19990877 Ver 1_Complete File_19990803

i
Stette of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
A
0,9W •
IT
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
August 27, 1999
Johnston County
DWQ Project # 990877
APPROVAL of Neuse River Buffer Rules
Bill Gilmore
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, to replace bridge #124, as you described in your application dated August
3, 1999. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this project is covered by the Neuse River
buffer rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal
Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If
you change your project, you must notify us and send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new
owner must be given a copy of this approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all
conditions.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this approval, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing; send a
written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, NC 27611-7447. This approval and its conditions are
final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under the Neuse River buffer
rules. If you any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
ptSely,,evens
990877.1tr
Wetlands/401 Unit 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
0y
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID McCOY
GovERNOR SECRETARY
Mr. John Hennessy
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
26 July 1999
j j//
ATTENTION: John Hennessy
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Johnston County, Replacement of Bridge No. 124 on SR 1330 over
Middle Creek. TIP No. B-3671, State Project No. 8.2312201, Federal-Aid No.BRZ-
1330(3).
This is a request for a Neuse Buffer Permit. Your speed with processing this high priority
project is greatly appreciated. Please find attached the permit packaged originally sent the
Army Corp of Engineers.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Wendee M. Britt at [phone],
extension 334.
cc: Hal Bain, Natural Systems Supervisor
?_ .. «...
4n
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
May 25, 1999
U. S. Army Corps of Engineer
Raleigh Field OiiC
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road. Suite 12s ;
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinato-
Dear Sir:
E. NORRis TOLSON
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Johnston County, Replacement of Bridge No. 124 on SR 1330 over
Middle Creek. TIP No. B-3671, State Project No. 8.2312201, recierai Aid
Project No. BRZ-1330(3).
Please find attached the Categorical Exclusion for the referenced project. The North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 124
with a bridge approximately 46 meters (150 feet) in length and 9.1 meters (30 feet) in
width on new alignment to the west of the existing bridge. The new bridge will provide
two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot) shoulders. The approaches will
include two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders. The shoulders
wilt widen to 33 meters (11 feet) where guardrail is required. Total project length will be
approximately 700 meters (2300 feet). Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge
during construction.
No wetlands will be impacted by the proposed construction and surface water impacts
will be restricted to that necessary for construction of bridge footings. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion"
(CE) in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting
an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance
E)

r.
Y
7
with 33 CFR 3-3 )0 Appendix A (B-23) issued 13 December 1996, by the Corps of
Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will
be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2734 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, for their review
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Teryn Smith at [phone],
extension 333.
Sincerely,
1/_ C.
L?
William D. Gilmore, F. h., 1vlana.!:,-
vroject Deveiopnient and
Environmental Analvsis Branch
WDG/plr
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWG
Mr. David Cox. NCWRC
Mr. Whit Webb, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P. E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. R. Dupree, P. E., Division 4 Engineer

Johnston County
Bridge No. 124 on SR 1330
Over Middle Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1330(3)
State Project 8.2312201
TIP # B-3671
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
'rT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA I
"
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATI(-
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAY
APPROVED:
1-15-77
Date;, William Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
DateSitNicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

Johnston County
Bridge No. 124 on SR 1330
Over Middle Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1330(3)
State Project 8.2312201
TIP # B-3671
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
j anuarv 1999
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Jeff I g
Pro ct Tanning E ineer
tva h 1I? /-/ L `? 9
Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis

