20010405 Ver 1_Complete File_20041206

0
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
C)] 0 V65
cr&ue'o
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
December 2, 2004
Mr. Philip S. Harris, III, PE S@%V9 D
NC Department of Transportation D
Project Development and Environmental Analysis pEG -6 2004
Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center pENR? pASp>
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598 W
Re: Request for Closure, Lengyel Mitigation Site, Craven County, CAMA Permit No. 81-95,
TIP No.
Dear Mr. Harris:
This letter is in response to your correspondence dated July 7, 2004 to the NC Division of
Coastal Management (DCM) regarding the regulatory release of the Lengyel Mitigation Site in
Craven County.
Per the Final Wetland Mitigation Plan, dated August 2000, monitoring for wetland restoration
efforts were to be performed until hydrologic and vegetation success criteria were fulfilled.
Based on file review and consultation with the DCM Field Representative and DCM Wetland
Specialist, we have concluded that the site has been successful. DCM concurs with your
recommendation to discontinue hydrologic and vegetation monitoring. This does not eliminate
the need to obtain any, other approvals or authorizations that may be required.
Due to a deficit of 1.08 acres of marsh creation at the Sawmill Mitigation Site, DCM authorized
debiting marsh restoration credits from the Lengyel Wetland Mitigation Site, through a Letter of
Refinement, dated May 28, 2004, for B-2531, CAMA Permit No. 81-95. Therefore, the total
debit of marsh restoration for the Lengyel Mitigation Site for B-2531 would be 2.64 acres, and
the total debit of marsh creation for the Sawmill site for B-2531 would be 0.46 acres. Please
provide DCM a copy of the revised mitigation ledgers from both sites to reflect this adjustment.
We apologize for the delayed response to your request. If you have any questions or concerns,
contact me at 919-733-2293 extension #230 or via e-mail at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Steven D. Sollod
Transportation Project Coordinator
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper
Request for Closure
Lengyel Mitigation Site
cc: Mr. Bill Arrington, DCM
Mr. Mike Bell, USACE
Ms. Melissa Carle, DCM
Mr. Randy Griffin, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ
Mr.,Doug Huggett, DCM
Mr Clary J "JoAn, USFWS
Mr. Chris Militscher•', EPA
Mr. Travis Wilson, WRC
December 2, 2004

TO: Phillip S. Harris III, P.E., ONE waSMl' GRO John Hennessy, DWQ ? ?p
Cathy Brittingham, DCM JUN
Mike Bell, COE 2003
Pete Stafford, RK&K 78?QUAL'Ty
FROM: Bruce O. Ellis, CLM, Environmental Supervisor
Mary Frazer, Environmental Specialist
SUBJECT: Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Survey for US 17 Neuse River Bridge
Relocation and Trent River Bridge Widening, Federal Aid Project No. BR
OOOS(33), State Project No. 8.1170801, TIP Nos. B-2531 and B-2532.
DATE: 05/22/03
REFERENCE: Memorandum: Results of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Survey by NCDOT
environmental specialist, Robin Little, October 6, 1994.
The following memorandum provides the. results of a submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) survey
for the subject project. The survey was conducted on June 5, 2001 by NCDOT environmental
biologists Bruce Ellis and Mary Frazer, and members of the NCDOT dive team, Bill Lotz and
Allen Hancock to determine impacts to SAVs as a result of the subject project. Supplemental
surveys were conducted by Ellis and Frazer on June 27 to look at nearby SAV growth for
comparison, and on October 27 to complete the survey at Lawson Creek.
Previous surveys were conducted in August 1994, prior to project construction; June 1996, after
construction was initiated; August 2000, after construction was complete and June, 2001.
Surveys between 1996 and 2000 were disrupted by inclement weather (i.e., hurricanes).
METHODOLOGY
Survey methodology followed procedures outlined in the above referenced memorandum.
Briefly, transects were run perpendicular to the shoreline at ten meter intervals within the
temporary construction zones and permanent construction limits. A one meter square grid, which
was subdivided into nine-33 cm by 33 cm subplots, was then placed on the river bottom at ten
meter intervals along each transect. SAV species present within the one-meter square grid were
identified, and percent cover within the grid was determined for each sample location. Survey
work was conducted using contaminated-water protocol, to minimize exposure to water-born
pathogens. Vegetation from each sample plot was collected and identified according to Godfrey
and Wooten (1981) and Fassett (1975).
Care was taken in the survey to establish the transects at the same locations as the August 1994 and
June 1996 surveys. However, there were four exceptions, listed below.
1. In 1996, five additional transects were established on the western shoreline of the Neuse River at
loop BA and ramp CD. These transects are identified as 2A'-2E'-
2. Site four was not sampled in 1996, 2000 or 2001 due to shallow water depths and a substrate
of extremely soft muck, which prohibited divers from working safely in the area.

3. , Ind August 20;tlree new transects were established on the east side of the Trent River.
" `. These trarisects were located 10m, 17m, and 23m south of transects 3A-3D and are referred to
as transects 3E'-3G', respectively.
4. In June 2001, two tie onsects were conducted for comparative purposes: one north and one
south, of Union Point.
In order to gain a better understanding about habitat in the vicinity of the project, supplemental
areas were examined for SAVs and marsh vegetation in 2001 as a reference to determine the
presence or absence of pondweeds, which had been found in earlier, but not recent sampling
years. The areas that were examined and the sampling methods are described below. Locations
for these sampling sites are presented in Figure 1.
1. Lawson Creek.
The majority of the creek was visually inspected from a small rowboat on 27 June 2001.
2. A small cove north of Union Point (north of the Best Western).
Standard.SAV sampling was conducted as described above on 27 June 2001.
3. Neuse River, near the new bridge, at the confluence of the Neuse and Trent Rivers,
outside the construction impact area. Standard SAV sampling was conducted as described above
on 27 June 2001.
4. Marsh along the new Trent River/Lawson Creek bridge.
Transects were conducted on 24 October 2001 as follows. On the north side of bridge, transect
starts (AN) at first bridge bent in the marsh east of Lawson Creek and precedes eastward to Trent
River (MN). Plots are 10 ft. by 10 ft. and placed at 100 ft. intervals. The transect on the south
side of the bridge starts (As) near the channel within the marsh, which is approximately 200 ft
west of the Trent River. The south side transect proceeds west to the first bridge bent near
Lawson Creek (Js). It was not physically possible to extend the south side transect to the Trent
River due to the channel and extremely wet conditions.
QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Investigator: Bruce O. Ellis, Environmental Supervisor, NCDOT.
Education: BS Agriculture/Environmental Science, Rutgers University, College of
Agriculture and Environmental Science.
Certification: Certified Lake Manager (North American Lake Management Society).
Professional Wetland Scientist (Society of Wetland Scientists).
Experience: Biologist, Allied Biological, Inc., March 1976-April 1994. Lake and
watershed management, natural resource investigations, water quality,
stream bioassessment, fisheries inventories, wetland delineation.
Expertise: Aquatic resource management, wetland delineation, Section 7 field
investigations, NEPA investigations and documentation.
2
s
RESULTS
Results of the regular 2001 survey are included in Table 1. The results of the August 1994,
June 1996 and August 2000 surveys are also included in the table for comparison. Sample
locations depicted in Figure 1. Two SAV species were identified during the course of the survey:
A. Tapegrass (Vallisneria americana)
B. Horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris)
The tpegrass averaged 1-2 feet in height, while the horned pondweed was no more than
eight to ten inches high. During the June 2001 survey, water salinity was 1.5 ppt (vs. 2.8 ppt the
previous August) in the Neuse River and the Trent River, and secchi depth was four feet in the
Neuse, the same as the previous year.
The June 1996 survey identified coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) in addition to the two
species above, but only in Lawson Creek. No SAV's were found at the Lawson Creek site (site
1) during the August 2000 survey at the bridge location, nor were any SAV's seen within 100 feet
up or down the shoreline from the bridge.
The August 1994 survey identified tpegrass and either coontail or homed pondweed, which
were misidentified as eelgrass (Zostera sp.) and milfoil (Myriophyllum sp.).
RESULTS FROM SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING AREAS, 2001
1) Lawson Creek was examined, but no vegetation was present in the creek. The water was
slightly turbid; a loose silty substrate was present. The creek south of the bridge was
examined until the channel splits, a distance of at least 75 meters: only detritus and leaves
were found in the creek. The water depth was 0.60-1.2 meters.
2) The cove north of Union Point contained a small sandy beach about 23 meters long, while
most adjacent areas of shoreline contained low seawalls. No SAVs were found. The water
was clear and one meter deep at about 18 meters out from the shoreline.
3) SAVs in the Neuse River, near the confluence with the Trent River, were sampled with the
first transect 30 meters north of northern edge of the new bridge; the following transects were
40 in north, 50 in north, etc. Tapegrass was found in all of the sample plots between 10 and
40 in from the shoreline. Results of this survey are present in Table 4.
4) Marsh vegetation along the Trent River bridge was examined. Data are presented in Tables 5
and 6. The results of the survey indicate that vegetation is re-establishing on the site,
however, the vegetation that is present is of a much smaller type than the surrounding marsh.
The marsh in vicinity of the bridge is dominated by cattail (Typha latifolia) and giant cord
grass (Spartina cynosuroides). Since the vegetation in the footprint of the workbridges is of a
smaller type than the surrounding marsh, the footprints of the work bridges are very
apparent.
No horned pondweed was found in the supplmental SAV sampling areas, nor was any found
washed up on shore or observed casually. It appears that horned pondweed has been removed
from the New Bern area.due to regional environmental factors, rather than bridge construction.
3
tl
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. SAV Coverage, 1996-2001
Table 2. SAV Species Composition, 1996-2001
Table 3. SAV Sampling Data, 1994-2001
Table 4. SAV Sampling Data from Neuse River at Confluence with Trent River, 2001
Table S. Plant List, Trent River Bridges
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Sampling Results, Trent River Bridges
Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.
Cc: File: B-2531
Table 1. SAV Coverage
SITE LOCATION 1996 2000 2001
Site 1, Lawson Creek 0.14 ha 0.0 ha 0.0 ha
Site 2, West Shoreline Ramp DB (2A-2L) 0.08 ha 0.12 ha 0.16 ha
of Neuse River
Ramp DC (2M-2Q) 0.09 ha 0.04 ha 0.08 ha
Ramp DA (2R 2V) 0.16 ha 0.14 ha 0.15 ha
Ramp CD/Loop BA 0.26 ha 0.0 ha 0.01 ha
(2A'-2E')
Site 3, Freedom Southeast Shoreline 0.08 ha 0.02 ha 0.04 ha
Memorial Bridge over (3A-3D)
Trent River
Southeast Shoreline No Data 0.01 ha No Data
(3E'-3G')
Northwest Shoreline 0.01 ha 0.00 ha 0.04 ha
(3E-3H)
Site 4, Scotts Creek No Data No Data No Data
Site 5 East Shoreline 0.0 ha 0.0 ha 0.05 ha
of Neuse River
(5A-5G)
TOTAL 0.82 ha 0.33 ha 0.53 ha
4
Table 2. SAV Species Composition
SPECIES COMPOSITION NO. PLOTS. IN NO. PLOTS IN NO. PLOTS IN
1996 2000 2001
A. Tapegrass (Vallisneria 12 32 37
americana)
B. Homed pondweed 38 0 5
(Zannichellia palustris)
A & B. Tapegrass and Horned 18 1 9
pondweed
C. Arrowhead 0 0 1
(Sagittaria subulata)
TOTAL 68 33 53
Table 3. SAV Sampling Data
Plot Number Percent Cover per Plot
and Species* Type (if any)
1994 1996 2000 2001 Water Depth
(feet)
2A1 0 0 44, A 0 1.0
2A2 0 0 100, A 100, A 1.5
2A3 0 0 0 0 3.0
2A4 0 0 0 ND 6.0
2A5 ND ND 0 ND 10.0
2B I 0 0 100, A 44, A 0.5
2B2 0 88, A 100, A 0 3.0
2B3 0 0 0 0 5.5
2B4 ND ND 0 ND >10.0
2C1 0 0 0 33, A 0.5
2C2 0 50, A 25, A 100, A 3.0
2C3 0 0 0 0 6.0
2C4 ND 0 0 ND 10.0
2C5 ND 0 ND ND
2D1 0 0 0 0 0.5
2D2 0 31,B 25, A 0 2.0
2133 0 0 0 0 5.5
2D4 ND 0 0 ND >6.0
2135 ND 0 ND ND
2E1 0 0 0 0 0.5
2E2 0 0 100 A 0 2.0
2E3 0 0 0 0 5.5
2E4 ND ND 0 ND >6.0
2F1 0 0 19, A 0 1.0
2F2 0 12, B 100, A 78, A 2.0
2F3 0 0 0 0 6.0
2F4 ND 0 0 ND >6.0
2F5 ND 0 ND ND
2G1 69 0 0 22, A 1.0
2G2 0 0 75, A 100, A 2.5
2G3 0 0 0 0 6.0
2G4 ND ND 0 ND >6.0
2H1 0 0 0 44, A 1.0
2H2 0 0 0 22, A 3.0
2113 0 0 0 0 6.0
2H4 ND ND 0 ND >6.0
211. 0 0 _____Wdga ` 1,1;,,,'A - ND
212 0 81, B 0 100, A 3.0
213 0 0 0 0 6.0
2J1 0 0 0 0 0.5
2J2 0 ND 0 89, A 3.0
2J3 0 69, A&B 0 _0 >6.0
2K1 0 0 0 33, A 0.5
2K2 0 75, B 0 100, A ?? 3.0
2K3 0 0 0 0 15.0
2K4 ND 0 ND ND ND
2L1 0 25, B 0 100, C 0.5
2L2 0 75, B 100, A 100, A 2.0
2L3 0 0 75, A 0 2.0
N
2L4 ND 0 0 0 3.0
2L5 ND ND 0 ND 5.0
2M1 0 0 0 44, A 1.0
2M2 0 31 A&B 100, A 100, A 2.0
2M3 0 0 0 0 5.0
2M4 ND ND 0 ND >6.0
2N1 0 19, B 0 22, A 1.0
2N2 0 100, B 69, A 67, A 2.0
2N3 0 0 0 0 4.0
2N4 ND ND 0 ND >6.0
201 0 6 B 0 0 1.0
202 0 100, B 0 0 4.0
203 0 0 0 0 5.0
204 ND ND 0 ND >6.0
2P1 0 38, B 0 0 1.0
2P2 0 81, B 25, A 100, A 3.0
2P3 0 0 0 0 6.0
2P4 ND ND 0 0 >6.0
201 0 44B 0 11, A 1.0
202 0 81 A&B 56, A 100, A 3.0
.203 0 0 0 100, A 5.0
204 ND 0 0 0 >6.0
2R1 0 0 0 0 <1.0
.2R2 100 81, A 31,A 22, B 1.5
2R3 100 100, A&B 81, A 100, B 3.0.
2R4 25 100, A&B 81, A 100, B. 4.0
2R5 0 75 B 100, A 66 B 5.0
2R6 0 0 100, A 11, 5.0
2R7 0 0 0 0 5.0
2R8 - 0 0 ND 6.0
2S1 0 0. 0 0 <1.0
2S2 0 25 A 81, A 0 1.5
2S3 0 81, A 94, A 100, A&B 2.0
2S4 100 88, A 100, A 100, A 2.5
2S5 19 12B 94A 100A 3.0
2S6 100 0 100, A 100, A 4.5
2S7 0 0 0 0 5.0
2S8 0
S rucin
7mmltw
0
ND
6.0
.2T1 50 are ulklze Bulkhead ND
2T2 100 "u ND
2T3 100 100, A 0 0 1.5
2T4 100 75, A&B 0 0 2.0
2T5 0 0 0 0 3.0
2T6 0 0 ND 0 ND
2T7 0 0 ND ND ND
2U1 0 ND 0 0 <1.0
2U2 0 25, B 0 44, A 1.5
2U3 100 100, A 0 100, A 2.0
2U4 100 0 100, A 100, A 2.0
2U5 100 31 A 0 0 3.0
2U6 100 0 0 0 4.5
2U7 0 0 ND ND ND
2U8 0 0 ND ND ND
2V I 0 0 0 0 <1.0
2V2 100 31 A 63, A 100, A 1.5
2V3 100 88 A 100 A 100, A 2.0
7

V
2V4 100 94, A 100, A 100, A 2.0
2V5 31 0 0 0 3.0
2V6 .0 0 0 0 3.0
2V7 0 0 ND ND ND
2V8 0 ND ND ND
2A' l ND 0 0 0 0.5
2A'2 ND 25, B 0 0 3.0
.2A'3 ND 63, B 0 0 4.0
2A'4 ND 38, B 0 ND >6.0
2A'5 ND 31,B ND ND ND
2A'6 ND 38 A&B ND ND ND
2A'7 ND 12, A&B ND ND ND
2A'8 ND 19, B ND ND ND
2B' l ND 0 0 0 0.5
2B'2 ND 100 B 0 0 3.0
2B'3 ND 100, A&B 0 0 5.5
2B'4 ND 36, A&B 0 ND 6.5
2C' l ND 0 0 0 0.5
2C'2 ND 81, B 0 0 5.0
2C'3 ND 100, A&B 0 0 >6.0
2C'4 ND 19, A&B ND ND ND
2C'5 ND 100, A&B ND ND ND
2C'6 ND 38, A&B ND ND ND
2C'7 ND 50, A&B ND ND ND
2D' l ND 0 0 0 0.0
2D'2 ND 100, B 0 0 5.0
2D'3 ND 88, B 0 0 5.5
2D'4 ND 75, A&B 0 ND 5.5
2D'5 ND 100 B ND ND ND
2D'6 ND 75, B ND ND ND
2E' l ND 0 0 ILA 0.0
2E'2 ND 100 A&B 0 0 1.0
2E'3 ND 100, B 0 0 2.5
2E'4 ND 100, B 0 ND 3.0
2E'5 ND 75, B ND ND ND
2E'6 ND .69 B ND ND ND
ND
3A1 0 0 0 0 0.5
3A2 0 100, A&B 0 100, A&B 2.0
3A3 -0 38, B 0 0 3.0
3A4 ND 19, B ND 0 ND
3A5 ND 0 ND ND ND
3B1 0 0 0 0 0.0
3B2 81 81, B 0 100, A&B 3.0
3B3 88 100, B 0 ILA 4.0
3B4 38 0 ND 0 ND
3B5 19 0 ND ND ND
3B6 0 0 ND ND ND
3C I 100 0 0 0 0.5
3C2 25 31,B 100, A 0 4.0
30 6 0 0 0 5.5
3C4 6 0 ND ND >6.0
3C5 0 0 ND ND ND
3D1 0 0 0 0 0.5
3D2 100 100, B 100, A 33, A 4.0
3D3 88 31,B 0 0 5.5
8
3D4 0 0 0 ND 6.0
3D5 .0 0 ND ND ND
3D6 0 0 ND . ND ND
3E' I ND ND 0 ND 0.5
302 ND ND 0 ND 2.5
3E'3 ND ND 0 ND 3.0
3F' I ND ND 0 ND 0.5
3F'2 ND ND 0 ND 2.5
3F'3 ND ND 0 ND 3.0
301 ND _ ND 0 ND 0.5
3G'2 ND ND 88 A&B ND 2.5
3G'3 ND ND 0 ND 3.0
3G'4 ND ND 0 ND 6.0
3131 0 0 0 22, B 1.0
3132 94 0 0 0 3.0
3E3 19 0 0 0 5.0
3E4 62 0 ND 0 ND
3E5 100 ND ND ND ND
3136 94 ND ND ND ND
3137 75 ND ND ND ND
3E8 0 ND ND ND ND
3F1 0 0 0 0 1.0
3F2 100 12, B 0 0 3.0
3F3 100 0 0 67, A 4.0
3F4 94 0 ND 0 ND
3F5 100 0 ND ND ND
3F6 100 ND ND ND ND
3G1 50 No data 0 0 1.0
3G2 100 collected 0 89, A&B 3.0
3G3 - due to 0 0 4.0
.3G4 100 ND ND ND

