to inform concerned citizens
of an Informational Workshop concerning the proposed replacement and road closure of Bridge No. 17 on SR 1918
over Caraway Creek (TIP Project No. B-4321). This newsletter gives an overview of the steps in the project
development process and presents the bridge replacement alternatives evaluated.
STEPS TO SUCCESS
Ste 6 Environmental Document
P
Step 5 Public Involvement
Step 4 Selection of Preferred Alternative
Step 3 Environmental Studies
Step 2 Alternatives Development
Step 1
Project Initiation/Scoping
Alternate B replaces the bridge on new alignment south
of the existing bridge. During construction traffic will
be maintained on the existing bridge. Alternate B was
not chosen because it has comparatively higher natural
environment impacts and construction cost.
THE PROJECT DEYELOPMEIVT PROCESS
During Step 1 of the project development process,
information was collected on the existing human and
natural environments. This information was used to
identify preliminary alternatives for replacing Bridge
No. 17. In Step 2, the preliminary alternatives were
evaluated and two "build" alternatives were selected
for detailed environmental studies. Steps 3 and 4
involved conducting the detailed environmental
studies for the "build" alternatives and selecting a
preferred alternative. The build alternatives were:
Alternate A, replacing the existing bridge at the
existing location, while maintaining traffic by an off-
site detour route is the preferred alternate. Alternate
A was selected because of the comparatively lower
construction cost, lower environmental impacts, and
lesser construction time associated with it. The off-
site detour is along SR 1928 (Mitchell Road), SR
1932 (Emmaus Church Road), SR 1930 (Outlaw
Road), and SR 1927 (Genoa Road) approximately
6.6 miles in length.
The NCDOT is aware that citizens living in the
proposed project area want to know the potential effects
of the project on their homes and businesses. However,
exact information is not available at this stage in the
planning process. Additional design work will be
performed before the actual right-of--way limits can be
established. This newsletter is to inform the public of
the replacement of Bridge No. 17 and solicit your input
on the project.
Planning and environmental studies for this project are
in progress. The Federal Categorical Exclusion (CE) is
scheduled for approval in February 2005. The CE will
address the potential impacts of the proposed bridge
replacement on the human and natural environments
and will include recommended design criteria for the
project. Input received from the public will be included
in the decision making process.
A Citizens Informational Workshop will be held on
Monday February 28, 2005 from 4:30 pm to 7:30 pm
at Southern Wayne High School, 124 Southern
Wayne Road. The preferred alternate will be displayed
at the Citizen Informational Workshop for your
review and comments. Following the informational
workshop and evaluation of the comments, an
environmental document will be published.

NEWSLETTER
Public involvement is an important part of the project planning process. The North
Carolina Department of Transportation is committed to ensuring all issues of
concern to the public are addressed and considered. We encourage you to attend the
Citizens Informational Workshop and discuss your views with the Project study
team. If you are unable to attend, you may send your comments to one of the
addresses listed below. Your comments are important to us!
~(` ~t/ J~ Ms. Karen B. Taylor, P.E. or Mr. Greg Purvis, P.E.
~ NCDOT - PD&EA Branch Wang Engineering :.
1548 Mail Service Center 15200 Weston Parkway, Suite 101 f
`` \,_ Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 Cary, North Carolina 27513
[phone], ext. 223 [phone]
~ email khtur/o>{i dot.srure.nc.us emuil:gpurvisfd wu~tg-en~ineerin,~.com '
If you have transportation questions on other projects,
call the NCDOT Customer Service Office toll-free at I-877-DOT-4YOU.
You are invited to a
Citizens Informational Workshop
Monday February 28, 2005
From 4:30 pm to 7:30 pm
At
Southern Wayne High School
124 Southern Wayne Road
Dudley
WAYNE COUNTY
Replacement of Bridge No. 17
Over Caraway Creek
On 8R 1918
TIP PROJECT NO. B-4321
a
,..
_~
BR/DG~NO. 17
1918,
p .,~ ;
(G~d~~.) ~ (M/TGiELL RD.)
1kC '-
J
~D.,
~~
Studied Detour Route -~-~-~-
Appr+nximate Detour Length = 6~6 miles
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
r~OE NORTH ~OG
y~
* ~
O =
w ~O
~yl; ~~r
0
~TOf TRANSe

NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 17 ON SR 1918
OVER CARAWAY CREEK
WBS No. 33658.1.1 B-4321 Wayne County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold the
above Citizens Informational Workshop on Monday February 28, 2005 between
the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. at Southern Wayne High School, located at
124 Southem Wayne Road in Dudley.
The purpose of this workshop is for NCDOT representatives to provide
information, answer questions, and accept written comments regarding this
project. NCDOT proposes replacing Bridge No. 17 over Caraway Creek on SR
1918 in Goldsboro.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Karen Taylor, 1548
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548, by phone at [phone] ext.
223, fax at [phone], or E-mail at kbtaYlor~dot.state.nc.us.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who
wish to participate in this workshop, to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. To request special assistance, please contact Ms. Taylor as
early as possible so that arrangements can be made.