Johnston County
Bridge No. 124 on SR 1330
Over Middle Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1330(3)
State Project 8.2312201
TIP # B-3671
Bridge No. 124 is located in Johnston County on SR 1330 crossing over Middle
Creek. It is programmed in the Draft 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) as a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Aid Bridge
Replacement Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No
substantial environmental impacts are expected.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 124 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a bridge
approximately 46 meters (150 feet) in length and 9.1 meters (30 feet) in width on ne v
alignment to the west. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge durin^
construcuo .
The new bridge will provide two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with i meter (3 foot)
shoulders. The approaches will include two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter
(8 foot) shoulders. The shoulders will widen to 3.3 meters (11 feet) where guardrail i°
required. Total project length will be approximately 700 meters (2300 feet). Based on
preliminary design work, the design speed for the permanent alignment will be 80 knv,
(50 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $ 1,173,000 including $ 1,150,000 in
construction costs and $ 23,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the
Draft 2000-2006 TIP is $ 702,000.
II. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) including the
implementation of High Quality Waters (HQW) erosion control (Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds) will be installed and maintained throughout project construction.
Drainage on the bridge will be designed so that runoff is not directly discharged
into Middle Creek. During construction, wet concrete will not contact stream water.
Mr. Tim Savidge of NCDOT-Planning and Environmental Branch (919-733-
3141), Mr. David Cox of the NCWRC (919-528-9886), Mr. John Alderman of NCWRC
(919-542-5331), and Ms. Candice Martino of USFWS (919-856-4520x18) will be invited
to the preconstruction meeting held before the contractor is ready to begin project
construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge
of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." A Nationwide Permit 33
CFR 330.5(a)(23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States
resulting from the project.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality.
General Certification will be obtained prior to issuance of the Section 404 permit.
Further archaeological work will be conducted to relocate and define the
boundaries of sites 31 JT292 and 31 JT293, and on the levee south of Middle Creek to
determine if significant archaeological resources are present. If these sites are determined
to be significant, and they cannot be avoided by construction. archaeological data recove--
may be necessary io mitigate adverse impacts. Additional consideration unaer Section
of the Department of 1 ransportation Act will very likely not be required, as the
significance of these sites lies in the information that can be retrieved through data
recovery.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions will be likely.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1330 is classified as a Rural Minor Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Traffic volume is currently 2600 vehicles per day (VPD) and is
projected to be 5300 VPD in the year 2025. There is no posted speed limit on this section
of SR 1330. There are 17 school buses that cross the bridge a total of 41 times per day.
The existing bridge was completed in 1949. It is 32 meters (105 feet) long.
There is approximately 5.2 meters (17 feet) of vertical clearance between the bridge deck
and streambed. The two travel lanes provide 5.8 meters (19 feet) of bridge roadway
width.
• According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 8.6 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted 17 tons for single
vehicles and 24 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST's).
2
The horizontal and vertical roadway alignments south of the bridge are both good.
Directly north of the bridge is a horizontal and a vertical curve. The approaches to the
bridge have a pavement width of approximately 5.5 meters (18 feet). Shoulders on the
approaches are approximately 1.8 to 2.4 meters (6 to 8 feet) wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch reports that from December 1994 to December
1997, 8 accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge, including 5 running off the
road type and 2 sideswipes. In the spring of 1998, there was an accident involving 3
fatalities in Middle Creek at the existing bridge. The weekend following the fatal
accident, two cars collided in a head on crash at the bridge site.
V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are two "build" options considered in this document. They are as follows:
Alternate 1 would replace the existing Bridge No. 124 with a bridge
approximately 46 meters (150 feet) in length at approximately the same location and
roadway elevation. Traffic would be maintained on site using a temporary detour
alignment to the west of the existing bridge. The on site detour would require_
temporary bridge apmoximately 27.4 meters (90 feet) in lens ___
Alternate 2 would replace the existing Bridge No. 124 with a bridge
approximately 46 meters (150 feet) in length on new alignment west of the existii..
roadway. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during constructio.
Any alternative involving road closure would not be justifiable. Road user cost
analysis indicates that vehicles routinely using SR 1330 would experience a travel cost
increase of approximately $ 1,264,000 if the road were closed. This cost is based on
2600 vehicles per day traveling an average additional distance of approximately
9.6 kilometers (6 miles) for a nine month construction period. According to the current
estimated costs, closing the road and replacing the bridge at existing location would cost
approximately $ 240,000 less than Alternate 2, which would maintain traffic during
construction. Comparing the user cost of $ 1,264,000 to the $ 240,000 cost of
maintaining traffic on site results in a benefit-cost ratio of approximately 5.3. Therefore,
from a road user analysis perspective, maintenance of traffic is economically justified.
. "Do-nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating
bridge is neither practical nor economical.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
COMPONENT ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2
New Bridge Structure $ 380,000 $ 380,000
Bridge Removal 24,000 24,000
Roadway & Approaches 203,000 466,000
Temporary Detour 393,000 0
Engineering & Contingencies 150.000 130,0, s:

Total Construction $ 1,150,000 1,000'O' c"
Right of Way $ 23,00v $ 24,00-'Total Co-'

y 1,173.000 $ 1,024,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT,
Bridge No. 124 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a bridge
approximately 46 meters (150 feet) in length and 9.1 meters (30 feet) in width on new
alignment to the west. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction.
The new bridge will provide two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot)
shoulders. The approaches will include two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter
(8 foot) shoulders. The shoulders will widen to 3.3 meters (11 feet) where guardrail is
required. Total project length will be approximately 700 meters (2300 feet). Based on
preliminary design work, the design speed for the permanent alignment will be 80 km/h
(50 mph).
Neither alternate would impact wetlands. Alternate 1 would have a greater effect
on surface waters due to the temporary detour. Either alternate would require further
archaeological investigations. Alternate 2 would provide a safer roadway alignment than
Alternate 1.
The division engineer recommends Alternate 2. There has been considerable
concern over the safety of the bridge approaches due to the frequency and severity of
4
accidents near the bridge. The alignment for Alternate 2 improves the safety of the
northern approach by providing a flatter curve.
NCDOT recommends Alternate 2 because it maintains traffic throughout
construction, is the most economical, and improves the alignment and safety of the
roadway.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the
existing inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quair ;-
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitment
listed in Section II of this document in addition to use of current NCDO T standards ano
specifications.
The proiect is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. There will be no
relocatees. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
There are underground fiber optic and telephone lines running parallel to the
bridge on the east side. Utility impacts will be low.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Johnston County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have a substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
The project is located in a rural region of western Johnston County. The road
connects the Cleveland community to Interstate 40. There are no urbanized land uses in
the project area. Land in the project area is classified as agricultural/residential:.
The Farmland Protection Policv Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impacts of land acquisition ana construction proiects
prime and important farmiand soils. The Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS) was asked to determine whether the alternates under consideration will impact
prime or important farmland soil. The NRCS determined that the proposed bridge
replacement will not impact prime or important farmland.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTUpon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and culturai resources
databases, the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended that an
architectural historian with NCDOT determine whether the boundaries for the Polenta
Historic District extend into the project's area of potential effect. After examination by
NCDOT and review by the Federal Highway Administration and SHPO, it was agreed
that there are no properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic
Places within the project's area of potential effect.
During an archaeological study within the proposed construction corridor, two
prehistoric sites were identified, 31JT292 and 31JT293. Preliminary investigations
indicated that these sites may contain significant information about the prehistory of the
area,, Additional archaeological investigation will be needed at both sites, as well as
along the levee south of Middle Creek where prehistoric ceramics were recovered.
Archaeological work will define site boundaries and assess the significance of these
sites. If these sites are determined to be significant, and they cannot be avoided by
construction, archaeological data recovery may be necessary to mitigate adverse impacts.
Additional consideration under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act will
very `likely not be required, as the significance of these sites lies in the information that can
.
be retrieved through data recovery
6
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Regional Characteristics
Johnston County lies in the eastern central part of North Carolina in the middle
and upper parts of the Piedmont physiographic region. About 15 percent of the county is
on the flood plains and terraces along the Neuse River and its tributaries. Elevations
range from about 22.9 meters (75.0 feet) to 112.9 meters (370.0 feet) above sea level.
The Neuse River bottom has very little relief. The large interstream areas in the eastern
and southern parts of the county also are nearly level and have low relief.
Soils
There are two soil types located in the project area. A brief description of each
soil type is nrovidec.
Wedowee sandy loam 8-15 percent slope (WoD) This well drained very aeep soil 1.
found on side slopes in the uplands of the Piedmont. it nas moderate permeabili-
and water capacity. The shrink-swell potential is moaerate and it has rapid surfac
runoff. The depth to bedrock is about 60 inches. The main limitations are slope anu,
runoff, severe hazard of erosion and slope. The Capability Subclass is IV c.
• Wehadkee loam, frequently flooded, 0-2 percent slope (WT) This poorly drained
very deep soil is'found on flood plains generally along streams. Permeability is
moderate, and available water capacity is high. Surface runoff is slow, and the
seasonal high water table is at the surface or within a depth of 1 feet. This soil is
frequently flooded for brief periods throughout the year. The main limitation of this
soil are flooding and wetness. The Capability Subclass is VIw. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (June 1991) lists this soil as Hydric.
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources,
along with their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to
surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
Best Usage Classification
Water resources within the study area are located in the Neuse River Drainage
Basin. There is one water resource in the project area as SR 1330 crosses Middle Creek.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which reflects water