3G5
75 presence
ND
ND
ND
3G6 38 of ND ND ND
3G7 0 construc- ND ND ND
3G8 0 tion barge ND ND ND
3G9 100 ND ND ND
3G10 50 ND ND ND
3H1 13 0 0 1.0
3142 38 0 22, A 3.0
3143 63 0 0 4.0
3144 56 ND ND ND
3145 100 ND ND ND
3H6 88 ND ND ND
3H7 100 ND ND ND
3H8 100 ND ND ND
3H9 50 ND ND ND
3H10 25 ND ND ND
ND
5A1 0 0 0 0 <1.0
5A2 0 0 0 0 1.5
5A3 0 0 0 0 3.5
5A4 ND ND 0 0 5.0
5131 0 0 0 0 <1.0
5132 0 0 0 0 1.5
5133 0 0 0 0 3.5
SB4 ND ND 0 0 5.0
v
SC l 0 0 0 0 <1.0
SC2 0 0 0 0 2.0
50 0 0 0 0 3.5
5C4 ND ND 0 0 5.0
5D I 0 0 0 0 <1.0
5D2 0 0 0 0 1.5
5D3 0 0 0 0 3.5
5D4 ND ND 0 0 5.5
5E1 0 0 0 0 <1.0
5E2 0 0 0 33, B 1.5
5E3 0 0 0 0 4.0
5E4 ND ND 0 0 5.0
5F I 0 0 0 0 <1.0
5F2 0 0 0 0 1.5
5F3 0 0 0 0 4.0
5F4 ND ND 0 67, B 5.0
5G1 0 0 0 0 <1.0
5G2 0 0 0 11, B 1.5
5G3 0 0 0 22, B 4.0
5G4 ND ND 0 22, B 5.0
Species A = Tapegrass (Yallisneria americana)
Species B = Horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris)
Species C = Arrowhead (Sagittaria subulata)
ND = No Data
0 = No SAV's present
10
TABLE 4. SAV Saml
Plot Number
(South of Union Pt.,
south of old bridge,
north of new bridge)
Data from Neuse River at Confluence with Trent River, 2001
Percent Cover per Plot Water Depth
and Species* Type (if any) (feet)
2001
lA 0 0
1B 89, A 1.5
1C 100, A 2.0
1D 100, A 1.5
lE 0 2.5
IF ND
2A 0 0
2B 100, A 1.5
2C 100, A 2.0
2D 100, A 2.0
2E 100, A 2.5
2F 0 3.0
3A 0 0
3B 89, A 1.5
3C 100, A 1.6
3D 100, A 2.0
3E 100, A 3.0
3F 0 3.5
4A 0 0
4B 78, A 1.0
4C 100, A 1.5
4D 100, A 2.5
4E 100, A 3.0
4F 0 3.5
5A 0 0
5B 67, A 1.5
5C 100, A 2.0
5D 100, A 2.5
5E 100, A .0
5F 0 3.
Species A = Tapegrass (Vallisneria americana)
Species B = Horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris)
Species C = Arrowhead (Sagittaria subulata)
ND = No Data
0 = No SAV's present
11
Table 5. Plant List, Trent River Bridges, 2001
Common Name Scientific Name Abbreviation*
Alligatorweed Alternanthera philoxeroides AP
Silverling Baccharis halimifolia BH
Sedge Carex sp. CX
Sedge Cyperus sp. CY
Barnyard Grass Echinochloa crushalli EC
Sweet Everlasting Gnaphalium obtusifolium GO
Rose Mallow Hibiscus moscheutos HM
Rush Juncus sp. JS
Black Needlerush Juncus roemerianus JR
Royal Fern Osmunda regalis OR
Witch Grass Panicum virgatum PV
Camphorweed Pluchea pupurascens PP
Mild Water Pepper Polygonum hydropiperoides PH
Duck-Potato Saggitaria latifolia SL
Wool Grass Scirpus cyperinus SCp
Giant Cord Grass Spartina cynosuroides SC
Cattail Typha latifolia TL
Ironweed Verononia noveboracensis VN
* denotes abbreviations used in Table 6.
12
Table 6: Vegetation Plot Sampling Results, Trent River Bridges
Plot Number* Percent Cover by Species Percent cover
A PH, SL, HM (20% cut) 100%
B TL, SC, SL, JS, CY, CX (30% cut) 100%
C SC, TL, Scp, JR (20% standing water) 80%
D SC, is, CX, HM 100%
E SC, CX, SCp, PV 90%
F SC, CX, OR, BH 900/0
G SC, PV, CX, HM 90%
H SC, TL, PH, CX (20% standing water) 100%
I TL, PH, CX, SL, Cy 100%
J SC, PH, EC, GO 90%
K SC, PV, EC, CX (channel open water 20%) 100%
L JR, PP, HM, EC 100%
M JR, SC, HM, EC (river edge) 100%
A PP, AP, HM VN, BH (channel open water 50%) 100%
B SC, PP, PH, JS, CY, 100%
C SC, PV, PP, HM, OR, JS 100%
D SC, TL, HM, CX 100%
E SC, TL, HM (50% cut) 100%
F SC, TI, HM, CX (50% cut) 100%
G SC, TL, HM (50% cut 100%
H SC, TL, HM, JS (50% cut) 100%
I SC, TL, PV (50 % cut) 100%
J PV, AP, SL, JS 100%
* """ denotes north side of Bridge; ""' denotes denotes nouth side of Bridge
13
Figure 1.
1 Lawson Creek
2 Cove north of Union Point
3 Neuse River
4 Marsh along Trent River/Lawson Creek Bridge
fi Fig 2 North Side of Trent River Bridge
. 2
Nil
dam' s

j?
'1
U)
Z
fD
C
in
(D
_N
rn?
\V
3
n
r"F
m?
/T
;4 a^=,

pp?? !r
Sri F }ft^?Yac fir

?yY. r

9y?z .t
q,d ,.t l
4
? _Y x`33 mat +o?[ ?. -

North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Donna D. Moffitt, Director
MEMORANDUM
ern
NCDENR
TO: Ms. Sherri Evans-Stanton, Deputy Secretary for Policy and Programs,
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ms. Robin Smith, Assistant Secretary of Environmental Protection,
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
CC: Ms. Beverly Perdue, Lieutenant Governor, State of North Carolina
Mr. William Gilmore, Manager, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Branch, NC Department of Transportation
Ms. Donna Moffitt, Director, NC Division of Coastal Management
FROM: Mr. Doug HuggTtt,Ma'o 'or Permits a d Consistency Coordinator
DATE: February 22, 2001
SUBJECT: Attached letters from the NC Division of Coastal Management to the NC
Department of Transportation about CAMA permit conditions for the already
constructed NC DOT Neuse River Bridge project (B-2531) and project
commitments related to the proposed NC DOT New Bern Bypass project (R-
2301).
The NC Division of Coastal Management (NC DCM) sent two letters to the NC Department of
Transportation (NC DOT) on February 12, 2001 about potentially controversial issues regarding
the above referenced projects. It has come to my attention that you were not copied on these
letters, therefore I am forwarding them to you at this time.
I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Please contact me if you have any
questions or would like additional information.
Thank you.
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY \ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED / 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER

North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources` •
Division of Coastal Management f'
Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENR
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Donna D. Moffitt, Director
February 12, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Subject: Craven County, Replacement of Bridge No. 28 on US 17 over the Neuse River and the
widening of Bridges Nos. 83 and 84 on US 70 Bypass over the Trent River in New Bern, Federal
Aid No. BR-OOOS(33), State Project No. 8.117080 1, T.I.P. B-2531, AID No. 199401568.
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the NC Division of Coastal Management's
(RCM's) comments on a letter from the NC Department of Transportation (DOT) dated
November 17, 2000 about the above referenced project, B-2531. I have also attached a letter
from Kelly Williams, DCM Wetland Restoration Specialist, with comments on the mitigation
proposed for wetland impacts incurred by B-2531 (Meuse River Bridge) and R-2301 (New Bern
Bypass).
As you will quickly note from the information provided in this letter and in Ms. Williams'
attached letter, the issues surrounding the permit conditions, project commitments and the
proposed mitigation for T.I.P. No. B-2531 and T.I.P. No. R-2301 are extraordinarily complex.
For this reason, I strongly suaaest that DOT convene a meeting with relevant state and federal
agencies to review the project status. Participants in such a meeting should include at a
minimum N.C. Department of Transportation staff working on B-2531 and R-2301, N.C.
Division of Coastal Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, N.C. Division of Water Quality, N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission and N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries.
If DOT agrees that such a meeting is warranted, I recommend that it be scheduled as soon as
possible. This suaaested meeting is not intended to delay final approval of the Sawmill and
Croatan wetland mitigation plans. Rather, it is DCM's hope that the suggested meeting would
expedite approval of the Sawmill and Croatan wetland mitigation plans to facilitate DOT's
ability to meet its project commitments relative to T.I.P. No. B-2531 and T.I.P. No. R-2301.
In the November 17'' letter, DOT requested a modification of existing permits (CAMA Major
Development Permit, Section 404 permit, and Section 401 Water Quality permit), and an
extension of the permit expiration date. CAMA Permit No. 81-95 for T.I.P. No. B-2531 does not
i
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone]D \ Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY \ AF'ZRMA T ?E: ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED / 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER
contain any conditions that contain the specific requirements that DOT is requesting for
modification in the November 17'h letter. Please clarify specifically which conditions within
LAMA Permit No. 81-95 DOT would like to modify. A permit modification request for CAMA
Permit No. 81-95 will require an additional fee of 5100.
The renewal of CAMA Permit No. 81-95 was requested by DOT to accommodate a change in
the schedule for completion of the Croatan and Sawmill wetland mitigation sites, which are
being constructed to provide mitigation for B-2531 and R-2301. In the November 17`h letter,
DOT requested a four-year permit renewal. Please note that DCM does not have the authority to
grant a four year permit renewal as requested in DOT's November 17`h letter. The rules of the
Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) allow DCM to grant as many two year permit extensions
as necessary to complete the initial development for permitted projects where substantial
development has begun and is continuing. Construction of mitigation sites, and monitoring of
those sites to meet conditions of a CAMA permit, are valid reasons for permit renewal.
Therefore, DCM does not anticipate a problem granting a two-year permit renewal this year, and
another two-year permit renewal in late 2002. However, the November 17`h letter did not include
a fee in the amount of $100 as required to process the requested permit renewal. As soon as
DCM receives a check in the amount of $100, a two-year permit renewal for CAMA Permit No.
81-95 will be issued.
In addition to the information provided above in response to DOT's November 17th letter, DCM
would appreciate a summary of DOT's success in meeting conditions #16, #17 and #19 of
CAMA Permit No. 81-95.
16) During the construction phases of this project, the DOT will monitor and record all
impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) habitat that occurs as a result of the
permitted activity.
17) Prior to the expiration date of this permit, the DOT will develop and implement an
approved mitigation plan to compensate for SAV losses associated with this project. The
plan will be coordinated with and approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
N.C. Division of Coastal Management, the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
19) Wetland sites impacted by temporary construction access, regardless of the access
alternative chosen, shall be monitored to insure that natural revegetation is occurring. If a
site is not revegetating within one year following removal of the construction access,
NCDOT shall undertake remedial action. Monitoring and restoration of wetlands
impacted by temporary construction access shall be addressed by NC DOT in their
comprehensive mitigation plan.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. If you have any questions or would like to
discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact either myself or Cathy Brittingham at (919)
733-2293. 1 look forward to working with you and your staff to resolve these issues.
Sincerely,
??,
Doug Huggett
Major Permits and Consistency Coordinator
CC: Charles Jones
Craig Deal, DENR
David Franklin, USACOE
Mike Bell, USACOE
Bill Arrington, DCM
David Cox, WRC
John Hennessy, DWQ
Alice Gordon, DOT
Ed Lewis, DOT
Tom McCartney, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries Service
Mike Street, DMF
Ted Tyndall, DCM
Kelly Williams, DCM
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources` • "
Division of Coastal Managemnt ;'
Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENR
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Donna D. Moffitt, Director
February 9, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Subject: Sawmill Site Final Mitigation Plan
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
I have reviewed the Sawmill Mitigation Site final wetland mitigation plan dated January
2001. To mitigate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands incurred during the construction
of the Neuse River Bridge (B-2531) in 1995 the plan proposes preservation, creation,
and restoration of forested and coastal wetlands at the 4-acre Sawmill site in New Bern.
I have the following comments on the final plan:
1. The community type restoration and creation that NCDOT has proposed to perform at
this site is acceptable as mitigation for some of the impacts incurred from the Neuse
River bridge construction. These impacts were most recently described in your
November 17, 2000 letter. The impacts to be mitigated at the Sawmill site were to
"naturalized ditches" and "naturalized scrub-shrub wetlands." The Sawmill site is
mapped as salt/brackish marsh restoration on DCM's wetland restoration type GIS data.
Incorporating additional marsh creation as well as tidal cypress gum swamp creation will
increase the diversity of wetland habitats at the site. I am pleased that the site is located
in close proximity to the project and that upland areas will be preserved to protect and ZA?
buffer the wetland areas. }„+
2. A planting plan with a specific list of species to be planted in the tidal cypress-gums.
swamp creation area must be included in the mitigation plan prior to its approval. .? ,
3. The hydrologic success criteria for the swamp and the marsh areas are acceptable
though they are not ideal. I would expect the site to exhibit hydrologic characteristics
specific to the community types being restored and created. Such characteristics would
include a certain flooding frequency, duration, tidal influence and depth of flooding. In 'N
the future, reference hydrology data should be used to determine hydrologic success
criteria when available. The data gathered at reference sites for this project will be
valuable although it does not appear you will use them as success criteria.
4. After five years, monitoring may cease only if success criteria have been met (as
evidenced in annual reports) and permitting and review agencies agree in writing that
the site is demonstrating success. This must be added to the plan for it to be approved.
5. It is stated in section 7.0, titled: "Permits", on page 27 that this proposal involves the
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] \ F.AX: 919-733-1495 \ Internet: http://dcm2.enr.sta1e.nc.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNMY \ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER-50% RECYCLED/ 10-, POST CONSUMER PAPER
C•?
conversion of existing wetlands to other wetland types. Your request for a permit
modification in the November 17, 2000 letter does not specify how many acres of
wetlands will be converted (i.e. impacted) at this site. Although mitigation will not be
required for these impacts to existing wetlands that acreage of impact must be
subtracted from the total mitigation acreage available at the site. In other words,
NCDOT will not be given restoration or creation credit for converting one wetland type to
another wetland type even though it may be necessary for an acceptable mitigation plan
at this site. NCDOT should clarify whether or not they will impact wetlands at the,
Sawmill site, indicate what that acreage is, and subtract it from the total mitigation
available at the site.
6. It appears the work done at the Sawmill site, if successful, will meet the required
mitigation acreage needed at this site.. The November 17, 2000 letter allocates 2.47
acres of wetland mitigation to this site. In the final plan 2.73 acres of creation, .20 acres
of restoration, and .25 acres of preservation are proposed for this site. If the Sawmill
mitigation project itself will impact any existing wetlands, NCDOT may fall short of the
mitigation allocated to this site for B-2531 as outlined in the November 17, 2000 letter. If
that is the case, a larger debittallocation from Lengyel maybe required.
I feel it is inappropriate for names of individuals to be written into mitigation plans. Your
plan references a discussion that took place at a meeting unrelated to this project in
August 2000. The references to a "verbal agreement" that took place at this meeting are
not entirely accurate nor are they relevant to the merits of this mitigation plan. Please
remove references to that meeting from this mitigation plan.
I remain very concerned that NCDOT will not meet the B-2531 permit condition #20
which states that: "The DOT shall complete construction of the mitigation site for B-2531
and conduct monitoring in accordance with the approved comprehensive mitigation plan
required in condition 18 until success is demonstrated, either prior to beginning
construction on any segment of the New Bern Bypass project (or any other project that
satisfies the same purpose and need) or within one year of the expiration of this permit,
whichever comes first" I read this to mean that NCDOT must demonstrate success (i.e.
must meet success criteria) on the B-2531 mitigation sites prior to beginning
construction on the New Bern Bypass. It appears NCDOT will not demonstrate success
on the Sawmill site any earlier than 2004. Site monitoring will continue until 2006 if all
goes according to their proposed schedule. If May 2003 is the expected let date for the
New Bern Bypass project, it appears the B-2531 permit condition #20 will not be met.
Furthermore, as of the date of this letter l have not received an MBi for the Croatan Bank
site. A site plan has yet to be approved for the restoration and enhancement activities at
the bank site. Portions of the bank site will be used for B-2531 forested wetlands
mitigation and will also have to demonstrate success prior to construction of the New.
Bern Bypass. I fear NCDOT staff may believe that the signing of the MBi will satisfy the
permit condition quoted above, but again, the permit states success must be
demonstrated at the Croatan site in order meet permit condition requirements. In the
November 17, 2000 letter, it is stated that monitoring on the bank site will begin in 2003.
It doesn't seem possible that the mitigation activities performed at the Croatan site will
demonstrate success by May 2003, the expected let date for the New Bern Bypass
project.
If you have any questions or need clarification, please let me know. I think another
discussion on the expectations and requirements for B-2531 mitigation success and its
relevance to the New Bem Bypass project is necessary. I believe Cathy Brittingham will
request time at an upcoming agency meeting to discuss the matter again.
Sincerely,
Kelly Williams, P.W.S.
Wetland Restoration Specialist
Sad W+°??
V
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 2, 2001
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Dear Mr. Huggett
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Craven County, Replacement of Bridge No. 28 on US 17 over the Neuse River
and the widening of Bridges Nos. 83 and 84 on US 70 Bypass over the Trent
River in New Bern, Federal Aid No. BR-OOOS(33), State Project No. 8.1170801,
T.I.P. B-2531, AID No. 199401568.
Thank you for your February 12, 2001 response to our letter of November 17, 2000. This
letter addresses some of the issues in your February 12, 2001 and February 9, 2001 letters. These
and the other issues listed in those letters will be addressed in more detail at the March 9, 2001
meeting as outlined in the attached Agenda. The meeting will be held in Room 470 in the
Transportation Building at 9:00 a.m. We have reserved the room until 12:30 for your
convenience.
We agree with your evaluation that issues surrounding the permit conditions, project
commitments and the proposed mitigation for T.I.P. Nos. B-2531 and R-2301 are extraordinarily
complex. The March 9, 2001 meeting will hopefully resolve any misunderstanding among the
agencies and bring us all to a common course of action to complete outstanding obligations. We
also hope to establish a clear direction to resolve the timing of debiting mitigation sites. The
investment the Department has made at Lengyel, Sawmill and Croatan sites are crucial to our
delivery of the transportation program in eastern North Carolina.
The following paragraphs provide responses in the format of "Comment" and
"Response" with the "comment' 'being direct quotes from your February 12, 2001 letters.
1. Comment: In the November 17th letter, DOT requested a modification of existing permits
(CAM Major Development Permit, Section 404 permit, and Section 401 Water Quality
permit), and an extension of the permit expiration date. CAMA Permit No. 81-95 for T.I.P.
No. B-2531 does not contain any conditions that contain the specific requirements that DOT
is requesting for modification in the November 17th letter. Please clarify specifically which
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] - TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL. ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

conditions within CAMA Permit No. 81-95 DOT would like to modify. A permit modification
request for CAMA Permit No. 81-95 will require an additional fee .of $100.
Response: The specific requirements that we requested be modified pertained to Conditions
a. and b. of the Department of Army general permit No. 198000291 issued by the U.S. Corps
of Engineers on April 9, 1998. (AID No. 199401568). A copy of this permit is attached for
your convenience. We apologize for not providing a copy with our November 17, 2001 letter
to you. The only condition of the CAMA permit that we wanted to modify was the
expiration date. See Response 2 below.
2. Comment: The renewal of CAMA Permit No. 81-95 was requested by DOT to accommodate
a change in the schedule for completion of the Croatan and Sawmill wetland mitigation sites,
which are being constructed to provide mitigation for B-2531 and R-2301. In the November
17th letter, DOT requested a four year permit renewal. Please note that DCM does not
have the authority to grant a four year permit renewal as requested in DOT's November 17th
letter. The rules of the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) allow DCM to grant as many
two year permit extensions as necessary to complete the initial development for permitted
projects where substantial development has begun and is continuing. Construction of
mitigation sites, and monitoring of those sites to meet conditions of a CAMA permit, are
valid reasons for permit renewal. Therefore, DCM does not anticipate a problem granting a
two-year permit renewal this year, and another two-year permit renewal in late 2002.
However, the November 17th letter did not include a fee in the amount of $100 as required to
process the requested permit renewal.. As soon as DCM receives a check in the amount of
$100, a two-year permit renewal for CAMA Permit No. 81-95 will be issued.
Response: We hereby revise our request for permit renewal as noted above. We now request
a two-year extension of the permit. A check for $100 has been requested and will be sent to
CAMA as soon as possible. It is our intent that it will be in your hands before the March 9;
2001 meeting. As you suggested in your February 12, 2001 letter, we will request another
two-year extension in late 2002. Our apologies for inadvertently omitting the check.
3. Comment: In addition to the information provided above in response to DOT's November
17th letter, DCM would appreciate a summary of DOT's success in meeting conditions 916,
#17 and #19 of CAMA Permit No. 81-95.
Response: We will provide a summary of the SAV monitoring and mitigation as well as the
temporary construction sites natural revegetation at the meeting as noted on the attached
agenda.
4. Sawmill Site: Issues associated with the Sawmill site will be addressed at the meeting as
noted on the attached agenda.
5. Croatan Bank Site: Issues associated with the Croatan Bank site will be addressed at the
meeting as noted on the attached agenda.
6. R-2301A New Bern Bypass and Mitigation: Issues associated with compliance with
Condition 20 of the CAMA permit for B-2531 (New Bern Bridge) will be addressed at the
meeting as noted on the attached agenda.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Alice Gordon at 733-
7844 extension 288 or myself at 733-3141.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: W/attachments
Ms. Janet D'Ignazio, Chief Planning and Environmental Officer
Mr. Calvin W. Leggett, P.E., Manager, Program Development Branch
Mr. R. Len Hill, P.E., Deputy Highway Administrator
Mr. Len A. Sanderson, P.E., State Highway Administrator
Ms. Beverly Purdue, Lieutenant Governor
Ms. Sherri Evans-Stanton, NCDENR, Deputy Secretary for Policy & Programs
Ms. Robin Smith, NCDENR, Assistant Secretary of Environmental Protection
Ms. Donna Moffitt, Director, NC Division of Coastal Management
Mr. David Franklin, COE Wilmington Field Office
Mr. Mike Bell, USACE Washington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Ms. Cathy Brittingham, NCDENR, DCM
Ms. Kelly Williams, NCDENR; DCM
Mr. Charles Jones, NCDENR, DCM, Morehead City
Mr. Craig Deal, NCDENR,
Mr. Ron Sechler, NOAA, NMFS Beaufort
Mr. Mike Street, NCDENR, Division of Marine Fisheries
Mr. Ted Tyndall, NCDENR, DCM, Morehead City
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, Jr., P.E., Division 2 Engineer
4Ty6o. STA7Fq
H mlSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
AGENDA
March 9, 2001
Agency Discussion Regarding Projects B-2531 and R-2301
Introduction
Review of February 12, 2001 transmittal from DCM to NCDOT
Review of March 1, 2001 Response from NCDOT to DCM
• Modifications to Permits
• DCM Permit
• Corps of Engineers permit
• Transmittal of fees
• DCM Permit
• DWQ Section 401 Permit
Status of SAV Studies
• Monitoring Studies
• Mitigation Plan
Temporary Construction Impact Recovery
Sawmill Mitigation Plan
• Planting Plan
• Hydrological Success Criteria
• Monitoring Schedule
• Acreage Impacts - restoration or enhancement.
• Sawmill/Lengyel balance
Mitigation Site Schedule and the New Bern Bypass
Croatan Bank Issues
J
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE:' 919-733-3141 LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING -
PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