APPENDIX C
Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms

i
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum In~dicato-r Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator
O
a
1. .) _~~~~,o~ 9.
(
I
2. ~ yfn ~ rc~n L~-/ 10.
3. Li1~/'~S lhc~ ~- 11.
a. ~ ~~~ A ~ ~A'L1~/ 12.
5. . 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
g, ~ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC '1O(~~D
excludin FAC- . U
Remarks:
HvoROLOGY
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
^ SUeam, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available etland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
^ Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
~ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water. ONC (in.) ^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches

~ Water-Stained Leaves
(in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Local Soil Survey Data
^ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 't' (in.) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
DATA FORM ~ _
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
s
- ~ ~ ~ (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) .

SOILS
- Ma Unit Name / ~ ~ ` tiv V
(Series and Phase): I /r N ~ ~ ~ Drainage Class: ~~ / ~'
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ~ V~'DI Vor ~l ( ~ ~v 9~ Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ~ ~ ~
Profile Descriptions:
Dept Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
finches) Horizon Munsell Moist (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
~ _ ~ ,5 ~1 6~L 10~, r
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol
^ Histic Epipedon
^ Sulfidic Odor
^ Aquic Moisture Regime
^ Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
^ Concretions
^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
fj,,,,~ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Listed on Local Hydnc Soils Ust
^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Olher (Explain in Remarks)
WE7 L.ANU UC! Cnrvnrvr, ~ w~•
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks
~JYes ^No (Check) (Check)
Yes ^No
Yes ^No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes ^No
.. uAl lC A/'~C nlnn
Forms version 1/02

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
t
~ - ~ ~ ~ (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
~-
ProjecUSite: ~ )~- ~ ~A~n ~C
ApplicanUOwner. _ L
Investi ator. ~(.U G ~ f Ge
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
is the area a potential Problem Area?
of needed. explain on reverse.)

(Yes ^tJo Community ID: tt~ o/r t
^Yes ~No Transact ID:
^Yes ~iVo Plot ID: 0
VEGETA i wrv
Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator

t.
- ~
•rr.u ,1 ~c ~
2. I ~ r _ lo.

~~Pf FAC. 13.
!
5. a
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. ~ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC ,•l~0
excludin FAC- . v
Remarks:
^ Recorded Oata (Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Oata Available eUand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
^ Inundated
^ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
Feld Observations: ^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water. (in.) ^ O~adized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Oata
^ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
v

h ~~D 1 ~

; ~ ~ N~ ~ ~~+U~s

SOILS
Map Unit Name ~ t°`r ~ ~~g; Ne~ "' ,
(Series and Phase): I L(~J S~jN Drainage Class: T- ,
_ Field Observations
( j .-
Taxonomy (Subgroup): (-- ~Jr1A U rn! ~i ~ F No'D h ~I~ Confirm Mapped 'fYPe? ^Yes No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
Horizon Munsell Moist (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
inches '
lt~~ S y ~~
~_ b
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Sulfidic Odor ^ Organic SVeaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Llsted on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Llsted on National Hydric Soils List
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (F~cplain in Remarks)
Remarks:
4 ~
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ^No (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ^Yes ~No
Hydric Soils Present? ^Yes o
(Check)
this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ^Yes~No
Remarks
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02

Wetland Rating Worksheet
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~' Neares road ~' ` ~ ~ ~~
Project name
A ~ Name of Evaluator £cu ~ i~,r (ei,...,, (~c' Date 2 ~ a~
County_
Wetland location
_ on pond or lake
on perennial stream
~on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
other
/,
Soil Series L ~ ^~ S ^'
_ predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
_ predominantly mineral- non-sandy
predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
_ steep topography
ditched or channelized
wetland width >/= 50 feet
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile ups6tream) /°
forested/natural vegetation 33 °
agriculture, urban/suburban
impervious surface I® _%
Dominant Vegetation
nn ~p
1) I~iyP~ ~ ~ ~ C
(
(2) ~P"1
Flooding and Wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
x seasonally flooded or inundated
_ intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
_ Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
.r Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
_ Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin ~ Other ~'i r~ ~•~~ fa~K
'The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage
Bank/Shoreline stabilization Z
~_ * 4 =
* 4 8
~ Total score
=
S~
Pollutant removal Z * 5 l
=
Wildlife habitat Z * 2 = -`' -
Aquatic life value 3 * 4 = ~?'
Recreation/Education ~ * 1 = ~
Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within I /2 mile upstream