quality conditions and potential resource usage. Middle Creek [DEM Index No. 27-43-
15-(4), 5/1/88] is classified as C NSW. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. NSW
(Nutrient Sensitive Waters) refers to waters that require limitations on nutrient inputs.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1
or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 kilometer
(1.0 mile) of the project study area.
Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
Middle Creek at SR 1330 is approximately 13.7-15.3 meters (45-50 feet) wide.
The substrate in the study area is composed of sand, silt and clay. The stream bank
vegetation consists of the same species as the surrounding levee forest commuriT
Water Quality
This section aescribes the quality of the water resources within the project area.
Potentnai sediment ioaas and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point source:;
and nonvoint sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are made based 01.
published resource information ana existing general watershed characteristics. Tries,,
data provide insight into the value of water resources within the project area to mecL
human needs and to provide habitat for aquatic organisms.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the
DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses
long term trends in water quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by
sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrates organisms, which are
sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa
present of intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and a taxa
richness value (EPT S) is calculated. A biotic index value is also calculated for the
sample that summarizes tolerance data for all species in each collection. The two
rankings are given equal weight in final site classification. The biotic index and taxa
richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor measure
of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment. There are no BMAN data sites
located in the project area.
Point Source Dischargers
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by
the DEM. All dischargers are required to register for a permit. The DWQ NPDES report
lists no permitted discharger into Middle Creek directly upstream or in the project area.
8
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities
associated with project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts are clearing
and grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers
and pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement installation. The following impacts to
surface water resources are likely to result from the above mentioned construction
activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased
erosion in the project area.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow trom construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation remova=.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff nom exposed areal
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in highway runofL
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other venicie
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in tine project area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
strictly enforced during the construction phase of the project. Limiting instream activities
and revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading can
further reduce impacts.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section
describes the biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the
relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. The composition and
distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications.
Representative animal species that are likely to occur in these habitats (based on
published range distributions) are also cited.
Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities, disturbed/maintained, levee forest, and pine
plantation exist within the project area.
Disturbed/Maintained
Disturbed/maintained lands are intensively managed where human structures or
activities preclude natural plant succession. These areas include a fallow field and
maintained roadside and extend along the majority of the project. The dominant species
in this community include fescue, wild geranium, jasmine, trumpet creeper, Virginia
creeper, shepherd's purse, broomsedge, and scattered saplings of the levee forest
community.
Pine Plantation
This community is located on the northwest side of SR 1330 at the beginning of
the project. The maintained roadside to the south and east and the levee forest to the
north border it. The community is dominated by young loblolly pin
Levee r orest
The -levee forest extends along both sides of Middle Creek in the project are".
i ne pine forest to the southwest and a disturbed/maintained residential yard to the
northeast border it. This community contains a canopy of ironwood, river birch,
sycamore, water oak, black cnerry, wacx gum, sweetgum, and loblolly pine. The
understory includes flowering dogwood, elm, red maple, American holly, sassafras, anu
loblolly pine saplings. The shrub layer consists of japanese honeysuckle, coral
honeysuckle, catbrier, poison ivy, river oats, grape, and ebony spleenwort.
Terrestrial Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area.
The following table summarizes potential losses to these communities, resulting from
project construction. Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived
based on the entire proposed right-of-way width of 24.4 & 18.3 meters (80.0 & 60.0 feet).
However, project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less.
10
Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities.
Community Impacted Area hectares (acres)
Alternate I Alternate 2
Disturbed/Maintained Roadside 0.20 (0.5) 0.90 (2.2)
Levee Forest 0.10(m)) 0.20 (0.6)
Pine Plantation 0.06 (0.1) 0.20 (0.5)
Total Impacts 0.36 (0.9) 1.3 (333)
Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic community of Middle Creek will result from the
replacement of Bridge No. 124. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance
of aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate, water quality, stream banks). Disturbance of aquatic
habitats has a detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species
diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic
habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic communitie: .
Inhibition of plant grow"
Clogging of feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms, gills of fish, and the burial
of benthic oraanisrm-.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Mortahty among sensitive organisms resulting from introduction of toxic substances
and aecreases in dissolved oxygen.
• Destabilization of water temperature resulting from riparian canopy remova..
• i.oss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from an increase'
sediment load.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by minimizing riparian canopy
removal, limiting instream construction, revegetation immediately following the
completion of grading activities, and strict adherence to BMP's.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two substantial
regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These
issues retain particular importance because of federal and state mandates that regulate
their protection. This section deals specifically with the impact analyses required to
satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part
328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
I1
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all
standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to the public.
Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. There are no wetlands found in the project area.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of
the stream that is located within the proposed right-of-way. A length of 24.4 meters
(80 feet) of Middle Creek and 0.04 hectares (0.09 acres) of stream bed will be impacted
by the proposed permanent bridge replacement. The. temporary bridge required it
Alternate 1 would impact 18.3 meters (60 feet) of Middle Creek and 0.03 hectarc
(0.07 acres) of stream bed.
Perm;ts
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project
As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various
regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for a_;
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This vertu-
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financea
whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department
has determined the pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
• (1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,
and;
• (2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's
or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ
prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Section
401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
12
construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is
a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE 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 he United States, 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 Memormidum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the CO-E,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
sucn measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
vracticabie in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purpos::-
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate ana 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 to median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation in 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. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States, specifically
wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under
Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of
• More than 0.45 hectare (1.0 acre) of wetlands will require compensatory mitigation;
• And/or more than 45.7 meters (150.0 linear feet) of streams will require compensatory
mitigation.
13
No wetlands will be impacted by the project. Impacts to surface waters will be
minimized as much as practicable. Written approval of the final mitigation plan is
required from the DWQ prior to the issuance of a 401 Certification. Final
permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human development. Federal
law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires
that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be
subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species
may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
Federally-Protected SneciFs
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Tnreatened (T).
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of 14 May 1998, the FWS lists three federally protected species for
Johnston County. A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements for.
these species along with a conclusion regarding potential project impacts is provides.
Federally Protected Species for Johnston Cour.T
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Note:
• "Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the
RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cape, neck, and throat. The RCW uses open old growth stands of
southern pines, particularly longleaf pines for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested
stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other
stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are
>60 _years old and are contiguous with pine stands of at least 30 years of age. The foraging
14