11
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEE9 r ;
P.O. BOX 1890 ", C" , WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890.,. <.,
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
April 9, 1998
Action ID No. 199401568 and State Permit No. 81-95
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
1 T
0
Or 411
4 t '
Through coordination with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, we have
learned of your request to modify the State permit that authorizes you to excavate and place fi3
material within 1.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands at the proposed Lengyel Mitigation Site
and 0.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands at the proposed Sawmill Mitigation Site in Craven
County, North Carolina. These mitigation sites are associated with the construction of Bridge
No. 28 on US 17 over the Neuse River in New Bern, in Craven County, North Carolina
(Federal Aid Project No. BR-OOOS(33), State Project No. 8.117080 1, T.I.P. B-2531).
Your activity continues to be consistent with the provisions and objectives of the Department
of Army general permit No. 198000291 provided, however that you comply with the special
conditions listed below. You may continue the authorized work, but in strict accordance with
your modified State authorization dated March 25, 1998. Failure to comply with the State
authorization or conditions of the general permit, including the special conditions listed below,
could result in civil and/or administrative penalties.
Due to comments received from the National Marine Fisheries Service and other interested
agencies, the following special conditions will be included with general conditions of the
Department of Army General Permit:

-2-
a. The mitigation work undertaken at the Lengyel and Sawmill Mitigation Sites shall be in
accordance with the plans entitled "Wetland Mitigation Plan, Lengyel Site, Neuse River and
Scotts Creek, Craven County, North Carolina", dated July 1997, and "Wetland Mitigation Plan,
Sawmill Site, Scotts Creek, Craven County, North Carolina", dated July 1997, except as noted in
condition (b.) below, and pursuant to the additional commitments and additions in the
correspondence dated January 22, 1998, from Mr. David C. Robinson (NCDOT), to Mr. Mike
Bell (copy enclosed). The mitigation sites will be constructed and implemented to the
satisfaction of the Corps of Engineers.
b. The mitigation areas discussed in condition (a.) above, will comply with the vegetative
success criteria established in the January 30, 1998, letter to Colonel Terry R. Youngbluth from
Mr. Andreas Mager, Jr., of the National Marine Fisheries Service (copy attached).
c. The final mitigation plans will incorporate the January 22 and 30, 1998, commitments by
rewriting these commitments into the plans on the appropriate pages. These final plans will r°
provided to the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers no less than 60 clays after the issuanc
date of this nermit modifieaticn
d. 1 ne mitigation sites used to satisfy condition (a.) above must be identified, surveyed, and a
copy of the survev provided to the Corps of Engineers within 60 days of the date of this perm;
modification.
e. The mitigation sites will be maintained by the permittee in their natural conditions, as
altered by the implementation of the mitigation plans, in perpetuity. Prohibited activities within
the mitigation sites specifically include, but are not limited to, the construction or placement of
buildings, signs, or any debris, waste or garbage; excavation, grading; dredging; leveling or other
earth moving activity; cutting, removal or damage of any vegetation; any activity which would
impact the drainage or water quality on the sites; except as required by the implementation of the
mitigation plan, described in condition (a.), above.
f. Condition (e.) above runs with the land. The permittee shall not sell, lease, or otherwise
convey any interest in the properties making up the mitigation sites without first providing 60
days written notice to the Corps of Engineers the proposed conveyance. The instrument
effecting such conveyance shall include legally binding restrictions on the use of the mitigation
sites.described in condition (a.) above, to be enforceable by the permittee as well as the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. The instrument establishing such restrictions
shall be subject to the approval of the Corps of Engineers. The permittee shall enforce the terms
of the required restrictions.
f.
t
-3-
g. The permittee shall contact the Corps of Engineers, Washington Regulatory Field Office
NCDOT Regulatory Project Manager and provide him with the opportunity to attend the yearly
mitigation monitoring efforts.
h. The permittee will submit the yearly mitigation monitoring reports by December 31 of
each monitoring year.
If any additional change in your work is required because of unforeseen or altered conditions
or for any other reason, plans revised to show the change must be sent promptly to this office and
the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management prior to performing any such change or
alteration. Such action is necessary as revised plans must be reviewed and the authorization
modified.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Michael Bell, Washington Regulatory Field.
Office, Regulatory Division, telephone [phone], extension No. 26.
Sincereiy
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Division.
Copies Furnished with enclosures:
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources .
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. William L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

-4-
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. John Hefner
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Larry Hard
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 285'C..
Mr. Charles Jones, District Manager
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
Hestron Plaza JI, 151-B Highway 24
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557

r-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT 111
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRPTAKY
October G, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Jay Bissett, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Robin M. Little, Environmental Specialist W
Environmental Unit ho
SUBJECT: Results of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Survey for US 17 `ease River Bridge
Relocation and Trent River Widening:
Federal-Aid No. BR-000S(33): State Project
_No. 3.1170801; TIP No. B-2?,31 and B-253?.
On .august 30-31. 1994. NCDOT Environmental Unit Specialists,
Cyndi Bell. Robin Little and Eric Penley, with members of the
NCDOT Dive Team, Bill Lutz and Eric Basinger, performed a
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) survey in the proposed
impact areas associated with the relocation/replacement of
the Johr. Lawson Bridge on the Neuse River and widening of the '
Freedom Memorial Bridge on the Trent River.
METHODOLOGY
Survey methodology followed that which has been suggested by
the National Marine Fisheries Service, and which was applied
to assess SAV impacts at the Wright `.temoriai Bridge site in
Currituch and Dare Counties.
Transects were run perpendicular to the shoreline at 10 meter
intervals within the temporary construction zones and within
the permanent construction limits. In most cases. the center
transect fell under the centerline, or began to one side of
the existing bridge within the construction easement. (See
diagrams for site locations.)
Information was collected along each transect at 10 meter
intervals, starting at the shoreline. A 1 meter square grid,
subdivided into sixteen 25 cm by 25 cm subplots, was placed
on the river bottom at each sample point. The number of sub-
plots containing SAV were recorded, as was the species
composition, blade length and water depth. This information
was collected until three consequtive empty pio;.s were
encountered. or until the water depth reached approximately
2.0 m. or G._ feet.
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
e
Sample points within the sample plots were numbered in the
order which they were sampled and each transect was labeled
with a consequtive letter. Thus, Site 2 had three sample
areas represented by 2A1 through 2V8, where 2A-L represent
the sample area and corresponding transects where Ramp DB and
the "L" line intersect with the shore, according to stakes
observed at the site. Ramp DC is represented by _1M-Q and
Ramp DA by 2R-V. Each side of the Trent River Bridge was
sampled on each side of the river. Thus, Site 3A-B
represents the sample area on the southeast corner of the
bridge, Site 3C-D the northeast and so on. Site 4 is located
where Ramp CD and Loop B:? meet the shoreline and cross
Scotts' Creek and Site is the intersection of the "L" line
with the east side of the Meuse Ricer (Bridgeton). Species
"A" was identified as Zostera sp. and Species "B" as
Myriophylum sp.
RESULTS
Areas of SAV impacts are indicated on the attached maps, with
the areas mapped shown in relation to the proposed
construction. The total area of SAV mapped was approximately
5.3 acres. The Lawson Creek and Scotts Creel-: areas had such
dense SAV that it was not possible to count within the grid.
so 100'» coverage was assumed. Impacts were calculated as 1000
of the mapped areas beneath both permanent and temporary
construction areas. (See attached SAV area tabulations and
calculations for breakdowns of permanent and temporary
impacts.)
SAV TOTAL IMPACTS
SITE 1: Lawson Creek (1000' coverage assumed.)
SITE 2: Ramp DB/"L" Line (No SAV present.)
Ramp DC (No SAV present.)
Ramp DA
SITE 3: Freedom Me.norial Bridge/Trent River
SITE 4: Ramp CD/Loop BA, West side Neuse River
SITE 5: "L" Line/Bridgeton (`'o SAV present.)
TOTAL
0.35 ac.
0
0
0. '.S ac.
1.46 ac.
0.23 ac.
0
2.49 ac.
cc: Frank Vick, P.E., Branch Manager, P & E Branch
Barney O'Quinn, P.E., Assistant Branch Manager, P & E
David Robinson, Percnits and Mitigation Unit
Dennis Pipkin, P. E., Mitigation Section
Charles Casey, P.E., Structures Design
SAV AREA CALCULATIONS
Site 1 Lawson Creek 100a coverage assumed)
Permanent 3 m x 71 in = 213 sq.m. = 0.021 ha. = 0.05 ac.
Temporary 15 in x SO in = 1200 sq. in. = 0.13 ha. _ 0.30 ac.
Total = 1413 sq. in. = 0.141 ha. = 0.35 ac.
Site 2 West Side of Neuse River
No SAV pres ent under Ram p DB and L Line (2A-L), or Ramp DC
(2M-Q). SAV present unde r Ramp DA (2R-V).
Permanent 11 in x 37 in = 407 sq.m. _ 0.0407 ha. = 0.10 ac.
Temporary 20 in x 70 in = 100 sq. in. = 0.14 ha. = 0.35 ac.
Total = 1S07 sq. in. = ,0.13 ha.= 0.45 ac.
Site 3 Freedom Memorial Bridge over Trent River
SAV present in permanent and temporary construction areas in
all four quadrants; SE ( 3A-B); ::E (3C- D); NW (3E-F ); SW (3G-
H); and in permanent and temporary con struction area of Ramp ,
BD.
Permanent BD 11 in x 45 in = 495 sq.m. = 0.0495 ha. = 0.12 ac.
NE 6 in x 33 in = 193 sq. n:. = 0.0193 ha. = 0.05 ac.
NW 4 m x 62 in = 243 sq.m. = 0.03-'.S ha. = 0.06 ac.
SW in x 75 in = 3-5 sq.m. = 0.0375 ha. = 0.09 ac.
Total 1316 sq.m. = 0.1316 ha. = 0.335ac.
Temporary SE 10 in x 40 in = 400 sq.in. = 0.04 ha. = 0.10 ac.
::E 5 m x 34 in = 170 sq.m. = 0.017ha. = 0.04 ac.
5 in x 26 in = 130 sq.m. =-0.013ha. = 0.03 ac.
10 in x 33 m = 320 sq.m. = 0-032ha. = 0.03 ac.
NW- 10 in x 5S in = 5SO sq.m. = 0.058ha. = 0.14 ac.
10 in x 63 in = 620 sq.m. = 0.062ha. = 0.15 ac.
SW 10 in x 75 in = 7=0 sq.m. = 0.075ha. = 0.135ac.
10 in x 96 in = 960 sq.m. = 0.096ha. = 0.24 ac
BD 14 in x 43 m = 673 sq.m. = 0.067ha. = 0.17 ac.
Total 4602 sq.m. = 0.460ha. = 1.14 ac.
Site = Nest Side of Veuse River
SAV present along shorelin e and in an isolated patch under
the proposed BA Loop and 1 00% c overage is assu med in Scotts
Creek.
Permanent 40 m a 12 m = 430 sq. m.= 0.043 ha. = 0.118 ac.
Temporarv 10 m x 7 m = 2S0 sq.m. = 0.0_S ha. = 0.074 ac:
m Y 7 m = 175 sq.m. = 0.018 ha. = 0.043 ac.
Sub-Total 4S5 sq.am. = .0.046 ha. = 0.114 ac.
Total 935 sc_.m. = 0.094 ha. = 0.232 ac.
Site 5 'reuse River. East Side. Brid,eton

No SAS' prese nt. ,
SAV AREA TABULATIONS in ha. (ac.)
SITE T PERMANENT TEMPORARY TOTAL
1 0.02 (0.05) 0.13 (0.30) 0.14 (0.35)
2 0.04 (0.10) 0.14 (0.35) 0.18 (0.45)
3 0.13 (0.32) 0.441.6 (1.14) 0.59 (1.46)
4 0.05 (0.12) 0.05 (0.11) 0.10 (0.23)
5 0 0 0
TOTAL 0.24 (0.5,9) 0.77 (1.9) 1.01 (2.49)

Set/
Transect/ # Subp lots/ Species Water Blade
Plot # % Co ver Depth Length
1 N/A 100% B 5' 2'
2A1 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
2A2 0/16; 0% N/A 51 N/A
2A3 0/16; 0% N/A 10' N/A
2B1 0/16; 0% N/A 10' N/A
2B2 0/16; 0% N/A 5' N/A
2B3 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
2C1 0/16; 0% N/A 3.5' N/A
2C2 0/16; 0% N/A 7' N/A
2C3 0/16; 0% N/A 9' N/A
2D1 0/16; 0% N/A 8' N/A
2D2 0/16; 0% N/A 6' N/A
2D3 0/16; 0% N/A 2..5' N/A
2E1 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
2E2 0/16; 0% N/A 5' N/A
2E3 0/16; 0% N/A 7' N/A
2F1 0/16; 0% N/A 3.5' N/A
2F2 0/16; 0% N/A 1.5' N/A
2F3 0/16; 0% N/A 0.5' N/A
2G1 11/16; 69% A 2' S"
2G2 0/16; 0% N/A 6' N/A
2G3 0/16; 0% N/A 10' N/A
2H1 0/16; 0% N/A 10' N/A
2H2 0/16; 0% N/A 6' N/A
2H3 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
211 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
212 0/16; 0% N/A 5' N/A
213 0/16; 0% N/A 8' N/A
211 0/16; 0% N/A 8' N/A
2J2 0/16; 0% N/A 4.5' N/A
2J3 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
2K1 0/16; 0% N/A 1' N/A
2K2 0/16; 0% N/A V N/A
2K3 0/16; 0% N/A 8' N/A
2L1 0/16; 0% N/A 7' N/A
2L2 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
2L3 0/16; 0% N/A if N/A
2M1 0/16; 0% N/A 1' N/A
2M2 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
2M3 0/16; 0% N/A 8' N/A
2N1 0/16; 0% N/A 8' N/A
2N2 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
2N3 0/16; 0% N/A it N/A
201 0/16; 0% N/A 11 N/A
202 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
203 0/16; 0% N/A 9' N/A
2P1 0/16; 0% N/A 8' N/A
2P2 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A.

2P3 0/16; 0% N/A N/A
2Q1 0/16; 0% N/A N/A
2Q2 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
2Q3 0/16; 0% N/A 8' N/A
2R1 0/16; 0% N/A 0.5' N/A
2R2 16/16; 100% A 1.5'
2R3 16/-16; 100% A 2'
2R4 4/16; 25% A 3'
2R5 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
2R6 0/16; 0% N/A 4' N/A
2R7 0/16; 0% N/A 5' N/A
2S1 0/16; 0% N/A 5' N/A
2S2 0/16; 0% N/A 4' N/A
2S3 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
2S4 16/16; 100% A 2'
2S5 3/16; 19% A 2'
2S6 16/16; 100% A 1'
2S7 0/16; 0% N/A 0.5' N/A
2T1 8/16; 50% A 0.5' 0.5'
2T2 16/16; 100% A 2' 1'
2T3 16/16; 100% A 2' 1'
2T4 16/16; 100% A 2' 1'
2T5 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
2T6 0/16; 0% N/A 4' N/A
2T7 0/16; 0% N/A 5' N/A
2U1 0/16; 0% N/A 5' N/A
2U2 0/16; 0% N/A 5' N/A
2U3 16/16; 100% A 3' 1'
2U4 16/16; 100% A 3' 1'
2U5 16/16; 100% A 2' 1' 1
2U6 16/16; 100% A 1'
2U7 0/16; 0% N/A 0.5' N/A
2U8 0/16; 0% N/A 0.5' N/A
2V1 0/16; 0% N/A 0.5' N/A
2V2 16/16; 100% A 2' 1'
2V3 16/16; 100% A 2' 1'
2V4 16/16; 100% A 3'
2V5 5/16; 31% A 3'
2V6 0/16; 0% N/A 4' N/A
2V7 0/16; 0% N/A 5' N/A
2V8 0/16; 0% N/A 6' N/A
3A1 0/16; 0% N/A 0.5' N/A
3A2 0/16; 0% N/A 4.5' N/A
3A3 0/16; 0% N/A 5.5' N/A
3B1 0/16; 0% N/A 0.5' N/A
3B2 13/16; 81% A 2.5' 0.5'
3B3 14/16; 88% A,B 3.5' 1'
3B4 6/16; 38% A,B 5.5' 1'
3B5 3/16; 19% A,B 7' 1'
3B6 0/16; 0% N/A 10' N/A
3C1 0/16; 0% N/A 0.5' N/A
3C2 16/16; 100% A,B 1.5' 0.5'
3C3 4/16; 25% B 6' 1'
3C4 1/16; 6% B 9' 1'
3C5 0/16; 0% N/A 13' N/A
3D1 0/16; 0% N/A 0.5' N/A
3D2 16/16; 100% A 2' 1'
3D3 14/16; 88% A,B 1.5' 0.5'
3D4 1/16; 6% A 6' 0.5'
3D5 0/1.6; 0% N/A 9' N/A
3D6 0/16; 0% N/A 13' N/A
3E1 0/16; 0% N/A 1' N/A
3E2 15/16; 94% A,B 3.5' >1'
3E3 3/16; 19% A,B 4' >1'
3E4 10/16; 62% A,B 4' >1'
3E5 16/16; 100% A,B 5' >1'
3E6 15/16; 94% A,B 5.5' >1'
3E7 12/16; 75% A,B 6' >1'
3E8 0/16; 0% N/A 6' >1'
3F1 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
3F2 16/16; 100% A,B 3' >1'
3F3 16/16; 100% A,B 3.5' >1'
3F4 15/16; 94% A,B 4' >1'
3F5 16/16; 100% A,B 5' >1'
3F6 16/16; 100% A,B 5.5' >1'
3G1 8/16; 50% B 5' >1'
3G2 16/16; 100% B 5' >1'
3G3 16/16; 100% B 4' >1'
3G4 8/16; 50% B 4' >1'
3G5 12/16; 75% B 3' >1'
3G6 6/16; 38% B 3' >1'
3G7 0/16; 0% N/A 5.5' N/A
3G8 0/16; 0% N/A 6' N/A
3G9 16/16; 100% N/A 5' N/A
3G10 8/16; 50% B 5.5' >1'
3H1 2/16; 13% B 2' >1'
3H2 6/16; 38% B 4' >1'
3H3 10/16; 63% B 4' >1'
3H4 9/16; 56% B 4' >1'
3H5 16/16; 100% B 4' >1'
3H6 14/16; 88% B 5.5' >1'
3H7 16/16; 100% B 5' >1'
3H8 16/16; 100% B 5.5' >1'
3H9 8/16; 50% B 5.5' >1'
3H10 4/16; 25% B 6' >1'
4A1 16/16; 100% A 1' 0.5'
4A2 0/16; 0% N/A 1.5' N/A
4A3 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
4A4 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
4B1 4/16; 25% A 3' 0.5'
4B2 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
4B3 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
4B4 3/16; 19% A it 0.5'
4B5 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
4
4B6 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
4B7 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
4C1 7/16; 44% A 1' 0.5'
4C2 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
4C3 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
4C4 0/16; 0% N/A. 3' N/A
4D1 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
4D2 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
4D3 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
4D4 1/16; 6.% A 1' 0.5'
4E1 0/16; 0% N/A It N/A
4E2 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
4E3 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
4E4 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
4F1 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
4F2 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
4F3 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
4F4 1/16; 6% A 1' 0.5'
4G1 1/16; 6% A it 0.5'-
4G2 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
4G3 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
4G4 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
4H1 1/16; 6% A 1' 0.5'
4H2 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
4H3 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
4H4 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
411 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
412 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
423 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
414 8/16; 50% A 3' 0.5'
?
415 0/16; 0% N/A 4' N/A
416 0/16; 0% N/A 5' N/A
417 0/16; 0% N/A 5' N/A
4J1 0/16; 0% N/A 5' N/A
4J2 0/16; 0% N/A 4' N/A
4J3 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
4J4 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
4J5 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
4J6 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
4J7 14/16; 88% A 1'
4K1 0/16; 0% N/A 1' N/A
4K2 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
4K3 0/16; 0% N/A 2' N/A
5A1 0/16; 0% N/A 0.5' N/A
5A2 0/16; 0% N/A 1.5' N/A
5A3 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
5B1 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
5B2 0/16; 0% N/A 1.5' N/A
5B3 0/16;. 0% N/A 0.5' N/A
5C1 0/16; 0% N/A 0.5' N/A
5C2 0/16; 0% N/A 1.5' N/A
5C3 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
5D1 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
5D2 0/16; 0% N/A 1.5' N/A
5D3 0/16; 0% N/A 0.5' N/A
5E1 0/16; 0% N/A 0.5' N/A
5E2 0/16; 0% N/A 1.5' N/A
5E3 0/16; -0% N/A 3' N/A
5F1 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
5F2 0/16; 0% N/A 1.5' N/A
SF3 0/16; 0% N/A 0.5' N/A
5G1 0/16; 0% N/A 0.5' N/A
5G2 0/16; 0% N/A 1.5' N/A
5G3 0/16; 0% N/A 3' N/A
Data Set # 1 was located.at the existing US 70 bridge on
Lawson Creek. The entire project area supports lush SAV
beds. Sampling was not conducted due to abundance and
density of vegetation; therefore, the entire impact area will
be considered SAV habitat.
Data Set # 2 includes the mainline and ramps DA and. DC on the
south side of the new bridge over the Neuse River. 2A
through 2L include the mainline, 2M through 2Q include ramp
DC, and 2R through 2V include ramp DA.
Note: Plot 2G1 contained an isolated patch of SAV.
Neither the immediate area outside this plot nor
any other plots in the sample area contained SAV.
Data Set # 3 includes the widening of the existing US 70
bridge over the Trent River.
Data Set # 4 includes ramp CD and loop BA.
Data Set # 5 includes the mainline at the Bridgeton
touchdown.
' CA
II I ` I I P3.x ------- ------- J
CA
e .e- m /ff
.0 .63.63.6 1.8± 3.63.63.Zno
0vi -n c-) ` m NNw rn
79 -n
o-n("? I a asp <n Il t t m Wb+
N?(n V) co z ! II ma; it ?w? O NOS
wo, -n n? j :15.6+ I rn- 15.6E rc?++ c wow
-a O a z1 ov+ } r 0 ?N N (A
CC ? -? a a
a
Lqm
(n m
--N? I Il II ?v
-x z 3> P 1 _il `^ II
o
m o- o'
D I DOri
CZ) 15.6± m czi m 7- 11
"??~ 13.63.63.6 111.8± 1.811 3.63.63.61. Zc>
I! If II 1 ?.t. 11 70.104 m
m
? I?
? (230 FT.)
hill
? '41 < II a
I II ° II .
'?? II 11 -- II
I! II ?. it ? I ??
`, {I II Il I m
11 it .II 1 -?
n
,? II II II i z
m Cn ..
m II !1 II I
Z { u 11 I I
II .
40.0 S=TE 1 1_00% SA C0V r-AGE
(l (131.23 F' SCALE :500 i
Te,no r ar
Fer:nanenz
T II i, ..
-i- ?1 w S m,