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND
THE PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The estimated 2004 average daily traffic volume is 5,600
vehicles per day (vpd). The projected traffic volume is
expected to increase to 10,800 vpd by the design year
2030.
PROJECT PLANNING
The planning and environmental studies for this highway
project will comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The type of document published for
this project will be a Federal Categorical Exclusion (CE).
This document will fully discuss the purpose and need for
the proposed improvements, evaluate alternatives, and
analyze the project's impacts on both the human and
nattral environment.
Some topics that the document will address include:
• Neighborhood and community impacts
• Efficiency and safety of travel
• Relocation of homes and businesses
• Economy of project area
• Historic properties and sites
• Wetlands
• Endangered species
• Wildlife and plant communities
• Water quality
• Floodplains
• Far-nland and land use plans of project area
• Hazardous materials involvement
• Traffic noise and air quality
CURRENT STATUS
Planning and environmental studies for this project are in
progress. The Federal Categorical Exclusion (CE) is
scheduled for approval in February 2005. The CE will
address the potential impacts of the proposed bridge
replacement on the human and natural environments and will
include recommended design criteria for the project. Input
received from the public will be included in the decision
making process.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN PROJECT PLANNING
Public involvement is an integral part of NCDOT's project
planning process. The concerns of citizens and interest groups
aze always considered during project planning studies. Often,
additional project alternatives are studied, or existing
alternatives changed, based on comments received from the
public.
If you have comments concerning the NCDOT or questions
regarding other projects, you may call the NCDOT Customer
Service Department toll-free at 1-877-DOT-4YOU.
If additional information is needed or you would like to submit comments after the workshop, plea( ;~~~
address your requests and comments to: `"` 1~
(~l
Ms. Karen B. Taylor, P.E. Mr. Greg Purvis, P.E.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch Wang Eagiueering ``~,
North Carolina Department otTransportation 15200 Weston Parkway Suite 101 /
1548 Mail Service Center ~ ~ Cary, NC 27513
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 EMAIL: t;purvis(Qiwan2-en¢ineerinQ.com
EMAIL: kbtaylor(a,dotstate.nc.us TELEPHONE: [phone]
TELEPHONE: (919}733.7844, ext. 223
citizens Informational Workshop
._ ~._
°J
,+
r
3Ftiror ra
Wayne County
For Replacement of Bridge No. 17
Over Caraway Creek On SR 191 S
TIP Proiect No. B-4321
The North Cazolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
has begun the engineering and environmental studies for the
replacement of Bridge No. 17 on SR 1918 over Cazaway
Creek. The studies consist of alternative evaluations,
preliminary engineering, environmental analysis, and the
preparation of an environmental document.
The purpose of this workshop is to review the reasonable and
feasible alternates with interested citizens and to receive
comments concerning the proposed project. Representatives
of the NCDOT are available to answer your questions and
discuss the project with you. If you have comments or
suggestions about the proposed improvements described in
this handout, please inform a representative of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation,
The NCDOT is aware that citizens living in the proposed
project area want to know the potential effects of the project
on their homes and businesses. However, exact inforntation is
not available at this stage in the planning process. Additional
design work will be performed before the actual right-of--way
limits can be established. This workshop is to inform the
public of the replacement of Bridge No. 17 and solicit your
input on the project.
You are encouraged to view the project maps and displays.
Please ask questions if you have any and complete the
enclosed comment sheet. We will keep a record of your
comments and consider your suggestions concerning the
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 17.
PROJECT PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION
NCDOT's 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) proposes to replace Bridge No. 17 on SR 1918 over
Caraway Creek (see vicinity map). Due to the deteriorated
state of the existing structure, improvements are needed for
Bridge No. 17 to meet the current NCDOT standazds.
Two alternates evaluated for detailed environmental studies
are described below.
Alternate A (Preferred) replaces the bridge at the existing
location. During construction, traffic will be maintained by
an off-site detour route along SR 1928 (Mitchell Road), SR
1932 (Emmaus Church Road), SR 1930 (Outlaw Road), and
SR 1927 (Genoa Road) approximately 6.6 miles in length.
Alternate A was selected because of the comparatively
lower construction cost, lower environmental impacts, and
lesser construction time associated with it.
Alternate B replaces the bridge on new alignment south of
the existing bridge, During construction traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge. During the construction
of the tie-ins traffic will be maintained on the off-site detour.
Alternate B was not chosen because it has comparatively
higher natural environment impacts and construction cost.
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COST ESTIMATE
TIP Schedule Estimated Cost
Alternate A Alternate B
Right of Way February 2006 $ 66,000 $ 101,000
Construction February 2007 1 1$ , 50.000 1 175 000
Total Estimated Cost $1,216,000 $1,276,000
runTF• ThP ~~hPa~~1P and cost eat;mates are oreliminarv and subiect to thane