range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with
suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are
infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6 to 30.3 meters (12 to 100 feet) above the ground and average 9.1 to 15.7 meters
(30 to 50 feet) high. They can be identified by a large encrustation of running sap that
surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The mature, open pine stands that the RCW needs are not present in the project
area. The pines that exist in the project area are too young to provide nesting habitat for
RCW and do not contain the large open tracts of foraging habitat required by the RCW.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was checkea and there were nc
records of existing populations of RCW in the project area. No habitat for RCW exists in
the project area. Thus, no impacts to RCW will occur from project constructio:..
Aiasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Lmoniaa
Date Listed: 3/14/90
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a distinguishable sheli
noted by two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half. The
periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre
(inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
The dwarf-wedge mussel has been documented from portions of Middle
Creek. Middle Creek, however, continues to be degraded by various sources and
dwarf-wedge mussel has not been found in the creek in recent years. The subject
project was surveyed for the presence of mussel fauna on August 20, 1998. The
survey was conducted from approximately 40 meters downstream of the bridge to
just 10 meters above the bridge using SCUBA and took 1.5 hours to complete.
Water depth ranged from 1.5 meters to 3 meters. Water clarity was poor and
tactile methods were predominantly used. The substrate of Middle Creek in this
stretch is heavily sedimented with fine silt and occasionally coarse sand, and is
generally unsuitable for mussel fauna. Dwarf wedge mussel was not located. The
introduced Asian clam is common at the site. Areas of suitable substrate were
found in Middle Creek approximately 6.5 kilometers downstream of the project
area (next bridge crossing). Elliptio mussels were easily located in these areas
and it is possible that dwarf-wedge mussel occurs downstream of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
15
81
Given the survey results, it is apparent that that dwarf-wedge mussel does not
occur within the project area. Because the dwarf-wedge mussel is historically known
from Middle Creek there is a slight potential for this species to occur downstream of the
project area. The implementation of High Quality Waters (HQW) erosion control
(Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds) and a deck drainage design that would
prohibit runoff directly discharged into Middle Creek should eliminate the potential for
an adverse impact to any dwarf-wedge mussel populations that might occur downstream
of the project area.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Date Listed: 28 September 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of th--
leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of Michaux's
sumac are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to September c
female plants, are a red, densery short-pubescent drug. .
This plant occurs in rocxy or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac is dependent o
some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. it usually grows it
association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy foams. Michaux's sumac gro
only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete
well with other species, such as Japanese honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
There is habitat for Michaux's sumac in the open disturbed areas found along the
roadside of SR 1330 in the project area. The project was walked and surveys for Rhus
michauxii were conducted by NCDOT biologists Hal Bain and Teryn Smith on April 24,
1998. No Michaux's sumac was observed. Therefore Michaux's sumac will not be
affected by the proposed project construction.
16