m\
Q °? 3y boll,
3A .:.

af G
Z ?
w w
C
01
_ \ M
t

"
a
4
?s

r.•

?
L" ? D1
t

.
J
.
?
i 7

JS3
ua-o9
zz ?

IIT

Q
co •cc? a=

O C
I CD rn

? N•!r'+DA D
' o
D

?n
iFF
? os

lastly
?a=== a
°
SITE ? A _ NO SAV PRESENT
SCALE 1:1000
? Sample Po-* wt iIou t S AV
.,.L?:-1'd LS 6
0
• s`? ? N ?? ? o ° ? IOO° m
laob s
y a
5MMP .8'
RAMP g <? -1 ?°-•?«
.. N r 3039.6' E f aN
PA s .?O•? t
so ddr rflQr. rAVED SMOlOCIK
y . -YAW
r
Oop
QOP BA
-?? A
N X? 1 ?'1 t /\ u 2
f rb x-? ? V S
Z
r
y .. ?O
t1r. 41,41,
cA ?.
C) p
?, ;4 r o >
I Ha z
OZ Pcr \ R
SITE 3 Ni - Q NO SAV P2ESENT
SCALE 1:1000
_? Sample Points without SAV
v.
3
.? y
. PAYED SMOULDERS
X-p
.C Stpy-DEA4 ?
°gQp 46 4&-
i
A
i f
T-- -Lim -
Y4 -
S 1093'40.6• W
01
a
0
8
SITE ? F - V SAV PRESENT
SCALE 1:1000
Temporary" Permanent
-?- Sample Points with S_iV
Sample Points without SAS'
b
?q
1
?s?
62 FT.)
(65 ,
. ? ?
c
A
D3 3
D? D t? Do= 0
j
/ W

O.IS o SCUPPER (TY .
-C
f`J w
CN?? (TYP)
2

CON ga 3 BRIDGE
894

- = -- ? ; .
NCGS MON ::•
-- _ _
r PAINT STRIPING 'FREEDOM'
+,
m
FREEDOM
MEMORIAL
I BRIDGE a
> I I PROP. G.R.
Cli
J
,l

E RAI L
SITE
; A - D SAV PRESENT
i1CED S 65-08°I2.0'- E SCALE 1:500
C[ Temporary L Periranent
Samp.le Points with SAV
Sa mple Points without SAV I
$,
7 7
FREEDOM I MEMORIAL I BRIDGE , PROP. PAVED SHOULDER
?
s= =-- --
- TYPE xI
WOODS PROP. G.R.
A3 Al t
?
EXIST •
.
' CL B STONE
Riw Mo>? : .
FABRIC
W/FILTER
` - .
EST.907 K9 SLOPE
STAKE
2
EXIST. R/W F.F.
EST. 4m
-Y- + 294 LINE
ro 4b of s 6 c 85 94 ST 63 B2- 81,
-%
?
Rt .
.ass
RP ? ;. •
cv i _
• eBDo .a- 54.90-750 RCP ..
o_° _ lTYp? -Y- z+69s.isa '_'
all.
I - EXIST _ _
CHL
r ?"

l
1 .
. SITE 3 E - H SAXT PRESENT
SCALE 1:500

1K) Temporary
' Permanent
i -- Sample Points with SAV
-a- Sample Points without SAV
STA
TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION )
EASEMENT
l l F?3 f_4 'E fro

_ 4
1 ai (138.62 FT.)
- o
? E2c y 87.009 EXIST. R/W 197
F8
' ° (131.23 FT.) Ibb-
6 TAPER
r

/,
t
I
f
a N
u- EXIST. BENT
t c'Q (TYP.). I W®L I
c

ANDS 2+100 7® BY-'ASS

°_Z _
=
_
J
- _-______?_ ____
I I
I i I EBL
mono

G =L Ca3 G2 Gt GIO &L? G $ G 7.
EXIST. R/W

E E
- ir]I. PIS .?}? !+4 145- f4fo H-7 W9 if
5 lb
?I -
.. -.a
TEMPORARY M AN USE FOR CONSTRUCTION RIVER I
DRAI
AGE
(sW N INCOMPLETE PLANS
/; EASEMENT DO NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITION ST?3

?;?ll?; r?1r?? ? f
1 • ??
`,? ` r l \ c,4r
4. O t f WETLANDS j.
WOODS
4PT9? `X-J lt`\ !' `? I? WOODS
IN ° l J? L1JI_?' Y ?s T
`mss ,l j 1
n Y,o
?4r +? II `
• v ,?tt.AKpS ?J ? ?
LOOP
,,"BA'" 3z
SITE 4 100% SAV COVERAGE
SCALE 1:1000
v
plw
., \ mow' ev
,
` PUM
14.
8 1 ti
WOODS 46

`^ I
1

r ?

j ? I I
I
TJ I L J Z
t
t
t
t
t
K\
lenipor2r _.? P-rmanen. 'roY C`
I

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
02 October 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head
Natural Resources, Permits, and Mitigation Unit
FROM: Bruce O. Ellis, CLM, Environmental Biologist
Natural Resources, Permits, and Mitigation Unit
SUBJECT: Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Survey, for US 17 Neuse River
Bridge Relocation, and Trent River Bridge Widening, Federal Aid
Project No. BR-OOOS(33), State Project No. 8.1170801, Tip No.s
B-2531 and B-2532.
ATTENTION: Alice Gordon, Environmental Specialist
Natural Resources, Permits, and Mitigation Unit
REFERENCE: Memorandum: Results of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Survey,
by NCDOT environmental specialist, Robin Little, 06 October
1994.
The following memorandum provides the results of a submersed aquatic vegetation
survey (SAV) for the subject project. The survey was conducted on 04 and 05 June 1996, by
NCDOT environmental biologist Bruce O. Ellis, and members of the NCDOT dive team, Bill
Lutz and James Talachek.
The June 1996 SAV survey was conducted to determine impacts to SAV's as the result of
the initiation of project construction. The August 1994 SAV survey was conducted prior to
project construction and provides a baseline of pre-construction conditions.
METHODOLOGY
Survey methodology followed procedures outlined in the above referenced memorandum.
Briefly, transects were run perpendicular to the shoreline at ten meter intervals within the
temporary construction zones and permanent construction limits. A one meter square grid, which
is subdivided into sixteen 25 cm by 25 cm subplots, was then placed on the river bottom at ten
meter intervals along each transect. SAV species present within the one meter square grid were
identified, and per cent cover within the grid was determined for each sample location.

l
The utmost care was taken in the June 1996 survey, to establish the transects on the same
location as the August 1994 survey. However, there are two exceptions:
1. Five additional transects were established on the western shoreline of the Neuse River where
loop BA and ramp CD cross this portion of the shore. In Table 1, these transects are
identified as 2A' through 2E'.
2. Site four was not sampled in June 1996 due to shallow water depths, an extremely soft muck
substrate and dense growths of filamentous algae. These conditions prohibited divers from
safely and effectively entering this area.
Vegetation from each sample plot was collected, and identified according to Godfrey & Wooten
(1981) and Fassett (1975).
QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Investigator: Bruce O. Ellis, Environmental Biologist NCDOT.
Education: BS Agriculture/Environmental Science, Rutgers University
College of Agriculture and Environmental Science.
Certification: Certified Lake Manager (North American Lake Management Society).
Experience: Biologist, Allied Biological, Inc., March 1976-April 1994. Lake and
watershed management; natural resource investigations, water quality;
stream bioassessment, fisheries inventories, wetland delineation.
Expertise: Aquatic resource management; wetland delineation; Section 7
field investigations; NEPA investigations and documentation.
RESULTS
Results of the June 1996 SAV survey are included in the following table. The results of
the August 1994 survey are also included in the table for comparison. Sample locations are
depicted in figure 1. Three SAV species were identified during the course of the survey:
A. Tapegrass (Vallisneria americana)
B. Horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris)
C. Coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum)
The August 1994 SAV survey identified two species of SAV's, which were eelgrass
(Zostera spp.) and milfoil (Myriophyllum spp.). No eelgrass or milfoil were observed in the June
1996 survey. It is assumed that the SAV's in the August 1994 survey were mis-identified.
Eelgrass can be easily confused with tapegrass, and milfoil may be easily confused with coontail
or horned pondweed.
During the June 1996 survey, tapegrass and horned pondweed were found in the waters of
the Neuse and Trent Rivers. Coontail was found only in Lawson Creek.

3
Areal coverage of SAV's, as determined from this survey, is presented below.
There was an increase in SAV's in site 2 at ramp DB/"L" Line and ramp DC from the 1994
survey. However, there was a significant decrease in SAV's at site 3 (Trent River). At the time
of the survey there was considerable construction activity associated with the Freedom Memorial
Bridge over the Trent River, which included construction barges along the northwest shoreline of
the river. Overall, there was a 0.2 ha (0.47 ac) decrease in SAV's from the August 1994 survey,
which was largely the result of the placement of construction barges and not the result of
sedimentation or other physical
Site 1: Lawson Creek
100 per cent coverage of coontail 0.14 ha (0.35 ac)
Site 2: West Shoreline of Neuse River
Ramp DB/"L" Line (2A-2L) 0.08 ha (0.20 ac)
Ramp DC (2M-2Q) 0.09 ha (0.22 ac)
Ramp DA (2R-2V) 0.16 ha (0.40 ac)
Ramp CD/ Loop BA (2A'-2E') 0.26 ha (0.64 ac)
Site 3: Freedom Memorial Bridge over Trent River
Southeast Shoreline (3A-3D) 0:08 ha (0.20 ac)
Northwest Shoreline (3E-3H) 0.01 ha (0.02 ac)
Site 4: Scotts Creek
No SAV present, only heavy densities of
filamentous algae present 0.0
Site 5: East Shoreline of Neuse River (5A-5G) 0.0
TOTAL 0.82 ha (2.02 ac)
Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information (ext. 305).
cc: Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
Kelly Beissel, Environmental Specialist
File: B-2531

Results of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Survey, 04 and 05 June 1997
Plot Number Per Cent Cover per Plot Species` Water Depth Stem Length
1994 1996 (feet) (inches)
2A1
: 0' 0
. -
........
.
..
....... . . . . . . 1.0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . -
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .
.......................................
2A2 .
..... ...........................
0 .......
.............................
0
. .... .
. .........
............
....
-
..
.........................
......:..... 4.0
....................................

...
... -

..................................
.......................................
2A3 ...... ........................... .............................
......
? ..
. .......
..
....
.
......... ........... .............g:.................. ....... .....................................
............
...............
2A4 .-,..... ...........................
0 ............
....... ...............
0 ..... ,
....................
.
- 10.0 -
2B1 0 0 -
. 1.0
... -
..............................
............................ ..........
2B2 ..;..... ...........................
..............................
.......
88
.....
....................................
''.............
...........
..........
......
............. 3:?-.--.........
.
. s.

8-10.
............:.
......................................
2133 ... ..... ...........................
0 ....... ....................
0 - 7.0 -
2C1 0 0
: -
..
...
: 0.8
..............---....................
..... -
..----• ........
......................................
2C2 . _•--.. ....------.................
0 ...................................
50 ..
. ..............................
....
A ......
. ..... . ............8-10..............
...............
............
20 ..,. 0 0 -
. 3.0 -
..........................
2C4 <..... ............ .......-....
ND1 ......:.............................
0 ... ...................................
- .... .... .....................................
4
0 ....
.
. ...
.
............................ .... .. .................................... .......
.... .
..................................... ... ... ......................................
......................................
2C5 .. ,..... .
.
.......................
ND .
.
..
0 - , 5.0 -
2D I 0 0
. -
. 1.0
..
...
.
.
.
... ... -
......................................
......................................
2D2 .. ..... ...........................
0 ....... .............................
31
. .....
.
: ....................................
B
.
..
...
. ....... ..
.
......:.. ...............
...
...
...
.....
2.5
......-•-----......................
- 8-10
......................................
2D3 ....... ...........................
?
. ......
............................
? ...
. ...-..............
........
..
. .
..
.4 :?
. ..... ......................................
...............
.......................
2D4 .. ..... .....
.....
............
ND ...........
......................
0 ......
. ....................................
- ....... ....
...
.. ............
....
.
.---..
4.0
.
.....
.
.
......................... -
......................................
..........................•------.....
2135 ..:..... ...........................
ND ......M............
0 .
.. ................... .................
- ....
. . .
.
.
.
5.0 -
2E I
........- :5..........----.............................................
? ?
-
..
..
............
.
......................................
2E2 .. ,..... ........................... ........
....... ................
:
....
. ....,.
.... ....................
..
..
......
.................................. ..
.......... .
3:
............. ............
...
..
.................-...................
............... ...........
2E3 ..,.... ........................
0 .......
......
..............
0 - 4.0 . -
2F1 0 0
: - 0.5 -
..
......................
2F2 -......-....................
.
1 ..... ....................................
B ........ .....

p ....................................
2.5
.......................
.
. .....
..
....
..
....................................
6-8
......................................
............... .............
2173 .. ....
< ............................
0 ....... ............................
0 .... y ....................................
- ........
.... .....
..
....
4.0 y
. -
................................
.-.
........................... .......
2F4 ..
.... -...........................
ND ....--..............................
? ..... .................................... ........:....
.
...
i
.. .................................
.............4................. ....
..
....,.. ..
.
......................................
...............
............
2F5 ..?.... ........
..........
ND .......,..............
...........
0 .... -•---...............................
- .
.
..
.
. 4.0 -
2G1 69 0 -
....................................
y
............
.
.
.
........ `.... 1.0
....................................
....5.. -
......................................
......................................
2G2 .. .... ............................
0 .......
.... ..
.......
....
.
0 .
. -
.....
........ ..... 6.0
....................................
....... -
......................................
......................................
2G3 .. <.... ............................
0 ....... ............................
0 .... ...............................
- 8.0 -
2111
: 0 0 -
....
....
........
.... 1.0
....................................
.... ... -
......................................
.............................. ........
2H2 ..
.... ..... .............................. .............................
...
......
.
,
.?.. ....
.
....
...........................
.
.....................'--...........
.
............
....---........:?..............
......
.........---.....------•--...........
............
...............
2H3 ...... ............................
0 .....
.....
.
.
.......
0 - 8.0 -
211 0 0 -
..
.. 0.5
.
...
.....
.
.-- -- -
...................-................
......................................
212 ...... ...........................
0 ....................................
81 ...
. ....................................
B
..........................
. ..... .
.
.
............. ...
.
.
..---................
2.5
....................................
.... .. 6-8
......................................
......................................
213 .. .... ...........................
0 ........ ............................
0 ..... ........
.
- 8.0 -
2J1 0 0 -
. 0.5
.
.
.
. -
....................................
.
......................................
2J2 .. .... ...........................
0 ........ ............................
69 .... ....................................
A&B ........
....
; ...................................
2.5 ..
. .
8-10
...................................... .
2J3 €
............................................. ........ ..............
0
....---.................... ...................................
0
........ ........... .

..... .....
-
......---........................... ......................................
.. .....
8.0
....--- ......................................... .............................................
-
................----.........................
J
2K1
: 0 0
..................................

21Q ... ...
........

0
........................
......
.......
................
75
..................................

2K3 ......y........

........ ........................

0
........................
......
.......
..............
................
0
................
.......................
2K4 ND 0
2L1
.........
..
........ .............
.............. 0
........................
......:...... 25
................
.
.
2L2 0 75
................
........................................ ........
2L3
.....
........ ........................
0
........................ ....... ......
0
....... ......................
..................................
2L4 . ND 0
2M1 0
......
...... 0

.
...............
..................................
2M2
......
.. ...... ........
.......
........ ........................
0
.......... ........... .
.
............. 31
...............
...
..........
2 M 3 . 0
2N1 0 19
.
..
.................................
2N2 ....... ,........

< ........................
0 ....... ......

. ....
......
..
100
.......
....
...
.................................
2N3 ........
....... ........................
0 ....... ..... .
.
0
201
.
....
.............
.
...
.
....... ........ 0
........................
....... ...... 6
...............
.
...
..
.
.
..
202
.................................
........
....... 0
.....................
..---........ 100
......... ...
203 , 0 0
2P1
..............
.
.
.
.
.........
.. ....:........ 0
........................
....-.:..... 38
................
.
.
.
.
.
.
2P2
< 0
.
............ 81
................
..................................
2P3 ........
....... .....................
.
0 0
...............2.................. ....... ....... .......... ?.......... .............. ..............

2Q .......
...
..............
.......... ..........
...........
....:..8.1...
2Q3
.................................
............... 0
........................
.............. 0
................
2Q4 ND 0
2R1
.........
..
.
:
...
.
...... 0 0
..
.
......
...
.
...
2R2 100
..i.....
. 81
................
.................................
2R3 ....... .......
...
.
....
.. ........................
100
..................
..... ....
.
........ ..... 100
.......
............... ......
.. R4
...... ..
.
.
.
....... ....... .
........................
.......:..... 100
................
..........................
.
2R5 0 75
.................................

2R6 ....... .......
..
......................
0
............
................
0
.................................

2R7 . ..............

....... ................... .....

0
.................
..... ..............

...............
................
0
............ ....
.................................
2R8 ....... , . .
- 0
2S1
.................................
.......
....... 0
........................
........ ...... 0
................
2S2 ,
. 0
..... 25
................
.................................
2S3
................ .
............... .......
.......
.......
....... ........................
0
........................ ........
........
...... 81

................
.
2S4 ,
< 100
.......
. 88
................
.....................
2S5
................................. .......
.......
....... ........................
19
....................---. ...
.
..----........ 12
................
2S6 ,
< 100 0
.................................
2S7
.
......... .......
.......
............... ........................
0
............
......
. ............

.....
........ ................
0
................
........
...............
2S8 ..
.
0 . ND
0.8
........................
B .............................................................................................
3.0 6-8
.................i.................... ....................
.
.
.
j
........................
- ......
..............
...
..
.........
8.0
....................................................... -
................................
........................
- ........
10.0 -
B ...
...
1
. .......4-6................
........
...........
B ............................
.
...............---
-----
2.5 6-8
.......... > ......................................
........................
-
...
........
..
..
.. ......... ................................
6.0
............................................................. -
................................
...
.
.
.
.
- 10.0 -
- 1.5
.....
.. .
.
. -
.................................
A&B
.
........................ .
.
.........................................
3.0
.........
.............................................. ................ 4-6
..... ............................
- 8.0 -
B
.
.. 1.5
.................................................... ....... 4-5
.................................
..........
..........
.
B
.....
......
.......
. 3.0
.......................................................... 4-5
.................................
..
.
.
.
- 8.0 -
B 1.5
. 4-5
..............................
........................
B .......
...................................................
3.0
.
...... ...
6-8
. ................................
........................
- .....................................................
..
8.0 -
B
.....
. 1.5
......... .. 6-8
.................................
.................
.
B
........................ 3.0
................................................ :....... 8-10
.................................
- 8.0 -
B 1.5
: 8-10
.
..
. ---..............
.........................
A&B
...........
............ .......
.........:...... .....................................
3.0
...... ................ ..........--... ....... .........
.
..
8-10
.................................
_
......................... 5.0
.................................................. >.......
.................................
- 8.0 -
-
......................... 1.3
.........
............................................ ........ -
.................................
A
......................... ,
1.5
.........i..............-----.........................i....... 3
.................................
A&B 2.5
.
. 4-5
...........................
.
.........................
A&B ....
..
......................................................
3.0
.
...
. ....
.
4-5
.................................
.........................
B
........................ .......................:..................
....
........
3.5
............................................................ 6
.................................
-
........................ 5.0
.......
..................................................... -
.................................
- :
5.5
.................................................... -
.................................
- 8.0 -
-
................. ....... 1.0
.... ........................... ....... ... ....... . -

................
.................
A
. 1.5
........ ...... . i....... 3
.................................
A
..
........................ 2.0
.
....................................................
.......... 5-6
.................................
A
.............. .
2.0
......................................................:....... 5-6
.................................
..........
B
........................ 4.0
.......... ................---............ 3
.................

...........
. 5.0
.......:.............................................:....... _
.................................
..........
..
-
........................ 5:0
.........,....... -
..............................,..

........................ Construction Barge
.............................................................
.................................
ID
2T1 50 ND
.......................................................
. Construction Barge
..................................
....
...........
........................................
2T2 ............. .............................
100 .......
....
ND
.
.
:: .
Construction Barge
...................................
.
.............
...............
2T3
. i............ ...........................i.
100 .............. r..............................
...
.............
100
.
.
.A ....
......
...............:?......................
..... ............ 5.'6................
.............
...............
.
2T4 .
........... .............................
100 ........
.....
...........
........... ...
............... .
A&B
75 ......
.
1
?
.
5
'g

..............................
i............
...........................F. .......
..............
......... .......................... ...............
.....
.......................... ..: ................
............
.
2T5 0 0 - 5.5
............................. ...........
2T6 ............. .............................
0 ............................... ....................................
0 -
.
.
. ......... ............................................. ....
6.0
....................... .....................'r...
.
..
. .....................................

.....................................
..
.
........................................i.......................................4................................
....
..........................
.....
.
2T7 0 0 - 8.0 -
2U1 0 ND
o
..........
.
.......................................
2U2 ..i............ .....-.....................i.
'•
0 ...............................F..................................
?..
B ...
.......... ............................................
1.5
...............................................
... ...................
.......
3-4
....... ..........................
............................
2U3 . ,............ ..........................
.. .
100 ................................
..........
...............
100 A ........
.
2.0 5'6

.......................................

2U4
.i............
E
...........................i.

100
i ......:.
...............................i. ..

...................
...
.
.
?
. ................
..........r............................................F.

.................
......... ............................................ .......... ............
.......................................
2U5 . ...••••...... ....................
100 ...............
.
....
...
..
.............
31 A
..............
1
....
..
.... 2.5
...
............................................ '
......... ' 5-6
.....................................
.......................................

2U6 .i............
i .......................... i.

100
i ...............................
......
.
..
.
0
:
.
.
. r
r
50
E
..
....
...................................................

....................................
...............
........................
2U7 . ............ ..........................
...
0 .
.............
.......... ..------ ..............
..............
.
.
0 - .
.
11.0 •` -
............ .......................................................... ................ ---..... .....................................................s...
8
0 ........... ..........................
2U8 0 0 - . -
2V1 0
4 0 - 0.5
...
..................
........•'
4
.
-
... -
.....................................
.......................................
2V2 .i............ ...........................
.
100 .............................. ................ ..................
31 A
. .
..........
.......
..
.
.
r
1.5 5-6
............................
2V3 ...•••.......
€ ..................
100 ...............
..........
88 A
5-6
..............
2V4 .i............

: ...........................F
100 ............................... ...................................
94 A
................
. .........:............................................. ...
2.5
........................................................... .....................................
5-6
.....................................
....................... ................
2V5 .
............ . .
31 ................................
...............
.
?
.
..
0
.......................................
2V6 . ............

: .................F
....
0 ..
..............
.............. ;................•••............
0 -
............
..
. .....................
.....................
:
.....
4.0
........................................................... .....................................
-
.....................................
.......................••••••..........
2V7
. .
............ ............................
? ................................
...................
.
? 6 -

..................
.........
.i............
..... ..................
.............................>•••.........-••••.................
.......... ...............--:>...
:
...................
................
2V8 0 - - - -
2A' I ND 0 -
....
.
...
. 1.0

....
.. ..................................................... -

.....................................
.......................................
2A'2 . ............ ...........................
ND ................................
........................
.
.
25 B 1.5 `:. 12
.......................................
2A'3 .i............ ...........................i
ND ................................ 4..................................
63 B
.
.......
.
. ..........'r..........................................:.i........................................
2.0 12
....................................................••-•.............................
...
...-••
.--• ..................................
2A'4 ............. ............................
ND .....
....
....•----.......
................................
38 B
'i
...........
.
. .
;
3.0
..
..........i............................................ 12

......................................
.......................................
2A' 5 .i............
: ...........................i
ND ...............................
................
.
....
31 B 4.0
......
.............................--
> 12
-.....................................
2A'6 ............ ..........................
ND ...................................................................
38 A&B ..........
.........
.
4.0
. 12-24
.......................................

2A'7 . 4............ ...........................i

.
ND ................................i..................................
A&B

......
.
.
..
. i............................................ ..
..........
.3.0

.........................................
................ ......................................

12-24
.•••..................................
.......................................
2A'8 . ............
: .....
..........
..
ND
..................
.. .........
.........
....
.............
...
19 B
................................ .................................. .
3.0
.......... ............................................ ... 12
......................................
.............
........................................
No further sampling .....
..
due to presence of fishing nets
2B' I ND 0 - 0.7
.:---.........................-.............
..:•- -
..
2B'2 ......... ...........................
ND .....................................
100 B
.
.
.
.. ..
2.0
...............................................
.......... 12

......................................
.......................................
2B'3 . <............ ........................... .
ND .
........
..
...................................................
100 A&B
.......
i
......... ;
2.0
............................................i..
.........•' 12-24 .............
.....
.............
?B?4 .i............ ........................... 4
ND ................................
.................
.
56..........................A&B...... r
...........................5.......... _.. ..........12-24
.........
.............
............. .
.
No further sampling due to presence of fishing nets
- ................
...........................................................
............................
?
C
1
.
ND
.
?
..
..
.
.
................
............................
..................
..............................
..............
..............
..
2C'2 ,........
.....
.---...
ND .......... .........
.............
.....
81 ................
...........
..
.
B
. 12
:
.............
..............
2C'3 ..
.....
..............
ND ........ ..

. ...............................
100 ..
.........
F.....
A&B
.
....
.
..
.
.. .......:.........

.
................. ............................
2.5
............................ ................................
.......
.......
12-24
....... .........................................
........................................
?C'4 ................................
ND ........
.. ...............................
19 ..................
..
.
...
.
.
A&B .
.L
........
. 3.0
............................
...... L......... 12-24............
.............
2C'5 ..............................
.
ND
: ........i. ...............................
100 L....................................
A&B .....
.
. .3:?
.......... ............... ....12-24.............
.............
..............
C ? .....
........
ND
` ' 3 8 A&B ....
.
3 12-24
................

2C'7 .......
.............
ND
. . . . . . .
. :..:
....L.

. . . . . . . . . . ...........:
...........
50
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . ...-..........
.......
.
A&B
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .......:.........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ........
: ...........
4.0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .....-->---......

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............
...
12-24
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............
.
........................................
No further samp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
ling due to presence of fishing nets
2D' l ND '•, 0 - 1.2
.
.
...............

...................
.... ........
........................................
2D'2 ,................... ............
ND ........ .. ..............................
100
. . .....................................
B
.
...............................
L . ......... .........
........L......... ....
.... ...................
2.0
............................ .
.......F......... 12

:....
..........................
....................................... .5.
2D'3 ..............................
ND ........i. .........................
....
88 .
...
.
B
.
..... 2.5
...........................
....... ......... 12
...............................
........................................
2D'4 <...............................
ND ........ .. ..............................
75 ............ ..........................
A&B ........
....
a .
?
3 12-24
.

........ ...................
2D'5
:
..............................
ND
........L.

:
........................ ... ...
100 ........
.F..........
B :
.....
.............>.
........
.................
3.0
.......
...
..
. ......:..
...
12
...................... ...............
2D16

. ...............................
ND

...........
.
.
.. ........
.

...
....,. ..............................
75

..............................
.
. ....................................
B
......................................
........
.........
................••
...........
.
.
3.5 ......:.....
•............
...... .........

...........:
...................
:
.......................................
No further samp .....
..........
.
ling due to .
presence of fishing nets
2E' l ND 0 -
s 1.2 -
........................................

2 ...............................

ND ......... ..............................

100
.....
...............................
A&B
............................................. ..;-........
2.0
..
...............................................-••••...
.
.
...............................
12-24
.......-.......------..........
........................................ .............................•-
ND ••........

F .........
..............
100
. .........
..............
B
.L.................................... .
.
.
........F-....... ?
:5
...........
.........

....... ..-------
1?.....
---.................
........................................
2E'4 ...............................
ND ........
. .............................
100 B
. 2.5
.......... 12
...............................
.............
2E'5 ................................
ND .......... ..............................
75 ......................................
B ........
' 3.0 12
...................... ..................
2E' 6 0................... ....................i...............................
':. ND 69 . 6....................................
B ........
r........ ............................
3.5 ........r......... ...............................
12

3A1 0 0 -
....
.
.
......
. ........ 0.7
.......................... ..
........ ......... -
...............................
................... ......... ...........
3A2 . ...............................
0 ........ . ..............................
100 .
. .........................
....
A&B
.................................
:. .
........
........ 3.0
............................
.................. 12-24
...............................
.......................................
3A3 . ................................
0 ........ ..
: ..............................
.
38 ...
..
...
........-B.-••-..••-•. .
--......
...••••• ......... 3 :?..........
.................
. 12
...............................
.......................................
3A4 .. ...............................
ND .......
. ..........
.
...........
19 ..
..
.
B • 6.0
. 12
...
....
......................................
3A5 .? ........................... .
ND ........ .. ........................ ......
0 ...................................
- ................. ............................
8.0 ........
......... .......................
.
-
3B1 0 0
........ -
....................................
.
........
........ 0.7
............................
.........
........ -
...............................
.......................................
3B2 . ...............................
81 ........ . .......................
81 .
B .
..
.....
.. 2.5
............................ .
.........
..•••... 12
........... .....
.---• ....................••.•••••.....•
3B3
: •.......--•.....................
88
.
................ ..........
........ ......................•-------
100
............................... ---.............•-••................
B
. .................................... ......
.
.
.........
........ 3.5

............................ .

........ .......... 12

......
......................
................
3B4 . .........
....
38
: 0 -
..........................
.
.
.
.
...
........ ........ 8.0
............................
........ •••••.... -
...............................
.................. .....................
3B5 . ............................
19 ....... . ...............................
0 .
.
.
.
.
-
..
.
.
........
.
...... 10.0
............................
........
........ -
................................
.................. .....................
3B6 . ...............................
0 ...... .... ...............................
0 ...................... ....
..
.
.....
- .
. 10.0 . -
3C1 100 0
.
.
.. -
...................................
.
.................. 0.8
............................
........ ,........ -
................................
.......................................
3C2 . ...............................
25 ......... . .
.
.........................
..........
31
. .
B
...............•••............
.... 2:5.
.........
........ 12-1.8
.............

.
................--•••• .
3C3 . ..
6 ......... ..............
.
0
.
-
.
...................................

......... .........
4.0
............................ :

.........
........
-
................................
.................. .
3C4 ...............................
6 .......... ..............................
0 .
-
...........
........:......
.. 7.0
.....................•
.... ,
•.... ......
...
.. -
................................
.......................................
3C5 . ...............,..............
0 ........: ...............................
0 .:.................... ....
- 10.0 . -
3D1 0
: 0 - 0.8 -
.
................. ......................
3D2 :..............:...................... .
100 ...... ..
............................-.............................. .....-...................................................
100 B 2:5 12-18
............................................ .........................................
...............
.......................................
3D3' i......................................
88 .i...............................i.............................
.
B 4 :..............................12-1.g.............
3134 0 0 - 7.0 -
...............................

3135 d...................................... . i......
v............................................o........................................
........... ...............i............... .................. ...........
0
............................:..................g :?...........................................................
..
.
..
.
.
.
..............
..............
3D6 a................. --...............
0 ........ ..
.....
.............
.......
..
.
..
.
0 - 10.0 -
3E1 0 0 - 1.0 -
.......................................
3E2 i......................................

.
94 .'r-.....

.
.. .... ...................... p............................................F............................ ....... .....................................

'...................
:?
........................ ....... ...... .........- ................. ..................
.......................................
3E3 ,......................
.........
19
< ..
..
. .
.
0 - 3.0 -
.................................
............................... ;............... ...................................
.......................................
3E4 ......................................
62 . ..... ............ ............... .............
0 4.0
3E5 100
s ND
...................................
s.
r
•
.......................................
3E6 ......................................
94 . ..... ............................................
....
i............................................
...........................
ND
........
.................. .....................
3E7
,.....................................
7
5
........
..
.................................................................................................................................................
ND............i............................................ >............................................. ........................................
..............
.........................
3E8 ...............
.................
.....
0 ND
3F1
...... ..................1.:?..........................................................
.
D
:0
..................••-•--.....
3F2 ................
................
100 ..i..... ..
...
...............i......................................
12 ....... B .................................... ? :5................:.......... 12-18
....
.
.......................................

3F3 <.....................................

100 ........ ...........................
.......
,
30
0
........................................... ........................................
.
..............
.........................
3F4 ...............
......................
94
: . ..... ..................i............................................
.
.........
0 - 4.0 -
......... .
...... .............................................
.......................... ....................................
.
.................. .............. .......
3F5
. .............. .......................
100 ........
i.
... .
.................
...
................
4
......... ....................................-...................................... :?.........-------•- ........................
.....
.................... ----•-
3F6 i ---•-•• .............
100 ..
. ND
3G1 50
............
........................
i .
3G2
.............................. ...... .
.
100
.<.....................................
..
3G4 100
...........
.
.......
..,
.......................................
3G5 .
.
........••.......
75
..
...
.
. Construction Barge, No Samples Taken This Transect
........................
3G6
.
. ....
.
.----••---................
38
.................................
..
.
..
.............................
........
3G7
..................... .................. .
.
0
. .....................................
..
3G8
....
.
..
.
...
... 0

.........
.i............................

..,
.....
...........
......
.
.
.
3G9
...................................... 100
.a.....................................
..
3G10 50
3H1
......-• ...... 13
.......................................
.
3H2 38
a
..............................
..
.................. .....................
3113
..
................. ................... .......
.
63
.:....:................................

.
3144 56
...
..
..i
......................... .........
3H5
.................. ..................... .
. ...............................
100
.....................................
.
.. Construction Barge, No Samples Taken This Transect

3H6
............................. ,
88
.i..................................... ,

.
..
3H7 100
<
.
..

?
.
........................ ...............
3118
........
.
. ..
100
................................
.
.....
:....
........ ...................

.
...
..........................
3119
....................................... .
.
50
. .....................................

:
.
3H10 25
J

5A1
. ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ : ......... 0
.............................. ....... 0
......................... : . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. - 1.0 -
.. . . . . . . . . . ........... : . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... .... . . . . .. . . . . .
5A2
....................... .................a......... 0
.............................. ....... 0
................................................ - 2.5 -
................................................................... ........................................
5A3 0 0 - 3.0 -
SB2
..........................
5B3
SC2
...........
50
5D3 0 0 - 3.5 -
5E1
.................................
................. 0
.........
.......................... 0
..................
............................ -
.............................. 1.0 -
................................. ........................................
5E2
.......................... .......
.......:......... .
0
.............................. ....... 0
..................
.............................. -
................ ......:......... 3.0 -
............................................................................
5E3 0 0 - 3.5 -
5F1
................... .....
.............. 0
.................................... 0
..................
...........-----------....... -
............................... 1.0 -
..........................................................................
5F2
............................. 0
...... ................ 0
€...................... -
..................... >......... 3.0 -
..........................................................................
SF3 0 0 - 3.0 -
SGl
.................. ............---
------- ......... 0
.............................. ....... 0
.................
.............................. -
................................. 1.0 -

.................................
................................... .......
5G2
...........................
<......... 0
.................................... 0
..................
..........----............. -
............................... 3.0 -
.....................................----..................................
SG3 0 0 - 3 0 -
1 ND denotes Not Determined
REFERENCES
Fassett, N.C., 1975. A Manual of Aquatic Plants. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wi.
Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Wooten, 1979. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of the Southeastern United
States. University of Georgia Press, Athens, Ga.
1, ii. C } I;?i I'iPI I,II I IL;1,1'111 I?hl I1 I: :I,tl I? l?llal J
' I I I 1 1' it,, I'I I I III t l I I !ah I "I'1; I t l :I. 1, t I'
li ?L? 11 ? I,!??I ! ?? !II,'I Ig'I 11.1 ? ;i1 il' 1 I r II Ill,i l'4' I-.111
,? ,11? H • _ ,_?j'a. y?l..t l?'11',1 '?'I? 11 ?II, !Idl .d ll III ll'?).r' m
Frl y?l .>?? • ? ? s I ? I ?? ? I ?I ? I ;'l l A t l ! p, I . ?' 4
X j ? yt1' ! ' tl' a " \ ?J '' ?- I ??I) tl ?I it
00
ci. I I ! , rl I ft?..
t0Q
° w /
• ?,
V) C)
Co kn
LL-
o w )
t, o
?... 0 Y ._
J
0
cco / V/Nl n Q f \ .a ?' .??
/ N N o ? ? ?OI" 1 ? ? • •vl l `1ii . ?PNS10
? ? ' ,. ? • •'Q ' S•. • • • . ?, it P1 m ?_
C: bo
to
Z r?+ N \ i ,.'•• ••
ot* ;mss `?-, G\% " a - 1 U'•• 3 ", :.n.w"'.''' I (;. d- r>`+, ? ., ', ,' : I :I ' `
0 At,.
10 N-1
,?`i • ? ? H °.7NYH _ Z o ? ? C? m' Ca . , Z cr ?
-0 0 C)
It if OE
- •' `? ? ` t- v c7 i \ ?? i a u
`?? °' w ? m [? ?+•t ?i \ ' I , II ? ? . - ~\-' j `= ? ) I ` 1 ICI //
b ? ? wU (-??I ? =P - ?) I I I C " • -ate '' ?
d
P lJ(__? -L ? \ I II i I x?
(? ca s. /? ° i `\ L,1 ? 1 ,} I I , ?• II . • I If a.. ;1-
t O r- ? ?+ Iv `? ' ate ,1d t iE I t i • ? I L! ' I I ? +`. / ti? '
p• j? 1 C? Y n? ?; T, 'IiI ?Ib„ II i?: I,f 1'?1 IL? ? jl / ,/? m ?? ??.,` ?}
l? O i J, I 4F1•' I I ril 1 1 f I I 11 11 1 11 t (C; 1 y a f .- ' °r
UP? O O Tilt ? 1LLI !I il?' t ? M I I'? !11. 1i 'I?I'L i?..~ Q \?^,, m f ? ? f? , Y)i 1 _ 1
?OOOO •'?? m ? N ?? '' 1? ??II `r'?I '?'i tl ?;II C/? M '?'11i'i 1'I I!'I !'?1 I I??; ll.!?? Igtl'?114°lj?l I?T ?`Y? - it ' /a ?'' ?? J 1y .
oooG? a'' '•d /-_ N \,? II I!I!I ?,?g dll I (!,y?l '-?' I I,il l I!Itll,lw•?l ?T - , , q. /%„ _'``
?O C N ? ? ? i•+ , ?1 I'+I' , • dl Sa;' (.1 I I; • 1 t iY ?jlf! ? .? I I '?, ! ' 'l e?' •? ( /'?--
_ 1 r--1 U I h l a 31;1 1 l I I ?I ?I ! l ,I,i , 11 I I I I , -L1'- l ,\ '?
D O 't i. Cad ! I ,1 I I ' ' I it
! t I>II l ?` ?{ = ?'?
'' ?~ odI I 1 d. 11 I ! I . I ' I 41 I ! I c r t { ' •:
.: y., S~. ?. - I I I i I I t } I 111 I WD ,1 ,1'
I- I j l , l il'I'li' ,I I 't lat ! I I l, it t I I i I 11, la , I I, I It ?? tI J`l',
• C/? in ,
I t? ? I ,• ?' it ; , 1 I? ! ; I t I t'' I Ir i ( / 1, I 1
l? I I I I ! 1 ' ' ! 1 t: \m! ?, I I I
0 t? , "I ? I I, 1?1 i' I' I I I I (\ I
7L I lilt I l i I I! ?! 1 1I. '? j t l tl \
S?4f ?? f is _ al ?-?7f- 'I ? lill,a'lI 1, I I I 1 1 1 .1 I' I ¦ I ' I I ! I i \ ?' ii
? s, , ;11 Isltl tl l li 1, I I III {I, ? ??'' !, I ' ! ? t I I I
`? •' '? _? o, I"? -- - 1 r } 1 i .. 1 1 I I I I?jl I I , I' I 'a111 / i._ .. \ ?,-?_
I} . •?I i ttf ` ,.1 ?? •'C. ?.? I I 'II!I Illll ( '( -:c.
1 •\ li=? ? M, •.• } ? "/ ? ,h _ I li l l ( ?. 1 ( .?? \ '{'Irl,ll.
d] - \ ` I III ` r. II 1 X
wU ,\s1• ?. / I.__s y ? 't _. i?? 1 ? 'li' '•! r. ' \ ?i1??i111t'
oN ? ?I I • n l' ; , 1 I 1-? , ? I II_;•..I, ,1 ) 1,1, ; ? _ yl n
117 Al,
b
/% \ l1lJ J I • ••' ? I F•a ' 111 I ¦e ,11 (' , Od- ry ' I. h '? ? i
,. f l ?11
2 ?? \ Zp 1. 1'' I I of I' .'li I '?1 t If
fi ( \ "?i'?', Ir?111 ?I ! '`• If
el. ;- rd4 ; m
7 ( • l ' ?\ a _ .L 1 f l I I - II S It 1r 6co?'
I. -:?• 3 ? ?? ?? . Ilo ?. / it IILI?II n III. ? x.11- >!\ \ ?'n.
it,
.0 11A Ll-
If-
it/
?`? ' ?- ( ?, ?; ? ?•\ , to 1 , I?'i.
'I I
//' • 2y / J ' •• 1/ ?I'! 1M1
• e 1 l z W (•• .I',,II
I'
X
711
o _, m
Cd 'E
U w w E
71 111'1t
it
I
I 1
s
'Q1 \
- 1
ea ?I
o° f
j 1+
r? t( )} Q Ik
I j? I I