1..
iy
vii

.j
Y

1
i
C ?
CD (-D (D
O
CD a
W
UQ UQ
O
G
ot;
(D (D
Y vo
r'
CD n
w w
CD Y
? va

- ti
N ( '% I I
f dyd]0 ST.
O
ly `1I L: ..
C m r
C ?
-, a
?,aZp (IQ o o y
C\ a p
n p .
W . o_
? i
?
o =
? V4
S
r
p ,
.?
CD O .? O d

UG VJ ?
_- O G7
c O
n

'Y
j

VN 1
p; I a
S?,
NORTH APPROACH LOOKING SOUTH
FIGURE 3
SOUTH APPROACH LOOKING NOR T "
FIGURE 4
WEST FACE OF BRIDGE Nom. I
ATTACHMENTS

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 8, 1999
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Re: Archaeological survey report for Bridge 124 on SR
1330, Johnston County, Federal Aid No. BRZ-
1330(3), 8-3671, ER 98-8594, ER 99-779'
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you Tor your letter of November 12, 1998, transmitting the archaeological surv;_
report by Deboratn Joy concerning the above proiec'.
We agree with the recommendations that 31 JT292 and 31 JT293 should be tested to
determine their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, if
Alternative 2 is selecte.
We are somewhat perplexed about the ambiguous nature of the find on the levee south of
Middle Creek. The recovered artifacts seem to meet the definition of a site provided in the
report, and yet no site number has been assigned. If there is some confusion, and these
finds do not represent a site, we can not agree to testing a non-site. Review of the report
suggests that the levee finds are, indeed, a site and require a site form and a permanent
site number. We also agree that this site needs further testing to determine its eligibility.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
Y
Davt Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: 4. D. Gilmore
T. Padgett
F?
''1 1 4 1999
T
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ???
I
r
Nicholas L. Graf
April 15, 1998, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
Da iv BDeputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: 4 F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
."
40
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
NCDENR
March 23, 1998
JAMES B. HUNTJR.
GOVERNOR
WAYNE MCDEVITT
SECRETARY
TO: Jeff Ingham, Project Engineer
DOT, Planning and Environmental
DR. PHILIP K. MCKNELLY `
DIRECTOR FROM: Stephen Hall
SUBJEC??: Review of Scoping Sheets -- Replace Bridge No. 124, SR 1331;,
Johnston County
REFERENCE: TIP B-3671
The Natural Heritage Program database contains records for several species of ra=::
aquatic animals from Middle Creek. The most significant of these is the dwarf
wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), which is state and federally listed as
Endangered. Populations of this species have been found both upstream and
downstream from the proposed bridge replacement. State listed species recorded in
this reach of Middle Creek include the yellow lancemussel (Elliptio lanceolata) and
triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata) - both of which are listed as Threatened -- and
the eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), which is state listed as Special Concern.
In order to avoid impacts associated with sedimentation, we strongly recommend that
Best Management Practices for High Quality Waters be employed for this project.
Since these species are also vulnerable to concrete toxicity, we further recommend that
all concrete used in this project be fully cured before it comes into contact with the
water.
= In order to ensure compliance with these recommendations, all contractors working on
this project should be clearly informed in writing of the need to follow these practices,
and all work should be closely monitored. Since a federally listed species is potentially
present in the project area, the US Fish and Wildlife Service should be consulted
regarding the need for additional means to avoid, minimize, or otherwise mitigate for
the impacts of this project.
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 2761 1 -7687 PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
.. „ . :, AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSU M£R PAPER