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1501 LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
8 March 2001
MEMORANDUM TO: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Assistant Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Bruce O. Ellis, CLM, PWS, Unit Head
Natural Systems Unit
SUBJECT: Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Survey, for US 17 Neuse
River Bridge Relocation, and Trent River Bridge Widening'
Federal Aid Project No. BR-OOOS(33), State Project No.
8.1170801, Tip No.s B-2531 and B-2532.
ATTENTION: Alice Gordon, Environmental Specialist
Natural Resources, Permits, and Mitigation Unit
REFERENCE: 1. Memorandum: Results of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation
Survey, by NCDOT environmental specialist, Robin Little,
06 October 1994.
2. Memorandum: Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Survey,
for US 17 Neuse River Bridge Relocation, and Trent River
Bridge Widening, Bruce O. Ellis Environmental Specialist,
02 October 1997.
The following memorandum provides the results of a submersed aquatic
vegetation (SAV) survey for the subject project. The survey was conducted on August 14
and 15, 2000 by NCDOT natural systems specialists Bruce Ellis, Dale Suiter and Mary
Frazer, and members of the NCDOT dive team, Bill Lotz, James Talacek and Allen
Hancock.
The August 2000 SAV survey was conducted to determine impacts to SAV's as a
result of the subject project. Prior surveys were conducted in August 1994, prior to
project construction and in June 1996, after construction was initiated. Surveys between
1996 and 2000 were disrupted by inclement weather (i.e., hurricanes), and hazardous
diving conditions due to project construction.
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
2
METHODOLOGY
Survey methodology followed procedures outlined in the above referenced
memoranda. Briefly, transects were run perpendicular to the shoreline at ten meter
intervals within the temporary construction zones and permanent construction limits. A
one meter square grid, which was subdivided into sixteen 25 cm by 25 cm subplots, was
then placed on the river bottom at ten meter intervals along each transect. SAV species
present within the one meter square grid were identified, and percent cover within the
grid was determined for each sample location.
Survey work in August 2000 was conducted using contaminated-water protocols,
to minimize exposure to water-born pathogens. This protocol consisted of the use of dry
suits by the NCDOT divers and decontamination with sodium hypochlorine upon exiting
the river.
Care was taken in the August 2000 survey to establish the transects at the same
locations as the August 1994 and June 1996 surveys. However, there were three
exceptions, listed below.
1. In 1996, five additional transects were established on the western shoreline of the
Neuse River at loop BA and ramp CD. These transects are identified as 2A'-2E'.
2. Site four was not sampled in 1996 or in 2000 due to shallow water depths and a
substrate of extremely soft muck, which prohibited divers from working safely in
the area.
3. In August 2000, three new transects were added on the east side of the Trent .
River. These transects were located 10m, 17m, and 23m south of transects 3A-3D
and are referred to as transects 3E'-3G', respectively.
. Vegetation from each sample plot was collected and identified according to Godfrey
and Wooten (1981) and Fassett (1975).
QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Investigator: Bruce 0. Ellis, Environmental Supervisor, NCDOT.
Education: BS Agriculture/Environmental Science, Rutgers University
College of Agriculture and Environmental Science.
Certification: Certified Lake Manager (North American Lake Management Society).
Professional Wetland Scientist.(Society of Wetland Scientists)
Experience: Environmental Supervisor, NCDOT, 2000-present.
Natural Systems Specialist, NCDOT 1995-2000
Biologist, Allied Biological, Inc., March 1976-April 1994.
Expertise: Aquatic resource management; wetland delineation; stream bioassessment,
natural resources, Section 7 field investigations; NEPA investigations.
3
RESULTS
Results of the August 2000 survey are included in the following table. The results
of the August 1994 and June 1996 surveys are also included in the table for comparison.
Sample locations depicted in Figure 1. Two SAV species were identified during the
course of the survey:
A. Tapegrass (Vallisneria americana)
B. Horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris)
The tapegrass averaged 1-2 feet in height, while the horned pondweed was no
more than eight to ten inches high. During the August 2000 survey, water salinity was
2.8 ppt and secchi depth was four feet.
The June 1996 survey identified coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) in addition
to the two species above, but only in Lawson Creek. No SAV's were found at the
Lawson Creek site (site 1) during the August 2000 survey at the bridge location, nor were
any SAV's seen within 100 feet up or down the shoreline from the bridge.
The August 1994 survey identified tapegrass and either coontail or horned
pondweed, which were misidentified as eelgrass (Zostera sp.) and milfoil (Myriophyllum
sp.).
Areal coverage of the SAV's, as determined from the 1996 and 2000 surveys, is
presented in Table 1.
Areal coverage in 1994 was 2.26 ac (minus Scott's Creek data), in 1996 coverage
was 2.02 ac, and in 2000 coverage was 0.82 ac.
The results of the 2000 survey reveal that there is a 1.2 ac (0.49 ha) reduction in
SAV coverage from the 1996 survey. However, the 2000 survey did indicate that the
tapegrass community remains relatively stable, with a slight increase in areal coverage.
Possible explanations for the reduction in overall SAV coverage include:
• affects from project construction,
• negative affects from recent/frequent hurricane activity, (habitat
displacement from the affects of high water scouring, or sedimentation),
• reduced water clarity, and/or,
• the horned pondweed may have naturally experienced a late season
decline. It should be noted that horned pondweed, in the vicinity of New
Bern, was observed to be extremely sparse or absent. It was observed to
be abundant throughout the system in 1996.
4
TABLE 1
SITE LOCATION 1996 2000
Site 1, Lawson Creek 0.14 ha 0.0 ha
Site 2, West Shoreline Ramp DB (2A-2L) 0.08 ha 0.12 ha
of Neuse River
Ramp DC (2M-2Q) 0.09 ha 0.04 ha
Ramp DA (2R-2V) 0.16 ha 0.14 ha
Ramp CD/Loop BA 0.26 ha 0.0 ha
(2A'-2E')
Site 3, Freedom Southeast Shoreline 0.08 ha 0.02 ha
Memorial Bridge over (3A-3D)
Trent River
Southeast Shoreline No Data 0.01 ha
(3E'-3G')
Northwest Shoreline 0.01 ha 0.00 ha
(3E-3H)
Site 4, Scotts Creek No Data No Data
Site 5 East Shoreline 0.0 ha 0.0 ha
of Neuse River
(5A-5G)
TOTAL 0.82 ha (2.0 ac) 0.33 ha (0.82 ac)
TABLE 2
Species Composition No. Plots in 1996 No. Plots in 2000
A. Tapegrass (Vallisneria 12 32
americana)
B. Horned pondweed 38 0
(Zannichellia palustris)
A& B-.. Tapegrass and 18 1
Horned pondweed
5
Subsequently, it is recommended that an additional survey for SAV be conducted
earlier in the 2001 season. It is anticipated that surveys conducted in June or early July
will detect horned pondweed if it is still present within the system.
Please contact me at 733-1203 if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Cc: File: B-2531
6
TABLE 3
Plot Percent Cover per Plot Water Depth
Number
and Species* Type (if any) (feet)
1994 1996 2000
8

n
9

3FIl N D NT) 0 lo
3Fll N T) ND 0 0-5

3G'l N T) NT) 0 0-5
3G'2 N T) ND 88 A&B 2-5
3G'3 N T) NT) , 0 3-0
3G'4 N T) I NT) 0 6.0

3F3 1 9 0 0 5-0
IF4 6 2 0 N D
3F5 10 0 NT) N D
3E6 9 4 NT) N D
3F7 7 5 ND N D
3F9 0 ND N D

3E2 lo o 12
B 0 3-0
,
3E4 9 4 1 0 N D
3E5 10 0 0 N D
IE6 10 0 ND N D
IGI 5 0 -No data 0 1-0
IG2 10 0 0 3-0

3G4 10 0 N
3G5 7 5 N D
3G6 3 9 N D
3G7 0 N D

3G9 lo o N
IGI 0 5 0 N D
3Hl 1 3 0 1-0
M2 3 9 0 3-0
3143 6 1; 1 0 4-0
IH4 5 6 1 N D
3T-15 1 00 1 N D
3146 R R I N D
3HI 1 00 1 N D
3148 l oo I N D
3H9 5 0 1
3HIO 2 5 N D

5A2 0 0 1-5

SA4 N D ND 0 5-0
<

5'R4 N D ND 0 5.0

SC4 N D ND 0 5.0

10
Species A = Tapegrass (Vallisneria americana)
Species B = Horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris)
ND = No Data
. '
• \ I ?. f' 911 2 I ?,
CFO 'it i
J' J)j
\\! ? /
Q
1
ly?'Y ?t
11
11 \
T
l?
I
?I
1 C
o?o (
m ]- D
m '
I °i y''r1`I' rl
J 1 '' 1'I? t, I 1 ,
`, 1 ' III'' `i /; :"" ) I '? `._- ? ..\ ? ?'L • •••?/'
a
m ? n n " ?- 1 I ix ? / I
,:9 _ Z ?,1 1 /?/?a I 'I R Illl• II I' I /- u / y m ' IL _ -J
ct.. •? 'I - ( r r,\ \ )?., I
( II -?? ` II 5. II r I {II i r,l I
w \ 4 ?. q?°'-_ ` ? ' „ '?' i III t, I I 1`tl 1`n , ?,? 1 •? (a ? ? Y??' \ -\^4??`? ? '
`I ( \I I• •(.V` ?? 0 ` •, f• % " 2
Ila
\\ J a.?
.t ` -'? ??.E'JIV _'kI ,. '.\ ) 'T\.,Ji. .11 \ '4. .. .? 1 .'?• ,\ La
,O k \ :'?E;tl? '.I. it ,.Ih'i.. ` \... ?? •)J I-J ' ?p ? \ia ?`. 1•. •?.• ,_j a
'fi \\ I _.. x'`111 I ..' (.. i ?'?.'--- ?J.. \•i I?? S j • ..D m a
I'r:lfl'?1 \ 1...1 I ? I II 1 F ? c \ J /u I ? , II ? .I . ?•.'1 _ ? ; r-- "
I \ /Il .1 L? I11 s• C• • •• •w :I 1 \ 't'ry,
I,?I k,`I • . • - 1' C' JI IF I I' I } I II 11(1 1'•i I I ?L f `14 is ? ' .J - \ ••'' ??1? _ 1\• u, 1r 'o I ? ?' {?-
, f l l I ,, I III 1 I --? p? ``-
c''' ??FF ?• t ,)':F I ,I,' II, ,I'1 I 11 I€ I I r ? ? \ •:I J?1•.• ?•? ??$
j,' ,III I` \ E I I F I 1: I I III , ,, E I:I.f{R?ji''I _ a
•I h- I: / II E I :° f' II Illy=1 I :,. I'I 11:1, I II I..E, i' I' 11.1'k-I 11 I,I. I "
1 T I I b I f I ' I I I I: I i I I; III ,IE ?I I I I 1 I I I b 1 ?? .+. t•• to
I "A\ .. ?) 4 ? ? I I 5 I 1 F II I• I.g 4' III C/]
,?? II / .pp , 1 , }II I 1 1 1`'111 r kl' I' 1• I I kI t+•
i I' I i e s, , ,1',.,I i. II ,k g{I , I. I',I I IYdEII M} 11 ,?I I ? r-. .??
I1, \i'? .°, ' q'?? I`? I ff/ 1' 1 I I'r`r I?k 1 • 1'? 1'' I ?. I I I` i ,?, I I' = I ,1•? / (D
.'`,??' (? ..> „ '\ j? VE?LI III; 1..11'I71,.r, 1 Y' 11 F flue 'f ,III ?'?I llt L 1 ?_ a ,(.i •i: O?
1\ 1 ?'?r i $ I n IE,' II ?I I 11 II I kl??' ?i ICI I ?E 11 11( m OOOO
l \r.,Cj'',i? ( ? ?l_?141'4 'L II' 1 1 II I ''ll ' I { I?p,J I I I °° o
I I I I
`iCA u, c Y\ `i1..t ?..,,?i I:I -?t 111111 I ?,•)CU ,?'? Iy. I,11'?'II,I.•LL r i • ? OOOO ap
t _... ?: • ..,.. 1 ii.• n ? ??Ilr ' ' ' i' lill I W I,EI , =:al: - •).r p ... ?V•? i ? .D l
i 5)' ; II ??(Ip? ` 1 k
.) /? \ I 1 III I !. 1 , I EI , IT I P 1, 1 ti 93
• I •R s,,i' \f 1 ; j' \ '? 1• II `?E'f,?F ?l` 111 I'I ,. III: I , ` ?5 / ?G wplp '-`"_____J?E..,.I ,+r
--------- N _- ° m ` _{ c D > • ?,;rs
o . ?.
OQO
.40 3)
d..
• J? •? O •?• N N ° sr fit
w wl •.sI C/? 3 ••, ,I` t- \ o Roy ?. n i - ( // o02\
3 F, \ , ?, t/J 1 • ? I x - • tof ( / 'P? \
'< ?•? • 3 .. _\` ' 'rb ' •'? ? f '?t ? ?I ;. y,,l«.K_ '? ? •1' ?nD ` /yv `'1" 90\.
•.` 1, ? ? Cn o• / o
3 d?Y n . ? • • ?I I • .tf tv CD /
CD 0
' / 2 O o f
N o
.' 1N V ?•
•i•
17•Ipc / ?O Fo '•
t- "G4 "I
fj)
a( .
\ faro Ili V\ r :•? ?y ?'
? ??' Ik 1 I,? ? c ? I I ??•?? \" ? 1, '1 L? 1 I I V` ,?I ? (
/ D I?,'1?111?1? II , I?'?Ill<. ,..5 \1 ? ?\,?? '1?'•;/ W f\f
r- ??? fi1{I ;E 1 I?- 4. 1 p- ? J Ik 1 :..? Cj• '`?o I \ _ ,?
/ ( I I 11 ? I I I I I - S E I
/ ? ! , 'I'' II I'f I I,? i. I 1 1 It,. ,i 1'' ?•,{r - I t--I .I,•
I I I( I k? 1 ?= I I I I I 11 1 I I` , ;?? 1 1 I ?' ? i
1. 1 f 1 4 1 i I k I'I t
' I ?`I ?'I I 111'" (? ('I' I I tr 'IE 1 ??I I1 ?'- \ • t:' II{F _ F..d
r'??`1 I ?,? ?.,' I'•,II>':, ? i II IyEi,'1 (11, I II6,1':II IIf I'FI IF 11?, ? ? •\ r I", ?
_i,1? II' III II I I `,I,II f I t,t Il,r l? I..I?,h l'il I ,kl !?` I'? I I I I ? ?I II'?I..
I; ?. • 1 - ?? ,If: I f I,t.1 1 ? I ?I II. ?'I ? I I . '?_, .I: IE:IEI

di,..SWEv
Na
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
DRAFT
Section 404/CAMA Interagency Meeting
Mitigation for R-2301 and B-2531
March 9, 2001
MINUTES
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Replacement of Bridge No. 28 on US 17 over the Neuse River and the widening of
Bridges Nos. 83 and 84 on US 70 Bypass over the Trent River in New Bern,
and the New Bern Bypass
Craven County, North Carolina
T.I.P. Project No. R-2301 & B-2531
State Project No. 8.1170801
Federal-Aid Project No. MAF-36-1(33)
A Section 404/LAMA Interagency Meeting was held on March 9, 2001 in the NCDOT
PD & EA Branch Conference Room at the Transportation Building. The purpose of the
meeting was to respond to letters from the DCM regarding our November 17, 2000
request for a permit modification. The Agenda for this meeting is attached to these
minutes. Introductions were made for all attendees and a sign-in sheet was passed around.
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS:
• NCDOT must show monitoring success criteria for Lengyel, Sawmill, and
Croatan before R-2301 (New Bern Bypass) is let. The agencies agreed to consider
looking at a site after 3 years of monitoring to determine if it appears reasonably
successful.
• SAV and temporary construction site surveys need to be updated this summer.
• The USACE, USFWS, and DWQ need to submit comments on Sawmill
Mitigation Plan to NCDOT.
• Sawmill Mitigation Plan will be revised by NCDOT to reflect comments.
• NCDOT should revise R-2301 let date.
• Croatan MBI needs to be revised.
Table 1. Update on the Impacts and Mitigation (excerpted from November 17, 2000 letter)
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PD & EA 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
2
Wetland Type Impact (ac) Mitigation (ac) Mitigation Site Status of Mitigation
Plan % Built
Intertidal Marsh 0.78 1.56 Len el Done 100
Bay Forest 11.81 23.62 Croatan (1250) May 20014
Naturalized
Ditches 0.27 Sawmill Dec. 2000
Naturalized
Scrub-shrub 1.20 Sawmill Dec. 2000
Coastal
Wetlands 0.017 0.034 Lengye12 Done 100
Total 14.077 28.854

1. At a 2:1 ratio for restoration.
2. There is an excess of 4.98 acres of marsh restoration; 5.25 acres brackish marsh preservation and
0.8505 upland buffer available at the Lengyel site.
3. 1.54 acres Brackish Marsh and 2. 10 acres Cypress-Gum Swamp.
4. Mitigation Plan complete 10/19/00; MBI to be signed May 2001.
Review of February 12, 2001 transmittal from DCM to NCDOT: The February 12,
2001 letter was reviewed and copies passed out. The monies requested in that letter were
hand delivered to Cathy Brittingham by Alice Gordon. In addition, a check for $200 and
seven copies of the modification request was hand delivered to John Hennessy for
processing the Section 401 application per the request of the DWQ.
SAV Summary: Bruce Ellis presented a status report on the on-going SAV monitoring at
the New Bern Bridge location. Copies of the SAV monitoring reports were distributed to
the agencies. A copy of the report is attached to these meeting minutes. Bruce said that
he would be doing additional monitoring in June/early July of 2001. Doug Huggett noted
that there might possibly be a system wide decline in SAV populations and requested that
we coordinate with the NCDMF and the National Marine Fisheries (NMFS) on this item.
Temporary Work Bridge Site Recovery: Bruce Ellis presented a status summary about
the recovery of the sites that were affected by the temporary work bridges. David Cox
(WRC) asked what species were now growing the recovery areas since invasive species
like phragmites would not be appropriate. Bruce responded that no phragmites was
observed and that the dominant species seemed to be Spartina sp. David Cox suggested
that we do some stem counts at the temporary construction access areas and if invasive
species are noted then the NCDOT may need to do some remedial planting. Bruce stated
that he will update the vegetation analysis of the recovery sites this summer. Photographs
of the recovery sites were passed around. David Cox noted that on Photo 4 there was a
bare area that will need to be looked at in detail. Bruce noted that the photograph was
taken just after the work-bridge had been removed and that the site would not be expected
to show recovery at the time of the photo. We will produce an updated report with special
emphasis on the site in Photo 4 following the field up-date this summer.
3
This discussion concluded the answers to the questions from DCM in their February 12,
2001 letter. Alice Gordon asked the DCM if the items in their February 12, 2001 letter
had been addressed or if additional discussion was needed. Cathy Brittingham stated that
all of the items had been successfully addressed.
The discussion then proceeded to a discussion of the Sawmill, Lengyel, and Croatan
mitigation sites. This was followed by a discussion of the Mitigation Site Schedule and
the New Bern Bypass.
Sawmill Mitigation Site: Ed Lewis coordinated the discussion of the Sawmill Mitigation
Plan which followed the items as presented in the letter to NCDOT (Bill Gilmore) from
DCM (Kelly Williams) dated February 9, 2001. A copy of the letter is attached to these
meeting minutes.
1. Comment: "The community type restoration and creation that NCDOT
has proposed to perform at this site is acceptable as mitigation for some of
the impacts incurred from the Neuse River bridge construction. These
impacts were most recently described in your November 17, 2000 letter.
The impacts to be mitigated at the Sawmill site were to "naturalized
ditches" and "naturalized scrub-shrub wetlands." The Sawmill site is
mapped as salt/brackish marsh restoration on DCM's wetland restoration
type GIS data. Incorporating additional marsh creation as well as tidal
cypress gum swamp creation will increase the diversity of wetland
habitats at the site. I am pleased that the site is located in close proximity
to the project and that upland areas will be preserved to protect and
buffer the wetland areas. "
Discussion: Ed Lewis stated that we concur with the statement.
2. Comment: "A planting plan with a specific list of species to be planted in
the tidal cypress-gum swamp creation area must be included in the
mitigation plan prior to its approval."
Discussion: The basis of DCM's request is to insure that cypress and gum
species were included in the planting plan. The DCM has agreed that a
plant list will not have to be submitted prior to plan approval. It will be
provided in the As-Built report. In addition the DCM requested that the
species of gum be appropriate as described in the following excerpt from
an e-mail dated February 15, 2001 from Kelly Williams to Byron Moore
(NCDOT): "Also note that Nyssa aquatica and Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora
can have differing salinity tolerances. I urge you to consider the gum
species found in the vicinity of the site, the source of your plants, and the
salinity of the water the trees will be exposed to prior to planting the site to
ensure the highest level of success in this area. Indeed, if you revise the
Sawmill plan and resubmit it, please include a list of species present at
RFE site (an appendix with a site report summary may be appropriate)."
3. Comment: "The hydrologic success criteria for the swamp and the marsh
4
areas are acceptable though they are not ideal. I would expect the site to
exhibit hydrologic characteristics specific to the community types being
restored and created. Such characteristics would include a certain
flooding frequency, duration, tidal influence and depth of flooding. In the
future, reference hydrology data should be used to determine hydrologic
success criteria when available. The data gathered at reference sites for
this project will be valuable although it does not appear you will use them
as success criteria. "
Discussion: A discussion of the hydrologic success criteria resulted in the
agencies agreeing that we should use a 25% success criterion for the
Sawmill Site. If there was a year that did not show 25% success, then we
could use the hydrological characteristics of the reference system to measure
success. The reference ecosystem approved for the Sawmill site is located
nearby in the same watershed and is a tidal swamp. Consequently, the
hydrological success criteria to be used for the Sawmill site was agreed to be
25% inundation.
Schedule: Cathy Brittingham asked how we were doing in meeting the
planting schedule for this year. Ed Lewis responded that we will miss the
planting period for trees and the June planting period for marsh grass this
year since the plan had not been approved. In addition, Ed noted that the
project needs to be constructed as soon as possible once the plan is
approved. This will allow the project to be planted in 2002 as well as going
through its first year of monitoring.
4. Comment: "After five years, monitoring may cease only if success criteria have
been met (as evidenced in annual reports) and permitting and review agencies
agree in writing that the site is demonstrating success. This must be added to the
plan for it to be approved. "
Discussion: Ed Lewis noted that this is standard operating procedure and
agreed to put this in writing in the mitigation plan.
5. Comment: "It is stated in section 7. 0, titled: "Permits ", on page 27 that this
proposal involves the conversion of existing wetlands to other wetland types.
Your request for a permit modification in the November 17, 2000 letter does
not specify how many acres of wetlands will be converted (i.e. impacted) at
this site. Although mitigation will not be required for these impacts to
existing wetlands that acreage of impact must be subtracted from the total
mitigation acreage available at the site. In other words, NCDOT will not be
given restoration or creation credit for converting one wetland type to
another wetland type even though it may be necessary for an acceptable
mitigation plan at this site. NCDOT should clarify whether or not they will
impact wetlands at the Sawmill site, indicate what that acreage is, and
subtract it from the total mitigation available at the site. "
5
Discussion: DCM (Kelly Williams) restated that we should subtract the
acreage of existing wetlands from the site since they will not be restored
wetlands. NCDOT stated that we will be enhancing those wetlands, thus we
should be given credit for enhancement instead of restoration. The DCM
agreed to allow us to get enhancement credit. Thus, NCDOT's original
assumptions about available credit from the Sawmill site will be adjusted
downward to reflect enhancement (in lieu of restoration or creation) ratio for
converting a small area of scrub-shrub wetland to forested wetland. John
Hennessy stated that even if enhancement credits are approved that the
NCDOT will still need to ensure that the DWQ 1:1 restoration requirement is
met.
6. Comment: "It appears the work done at the Sawmill site, if successful, will
meet the required mitigation acreage needed at this site. The November 17,
2000 letter allocates 2.47 acres of wetland mitigation to this site. In the final
plan 2.73 acres of creation, .20 acres of restoration, and.25 acres of
preservation are proposed for this site. If the Sawmill mitigation project itself
will impact any existing wetlands, NCDOT may fall short of the mitigation
allocated to this site for B-2531 as outlined in the November 17, 2000 letter. If
that is the case, a larger debit/allocation from Lengyel may be required."
Discussion: NCDOT will modify the plan to reflect the expected creation,
restoration, preservation, and enhancement mitigation credit available
accounting for on-site wetland impacts due to implementation. If the Sawmill
Site "falls short" of the mitigation allocated to B-2531, NCDOT will look to
other sites for mitigation.
7. Comment: I remain very concerned that NCDOT will not meet the B-2531
permit condition #20 which states that: "The DOT shall complete
construction of the mitigation site for B-2531 and conduct monitoring in
accordance with the approved comprehensive mitigation plan required in
condition 18 until success is demonstrated, either prior to beginning
construction on any segment of the New Bern Bypass project (or any other
project that satisfies the same purpose and need) or within one year of the
expiration of this permit, whichever comes first. " I read this to mean that
NCDOT must demonstrate success (i.e. must meet success criteria) on the B-
2531 mitigation sites prior to beginning construction on the New Bern
Bypass. It appears NCDOT will not demonstrate success on the Sawmill site
any earlier than 2004. Site monitoring will continue until 2006 if all goes
according to their proposed schedule. If May 2003 is the expected let date for
the New Bern Bypass project, it appears the B-2531 permit condition #20
will not be met.
Discussion: Based upon stated implementation schedules for Sawmill and
Croatan, it is clear that the current letting schedule for R-2301 is unrealistic
by several years. The discussion centered around the concept of what today is
meant by "demonstrating success;" and by what in 1995 was meant by
6
"demonstrating success" which is when the permit for the New Bern Bridge
was issued. The current success criteria concept calls for 5 years of
successful monitoring. The agencies recalled that the success criteria in use
in 1995 called for 3 years of successful monitoring.
• DCM Position: The position of the DCM as clarified in an e-mail from
Doug Huggett on 3/13/01 is as follows: The DCM agreed to was to
consider looking at a site after three years to determine if it appears
reasonably successful. However, if the site appears just marginally
successful at the end of three years, then the DCM would need to keep
looking at the site(s) until the full success criteria described in the
mitigation plans are satisfied. The DCM said that this would take a
minimum of five years to satisfy, and possibly quite a bit longer.
Furthermore, the DCM confirmed that this commitment is only for the
purposes of satisfying the Neuse River Bridge (B-2531) permit
conditions. Monitoring must still be carried out in accordance with the
appropriate mitigation plans for each site, including the five-year
(minimum) monitoring requirement.
The DCM emphasized that the commitment by the DCM to consider a
project at the end of three years of monitoring should by no means
construed as meaning the process of meeting the success criteria and
satisfying the Neuse River Bridge permit conditions can not take longer.
Additionally, simply meeting the success criteria at the end of three years
will not automatically convey DCM approval that the sites are successful
(see above statement on marginally successful sites).
The DCM has also emphasized that they remain concerned that the
scheduling of the New Bern bypass project will run into significant
problems if the schedule relies heavily on this 3 year review of the success
criteria.
• The WRC (David Cox) agreed that it was probably justified for Sawmill
and Lengyel but that Croatan has to comply with the MBI. He noted in an
e-mail dated 3/13.01 that the three-year success criterion is only tied to the
B-2531/R-2301 projects and the sites themselves still must be monitored
for five years. In that e-mail he further recommended that NCDOT take
remedial action if, at the end of the first year of monitoring, the sites are
not achieving success.
• The Corps (Mike Bell) has stated in a confirming e-mail dated 3/13/01 that
the USACE has no such time period (i.e. three year monitoring for a
success criterion). Success is usually after five years or later if success is
not achieved within the five-year period. He stated that if DOT wants to
come to the USACE earlier than five years with information, they would
listen.
• The DW : the DWQ (John Hennessy) stated in an e-mail 3.13.01 that the
DWQ would consider that the permit condition for B-2531 (that required
the mitigation be in the ground and functioning before the construction of
7
R-2301) was met after three years, and thus allow for the letting and
construction of R-2301. It was understood that the monitoring plan was to
go for at least five years (and longer if success was not met). The plan
needs to have the five-year requirement, and the DWQ will agree to
discontinue monitoring only after a minimum five years and the success
criteria being met.
NCDOT (Alice Gordon) asked if the 15 percent up-front allowed debit of the
Croatan Bank could be used for mitigating the bay forest impacts. The Corps
of Engineers and the DCM stated that we could only use the 15 percent if the
site to be debited was showing success based on the monitoring.
NCDOT (Alice Gordon) noted that R-2301A had independent utility and, in
addition, was a different type of ecosystem from the riverine portion of the
New Bern Bypass. A ruling was requested from the agencies relative to
obtaining a separate permit for R-2301A given the independent utility status.
In addition, a ruling was requested to allow us to let R-2301A in May 2003
before the monitoring of the sites was complete. The formal response from
the USACE, the DCM, the DWQ, the USFWS, and the NCDMF (Division of
Marine Fisheries) was that R-2301A could not be let until the three year
monitoring period showed success. The agencies stated that the issue of
independent utility was not relevant in this case.
8. Comment: " Furthermore, as of the date of this letter I have not received
an MBI for the Croatan Bank site. A site plan has yet to be approved for the
restoration and enhancement activities at the bank site. Portions of the bank
site will be used for B-2531 forested wetlands mitigation and will also have
to demonstrate success prior to construction of the New Bern Bypass. I fear
NCDOT staff may believe that the signing of the MBI will satisfy the permit
condition quoted above, but again, the permit states success must be
demonstrated at the Croatan site in order meet permit condition
requirements. In the November 17, 2000 letter, it is stated that monitoring
on the bank site will begin in 2003. It doesn't seem possible that the
mitigation activities performed at the Croatan site will demonstrate success
by May 2003, the expected let date for the New Bern Bypass project."
Discussion: Clarence Coleman presented the following information. The
Croatan MBI needs to be revised. The disposition of the USFS (US Forest
Service) property issues is taking a long time. It needs to be finalized before
an MBI is signed. The MBI should be signed by May 2001. Construction on
Phase I will begin this summer and will include the implementation of the
bay forest mitigation needed for B-2531.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Meeting Attendees
David Cox, WRC
John Hennessy, NCDENR - DWQ
Beth Burns, NCDENR - DWQ
Mike Bell, USACE
Tom McCartney, USFWS
Rick Monaghan, NCDENR, DMF
Kelly Williams, NCDENR, DCM
Craig Deal, NCDENR
Cathy Brittingham, NCDENR, DCM
Bill Arrington, NCDENR, DCM
Scott Jones, NCDENR, DCM
Kevin Markham, ESI
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PD&EA
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Doug Huggett, NCDENR, DCM
Alice Gordon, NCDOT, PD & EA
Charles Bruton, NCDOT PD & EA
Clarence Coleman, NCDOT PD & EA
Ed Lewis, NCDOT PD & EA
Bruce Ellis, NCDOT PD & EA
Eric Black, NCDOT PD & EA
Randy Turner, NCDOT PD & EA h
Greg Brew, NCDOT Roadway Design
Katie McKeithan, NCDOT Roadside
Jeff Wait, NCDOT Roadside
Environmental
Dicky Harmon, ESI
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
.R
..? ?NF o
.Q aaw?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT' OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
TO: Phillip S. Harris III, P.E., ONE
John Hennessy, DWQ
Cathy Brittingham, DCM
Mike Bell, COE
Pete Stafford, RK&K
FROM: Bruce O. Ellis, CLM, Environmental Supervisor
Mary Frazer, Environmental Specialist
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: REVISED REPORT - Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Survey for US 17 Neuse
River Bridge Relocation and Trent River Bridge Widening, Federal Aid Project
No. BR- OOOS(33), State Project No. 8.1170801, TIP Nos. B-2531 and B-2532.
DATE: 2/16/2004 (Original date of this report was 5/22/03)
REFERENCE: Memorandum: Results of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Survey by NCDOT
environmental specialist, Robin Little, October 6, 1994
The following revised memorandum provides the results of a submersed aquatic vegetation
(SAV) survey for the subject project. The survey was conducted on June 5, 2001 by NCDOT
environmental biologists Bruce Ellis and Mary Frazer, and members of the NCDOT dive team,
Bill Lotz and Allen Hancock to determine impacts to SAVs as a result of the subject project.
Supplemental surveys were conducted by Ellis and Frazer on June 27 to look at nearby SAV
growth for comparison, and on October 27 to survey marsh vegetation at Lawson Creek.
Previous surveys were conducted in August 1994, prior to project construction; June 1996, after
construction was initiated; August 2000, after construction was complete and June, 2001.
Surveys between 1996 and 2000 were disrupted by inclement weather (i.e., hurricanes) and
construction work, which made survey conditions dangerous.
METHODOLOGY
SAV survey methodology followed procedures outlined in the above referenced memorandum.
Briefly, transects were run perpendicular to the shoreline at ten meter intervals within the
temporary construction zones and permanent construction limits. A one meter square grid, which
was subdivided into nine 33 cm by 33 cm subplots, was then placed on the river bottom at ten
meter intervals along each transect. SAV species present within the one-meter square grid were
identified, and percent cover within the grid was determined for each sample location. Survey
work was conducted using contaminated-water protocol, to minimize exposure to water-born
pathogens. The protocol includes the use of SCUBA dry suits and decontamination when exiting
the river. Vegetation from each sample plot was collected and identified according to Godfrey
and Wooten (1981) and Fassett (1975).
At Lawson Creek (Site 1), the majority of the creek was visually inspected from a small rowboat
on 27 June 2001. Care was taken in the survey to establish the transects at the same locations as
the August 1994 and June 1996 surveys. However, there were five exceptions, listed below.
In 1996, five additional transects were established on the western shoreline of the Neuse
River at loop BA and ramp CD. These transects are identified as 2A'-2E'. The transects
were to measure impacts from loop BA that had not been previously identified out in the
field. During the initial (1994) survey, the shoreline was staked where the ramps and bridges
were located. At that time the BA loop (which travels over the Neuse River close to shore)
was not identified as a potential impact area. This area was included in subsequent surveys.
2. Scotts Creek (Site 4) was not sampled in 1996, 2000 or 2001 due to shallow water depths
(less than one foot) and a substrate of extremely soft muck, which prohibited divers from
working safely in the area.
3. In August 2000, three additional transects were conducted on the east side of the Trent River.
These transects were located 10m, 17m, and 23m south of transects 3A-3D and are referred to
as transects 3E'-3G', respectively. The additional transects were established to capture the
effects of the BD ramp.
4. In order to gain a better understanding about habitat in the vicinity of the project, two
supplemental areas were examined for SAVs in 2001 as a reference to determine the presence
or absence of pondweeds in the overall New Bern area, which had been found in earlier, but
not recent sampling years. The locations, north and south of Union Point, are described
below. Standard SAV sampling was conducted on 27 June 2001.
• A small cove north of Union Point (north of the Best Western) - Site 2 in Figure IA
• Neuse River, near the new bridge, at the confluence of the Neuse and Trent Rivers,
outside the construction impact area - Site 3 in Figure lA
Supplemental surveying was also conducted at the marsh along the new Trent River/Lawson
Creek bridge to determine the effects of temporary work bridge. Transects were conducted
on 24 October 2001 as follows. The transect on the south side of the bridge (As) starts near
the channel within the marsh (site 1 in Figure IA), which is approximately 200 ft west of the
Trent River. The south side transect proceeds west to the first bridge bent near Lawson Creek
(Js). On the north side of bridge (site 4 in Figure IA), transect starts (AN) at first bridge bent
in the marsh east of Lawson Creek and precedes eastward to Trent River (MN). Plots are 10
ft. by 10 ft. and placed at 100 ft. intervals. It was not physically possible to extend the south
side transect to the Trent River due to the channel and extremely wet conditions.
QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Investigator: Bruce O. Ellis, Environmental Supervisor, NCDOT.
Education: BS Agriculture/Environmental Science, Rutgers University, College of
Agriculture and Environmental Science.
Certification: Certified Lake Manager (North American Lake Management Society).
Professional Wetland Scientist (Society of Wetland Scientists).
Experience: Biologist, Allied Biological, Inc., March 1976-April 1994. Lake and
watershed management, submersed aquatic vegetation identification and control,
natural resource investigations, water quality,
stream bioassessment, fisheries inventories, wetland delineation.
Expertise: Aquatic resource management, wetland delineation, Section 7 field
investigations, submersed aquatic vegetation, NEPA investigations and
documentation.
RESULTS
Results of the 2001 SAV survey are included in Tables 1-3. Previous survey results are also
included for comparison. Sample locations are depicted in Figure 1. Supplemental sampling
locations from 2001 are in Figure 1A. During the June 2001 survey, water salinity was 1.5 ppt
(vs. 2.8 ppt the previous August) in the Neuse River and the Trent River, and secchi depth was
four feet in the Neuse, the same as the previous year. Two SAV species were identified during
the course of the survey:
• Tapegrass (Vallisneria americana)
• Homed pondweed (Zannichellia palustris)
The tapegrass averaged 1-2 feet in height, while the horned pondweed was no more than eight to
ten inches high.
The 1994 and 1996 surveys identified coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) in addition to the two
species above, but only in Lawson Creek. No SAV's were found at the Lawson Creek site after
1996. During the 2001 survey, the water at this site was slightly turbid; a loose silty substrate was
present. The creek south of the bridge was examined until the channel split, a distance of at least
75 meters: only detritus and leaves were found in the creek. The water depth was 0.60-1.2
meters. The August 1994 survey identified tapegrass and either coontail or horned pondweed at
this site, which were suspected of being misidentified as eelgrass (Zostera sp.) and milfoil
(Myriophyllum sp.).
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. SAV Coverage, 1994-2001
Table 2. SAV Coverage, Minus Sites Not Common to Every Survey Period
Table 3. SAV Species Composition, 1994-2001
Table 4. SAV Sampling Data, 1994-2001
Table 5. SAV Sampling Data from Neuse River at Confluence with Trent River, 2001
Table 6. Marsh Plant List, Trent River Bridge, 2001
Table 7. Marsh Vegetation Sampling Results, Trent River Bridge, 2001
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. SAV Sample Site Locations
Figure IA. Supplemental Survey Locations, 2001
Figure 2. Photo of North Side of Trent River Bridge, 2001
Figure 3. Photo of SAVs in Neuse River Impact Area, 2001
Figure 4. Photo of South Side of Trent River Bridge, 2001
Figure 5. Photo of Marsh Vegetation in Trent River Impact Area, 2001
Figures labeled "Photo 14" are of marsh vegetation along the Trent River Bridge, 1997
4
Table 1. SAV Coveraize
SITE LOCATION 1994 1996 2000 2001
Site 1, Lawson Creek 0.14 ha 0.14 ha 0.0 ha 0.0 ha
Site 2, West Shoreline Ram DB (2A-2L) 0.0 ha 0.08 ha 0.12 ha 0.16 ha
of Neuse River Ram DC (2M-2Q) 0.0 ha 0.09 ha 0.04 ha 0.08 ha
Ram DA (2R-2V) 0.18 ha 0.16 ha 0.14 ha 0.15 ha
Ramp CD/Loop BA
(2A'-2E') No Data
Collected 0.26 ha 0.0 ha 0.01 ha
Site 3, Freedom
Memorial Bridge over Southeast Shoreline
(3A-3D) 0.12 ha 0.08 ha 0.02 ha 0.04 ha
Trent River Southeast Shoreline
(3E'-3G') No Data
Collected No Data 0.01 ha No Data
Northwest Shoreline
(3E-3H) 0.35 ha 0.01 ha 0.00 ha 0.04 ha
Ram BD 0.12 ha No Data Coll ected
Site 4, Scotts Creek 0.10 ha No Data Collected
Site 5 East Shoreline
of Neuse River (5A-5G) 0.0 ha 0.0 ha 0.0 ha 0.05 ha
TOTAL 1.01 ha 0.82 ha 0.33 ha 0.53 ha
There are a few discrepancies in which areas were sampled from year to year, as discussed under
Methodology. To allow for a more equitable comparison of survey results from one year to
another, transects that were not routinely sampled each year were removed from the table above,
with Table 2 (below) as the result.
Table 2. SAV Coverage, Minus Sites Not Common to Every Survey Period
SITE LOCATION 1994 1996 2000 2001
Site 1, Lawson Creek 0.14 ha 0.14 ha 0.0 ha 0.0 ha
Site 2, West Shoreline Ramp DB (2A-2L) 0.0 ha 0.08 ha 0.12 ha 0.16 ha
of Neuse River Ramp DC (2M-2Q) 0.0 ha 0.09 ha 0.04 ha 0.08 ha
Ramp DA (2R-2V) 0.18 ha 0.16 ha 0.14 ha 0.15 ha
Site 3, Freedom
Memorial Bridge over Southeast Shoreline
(3A-3D) 0.12 ha 0.08 ha 0.02 ha 0.04 ha
Trent River Northwest Shoreline
(3E-3H) 0.35 ha 0.01 ha 0.00 ha 0.04 ha
Site 5 East Shoreline
of Neuse River (5A-5G) 0.0 ha 0.0 ha 0.0 ha 0.05 ha
TOTAL 0.79 ha 0.56 ha 0.32 ha 0.52 ha
Note: Site 3, northwest shoreline, only had transects along 3E-3F in 1996. 3G-3H were blocked
by a barge.
Table 3. SAV Species Composition, 1994-2001
(Number of vegetated plots/total plots conducted that year)
SPECIES NO. PLOTS WITH NO. PLOTS WITH NO. PLOTS WITH NO. PLOTS WITH
COMPOSITION SAVs Au `94 SAVs June `96 SAVs Au `00 SAVs June `O1
A. Tapegrass 32/215 12/178 32/181 40/155
(Vallisneria
americana)
B. Horned 20/215 38/178 0/181 7/155
pondweed
(Zannichellia
palustris)
A& B. Tapegrass 16/215 18/178 1/181 4/155
and Horned
ondweed
C. Arrowhead 0/215 0/178 0/181 1/155
(Sagittaria subulata)
TOTAL 68/215 68/178 33/181 521155
% PLOTS WITH 32% 38% 18% 34%
SAVs
Note: Site 1, Lawson Creek, contained coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) in 1994 and 1996.
No plots were taken, however, since 100% coverage was assumed.
As shown in Table 3, the number of plots sampled each year ranged from 215 in 1994 to 155 in
2001. Causes for these discrepancies are as follows:
• Variations in the number and location of some of the transects from year to year.
• The location of barges and newly constructed bridge bulkheads prevented a few sample plots
from being placed.
• Sampling along each transect is stopped when three consecutive plots were encountered with
no SAVs, or when the water depth reached approximately two meters. This resulted in a
range of plots per transect, varying from year to year and site to site, depending on water
level, and the amount and location SAVs along each transect.
RESULTS FROM 2001 SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING AREAS
The cove north of Union Point (Site 2 in Figure IA) contained a small sandy beach about 23
meters long, while most adjacent areas of shoreline contained low seawalls. No SAVs were
found. The water was clear and one meter deep at about 18 meters out from the shoreline.
SAVs in the Neuse River near the confluence with the Trent River (Site 3 in Figure IA) were
sampled with the first transect 30 meters north of northern edge of the new bridge; the following
transects were 40 m north, 50 m north, etc. Tapegrass was found in all of the sample plots
between 10 and 40 m from the shoreline. Results of this survey are present in Table 5.
6
No horned pondweed was found in either of the supplemental SAV sampling areas, nor was any
found washed up on shore or observed casually. In contrast, tapegrass was observed washed up
on shore in several areas during the June 2001 surveys.
Marsh vegetation was examined along each side of the Trent River bridge. Data are presented in
Tables 6 and 7. The results of the survey indicate that vegetation is re-establishing on the site,
however, the vegetation that is present is of a much smaller type than the surrounding marsh. The
marsh in vicinity of the bridge is dominated by cattail (Typha latifolia) and giant cord grass
(Spartina cynosuroides). Since the vegetation in the footprint of the workbridges is of a smaller
type than the surrounding marsh, the footprints of the work bridges are very apparent. Little or
no vegetation was observed directly underneath the permanent bridge. One area adjacent to the
northern edge of the bridge appeared to have been mowed earlier in the summer.
DISCUSSION - SAVs
Both Table 1 and Table 2 show a decrease in areal coverage of SAVs from 1994-2001. The
lowest areal coverage was in the year 2000. Coverage in 2001 rebounded somewhat. Table 3
also shows a decline in the number of SAVs per sample plot for 2000. This may be the result of
the hurricanes and flooding that took place in 1999, which would have caused scouring and
sedimentation.
The reduction in SAV coverage from 1994-1996 was due to factors other than hurricanes..
Possible explanations for the reduction in coverage include:
• Effects from project construction
• Reduced water clarity due to increasing watershed development
• If the SAVs experience a late season decline, that may explain some of the reduction in SAV
coverage in 1996, since sampling took place that year in August, instead of in June.
Site 1, Lawson Creek, was found to have coontail in 1994 and 1996. When surveys commenced
again in 2000 and 2001, no coontail or SAVs of any kind were found. Since coontail has a weak
root system, the hurricanes of 1999 may have carried it away.
Areal coverage of SAVs decreased at Site 3 (Trent River) after 1994, when construction started.
At the time of the 1996 survey, there was considerable construction activity in the vicinity of Site
3, including construction barges along the shoreline. It is assumed that the decrease in SAVs is
largely due to the placement of construction barges and not the result of sedimentation or other
disturbances, due to the physical presence of barges in the area.
Site 4, Scotts Creek, only had transects conducted in 1994. No transects were conducted in the
following years due to soft substrate and the presence of filamentous algae. It is possible that the
1994 dive team misidentified algae as an SAV, and that SAVs were never present at this site.
Algae was present in 1996, even though no construction work had taken place anywhere near the
site yet.
Site 2 (west shore of Neuse River) and Site 5 (east shore of Neuse River) have increased slightly
in SAV coverage from 1994-2001.
Supplemental SAV sampling conducted in 2001 showed there to be tapegrass outside the bridge
construction area, but no horned pondweed. This suggests that horned pondweed has been
removed from the New Bern area due to regional environmental factors, rather than bridge
construction. There was a decrease in SAV coverage from 1994-2001 of 0.27 ha (0.67 acres),
based on data in Table 2.
DISCUSSION - MARSH AT TRENT RIVER BRIDGE
The primary vegetation found at the temporary work bridge sites, big cordgrass and cattails, were
the same as those found at the site in 1997, before the bridges were installed. Several other
genuses (Cyperus spp., Carex spp., Pluchea spp. and Polygonum spp.) are the same as were
found before construction began. Saplings (Acer rubrum and Salix nigra) were absent in 2001,
however. Since vegetation in the footprint of the workbridges is smaller than that of the
surrounding marsh, it must be assumed that there were at least temporary impacts from the work
bridges.
8
Table 4. SAV Samnlina Data
Plot Number Percent Cover per Plot
and Species* Type (if any)
1994 1996 2000 2001 Water Depth
(feet)
2A1 44. A 0 1.
2A2 0 0 100. A 100. A 1.5
2A3 0 0 0 0 3.0
2A4 0 0 ND 6.0
2A5 ND ND 0 ND 10.0
2B1 0 0 100. A 44. A 0.
-
2B2 0 88. A 10 A 0 3.0
2B3 0 0 0 0 5.5
2B4 ND ND 0 ND >10.0
2 CI A 0.5
-
2C2 0 50. A 25. A 100. A 3.0
2C3 0 0 0 0 6.0
2C4 ND 0 0 ND 10.0
2C5 ND 0 ND ND
2131 0
2D2 0 31. B 25. A 0 2.0
2D3 0 0 0 0 5.5
2D4 ND 0 0 ND >6.
2D5 ND 0 ND ND
2E1 0 0 0 0 0.5
2E2 0 0 100. A 0 2.
2E3 0 0 0 0 5.5
2E4 ND ND 0 ND >6.0
2F1 0 19, A 1.
2F2 0 12. B 100. A 78. A 2.0
2F3 0 0 0 0 6.0
2F4 ND 0 0 ND >6.
2F5 ND 0 ND ND
2G1 69 0 0 22. A 1.0
2G2 0 75. A 100. A 2.
-
2G3 0 0 0 0 6.0
2G4 ND ND 0 ND >6.0
2111 44, A 1.
21-12 0 0 0 22. A 3.0
2113 0 0 0 0 6.0
2114 ND ND ND >6.
2I1 0 0 Rrid?e 11.A ND
212 0 81.B 0 100.A 3.0
213 0 0 0 0 6.0
2J I 0 0 0 0 0.5
-
212 0 ND 0 89. A 3.0
213 0 69. A&B 0 0 >6.0
2K1 0 0 0 33. A 0.5
2K2 0 75.B 0 100. A 3.0
2K3 0 0 0 15.0
-
2K4 ND 0 ND ND ND
2L I 0 25.B 0 100. C 0.5
-
21,2 75.B 100. A 100.-A 2.
2L3 0 0 75. A 0 2.0
2L4 ND 0 0 0 3.0
2L ND ND ND 5.0
2M1 0 0 0 44. A 1.0
2M2 A&B 100, A 100, 2.
2M3 0 0 0 5.0
2M4 ND ND 0 ND >6.0
2N I 19. B 22, A 1.
2N2 0 100. B 69. A 67. A 2.0
2N3 0 0 0 0 4.0
2N4 D ND 0 ND >6.
201 0 6. B 0 0 1.0
202 100. B 0 0 4.0
203 0 0
204 ND ND 0 ND >6.0
2P1 0 38. B 0 0 1.0
2P2 81, B 25, 100, A 3.
2P3 0 0 0 0 6.0
2P4 ND ND 0 0 >6.0
201 44, B l A 1.0
202 0 81. A&B 56. A 100. A 3.0
203 0 0 0 100. A 5.0
204 ND 0 >6.
2R1 0 0 0 0 <1.0
2R2 100 81. A 31. A 22. B 1.5
2R3 100 10 A&B 81, A 100, A 3.0
2R4 25 100. A&B 81. A 100. A 4.0
2R5 0 75. B 100. A 66. A 5.0
2R6 100, A 11, A 5.
2R7 0 0 0 0 5.0
2R8 0 0 ND 6.0
2S1 0 <1.
2S2 0 25. A 81. A 0 1.5
2S3 0 81. A 94. A 100. A&B 2.0
2S4 100 88 A 100. A l. A 2.
2S5 19 12.B 94.A 100.A 3.0
2S6 100 0 100. A 100. A 4.5
2S7 0 0 5.0
2S8 0 CO StiUCtio71 0 ND 6.0
211 50 balLe Bulkhead Bulkhead Bulkhead
2T2 1
213 100 100. A 0 0 1.5
214 100 75. A&B 0 0 2.0
215 0 0 .0
2T6 0 0 ND 0 ND
217 0 0 ND ND ND
2U1 ND <1.0
2U2 0 25. B 0 44. A 1.5
2U3 100 100. A 0 100. A 2.0
2U4 100 0 100, A 100, A 2.
2U5 100 31. A 0 0 3.0
2U6 100 0 0 0 4.5
2U7 0 0 ND ND
2U8 0 0 ND ND ND
2V I 0 0 0 0 <1.0
2V2 100 31. A 63, A 100, 1.
2V3 100 88. A 100. A 100, A 2.0
2V4 100 94. A 100. A 100. A 2.0
2V 1 0 10 10 3.0
10
2V6 0 0 0 0 3.0
2V7 ND ND ND
2V8 0 ND ND ND
2A' l ND 0 0 0 0.5
2A'2 ND 25, B 0 3.0
2A'3 ND 63. B 0 0 4.0
2A'4 ND 38. B 0 ND >6.0
2A'5 ND 31, B ND ND
2A'6 ND 38. A&B ND ND ND
2A'7 ND 12. A&B ND ND ND
2A' ND 19, B ND ND
2B' l ND 0 0 0 0.5
2B'2 ND 100. B 0 0 3.
2B' ND 100- A&B 0 5.5
2B'4 ND 56. A&B 0 ND 6.5
2C' l ND 0 0 0 0.5
2'2 ND 1B 0 5.0
2C'3 ND 100. A&B 0 0 >6.0
2CA ND 19. A&B ND ND ND
2C'5 ND 100, A&B N ND ND
2C'6 ND 38. A&B ND ND ND
2C'7 ND 50. A&B ND ND ND
2D' I ND 0 0 0.0
2D'2 ND 100. B 0 0 5.0
2D'3 ND 88. B 0 0 5.5
2D'4 ND 75. A&B 0 ND .5
2D'5 ND 100. B ND ND ND
2D'6 ND 75. B ND ND ND
201 ND 0 11. A .0
2E'2 ND 100. A&B 0 0 1.0
2E'3 ND 100. B 0 0 2.5
2E'4 ND 100. B ND 3.0
2E'5 ND 75. B ND ND ND
2E'6 ND 69. B ND ND ND

3A I 0 0 0 0 0.5
3A2 0 100. A&B 0 100. A&B 2.0
A3 0 38, B
3A4 ND 19. B ND 0 ND
3A5 ND 0 ND ND ND
0 0.0
3B2 81 81. B 0 100. A&B 3.0
3B3 88 100. B 0 ILA 4.0
3B4 38 0 ND 0 ND
3B5 19 0 ND ND ND
3B6 0 0 ND ND ND
1 100
3C2 25 31. B 100. A 0 4.0
30 6 0 0 0 5.5
4 6 ND ND >6.0
3C5 0 0 ND ND ND
3D1 0 0 0 0 0.5
D2 100 100, B 100, A 33. A 4.
3D3 88 31. B 0 0 5.5
3D4 0 0 0 ND 6.0
D 0 10 1 ND I ND ND
11
3D6 0 0 ND ND ND
3E' l ND ND ND 0.5
3E'2 ND ND 0 ND 2.5
3E'3 ND ND 0 ND 3.0
3F' l ND 0 .5
3F'2 ND ND 0 ND 2.5
3F'3 ND ND 0 ND 3.0
3G' l ND ND 0 ND 0.5
3G'2 ND ND 88. A&B ND 2.5
3G'3 ND ND 0 ND 3.0
3GA ND ND 0 ND 6.0
3E1 0 0 0 22 B 1.0
3E2 94 0 0 0 3.0
3E3 19 0 0 5.0
3E4 62 0 ND 0 0
3E5 100 ND ND ND ND
3E 94 ND ND ND ND
3E7 75 ND ND ND ND
3E8 0 ND ND ND ND
3F1 0 0 1.
3F2 100 12. B 0 0 3.0
3F3 100 0 0 67. A 4.0
3F4 94 0 ND
3F5 100 0 ND ND ND
3F6 100 ND ND ND ND
3G1 50 No data 0 1.0
3G2 100 collected 0 89. A&B 3.0
3G3 - d
t 0 0 4.0
uc
o
0 O
3G5 hrescalcc of
75 ND N
D
D
ND
3G6 38 "'nstri"- ND ND ND
3G7 tion harp e ND ND ND
308 0 ND ND ND
3G9 100
3G10 50 ND ND ND
3H1 13 0 0 1.0
3H2 38 0 22. A 3.0
3H3 63 0 0 4.
3H4 56 ND ND ND
3H5 100 ND ND ND
3H6 88 ND ND ND
3H7 100 ND ND ND
3H8 100 ND ND ND
3H9 50 ND ND ND
3H10 25 ND ND ND

5A1 0 0 <1.0
5A2 0 0 0 0 1.5
SA3 0 0 0 0 3.5
5A4 ND ND .0
5B l 0 0 0 0 <1.0
5B2 0 0 0 0 1.5
5B3 0 0 0 3.5
5B4 ND ND 0 0 5.0
SCI 0 0 0 0 <1.0
5C2 0 0 0 2.0
ND ND ND

12
50 0 0 0 0 3.5
4 ND ND
5131 0 0 0 0 <1.0
5132 0 0 0 0 1.5
D 0 0 3.5
5D4 ND ND 0 0 5.5
5E1 0 0 0 0 <1.0
E2 0 1.
5E3 0 0 0 0 4.0
5E4 ND ND 0 0 5.
Fl 0 <1.0
5E2 0 0 0 0 1.5
5F3 0 0 0 0 4.0
5E4 ND ND 0 67, B 5.0
5G1 0 0 0 0 <1.0
502 0 0 0 11. B 1.5
5G3 - 10 10 0 22, B 4.
5G4 ND ND 0 22. B 5.0
Key
Species A = Tapegrass (Vallisneria americana)
Species B = Horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris)
Species C = Arrowhead (Sagittaria subulata)
ND = No Data Collected at that site. For some 2001 transects, it was assumed no SAVs occurred
at greater depths when none were found at shallower depths.
0 = No SAV's present
13
TABLE 5. SAV Sampling Data from Neuse River at Confluence with Trent River, 2001
Plot Number
(South of Union Pt.,
south of old bridge,
north of new bridge) Percent Cover per Plot
and Species* Type (if any)
2001 Water Depth
(feet)
I.A. 0 0
1B 89. A 1.5
1C 100. A 2.
1D 100. A 1.5
lE 0 2.5
IF D
2A 0 0
2B 100. A 1.5
2 100, A 2.
2D 100. A 2.0
2E 100. A 2.5
2F 0 3.0
3A 0 0
3B 89. A 1.5
3C 100, A 1.6
3D 100. A 2.0
3E 100. A 3.0
3F 0 .5
4A 0 0
4B 78. A 1.0
4C 100- A 1.5
4D 100. A 2.5
4E 100. A 3.0
4F 3.5
5A 0 0
5B 67. A 1.5
5C 100, A 2.
5D 100. A 2.5
5E 100. A 3.0
5F 0 3.5
Key
Species A = Tapegrass (Vallisneria americana)
Species B = Horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris)
Species C = Arrowhead (Sagittaria subulata)
ND = No Data Collected
0 = No SAV's present
14
Table 6. Marsh Plant List, Trent River Bridge, 2001
Common Name Scientific Name Abbreviation*
Alli atorweed Alternanthera hiloxeroides AP
Silverling Baccharis halimifolia BH
Sedge Carex s p. CX
Sedge Cyperus s p. CY
Barnyard Grass Echinochloa crushalli EC
Sweet Everlasting Gna halium obtusi olium GO
Rose Mallow Hibiscus moscheutos HM
Rush Juncus s p. JS
Black Needlerush Juncus roemerianus 7R
Royal Fern Osmunda regalis OR
Witch Grass Panicum vir atum PV
Camphorweed Pluchea pupurascens pp
Mild Water Pepper Polygonum hydropiperoides PH
Duck-Potato Saggitaria latifolia SL
Wool Grass Scirpus cyperinus SC
Giant Cord Grass Spartina cynosuroides Sc
Cattail Typha latifolia TL
Ironweed Verononia noveboracensis VN
* denotes abbreviations used in Table 7
15
, I
Table 7: Marsh Vegetation Samnling Results. Trent River Bridle. 2001
PLOT NUMBER* v PERCENT COVER BY SPECIES Percent cover
AN PH, SL, HM (20% cut) 100%
B TL, SC, SL, JS, CY, CX (30% cut) 100%
C SC, TL, Sc , JR (20% standing water) 80%
D SC, is, CX, HM 100%
E SC, CX, SC P, PV 90%
F SC, CX, OR, BH 90%
G SC, PV, CX, HM 90%
H SC, TL, PH, CX (20% standing water) 100%
I TL, PH, CX, SL, Cy 100%
J SC, PH, EC, GO 90%
K SC, PV, EC, CX (channel open water 20%) 100%
LN JR, PP, HM, EC 100%
M JR, SC, HM, EC (river edge) 100%
A PP, AP, HM VN, BH (channel open water 50%) 100%
B SC, PP, PH, JS, CY, 100%
C SC, PV, PP, HM, OR, JS 100%
D SC, TL, HM, CX 100%
E SC, TL, HM (50% cut) 100%
SC, TI, HM, CX (50% cut) 100%
G SC, TL, HM (50% cut 100%
H SC, TL, HM, JS (50% cut) 100%
I SC, TL, PV (50 % cut) 100%
J PV, AP, SL, JS 100%
* "N" denotes north side of Bridge; "s" denotes south side of Bridge
16

North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Donna D. Moffitt, Director
, a 1 6 ?,)O
C-)/ by() s
NCDENR
February 12, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Subject: Craven County, Replacement of Bridge No. 28 on US 17 over the Neuse River and the
widening of Bridges Nos. 83 and 84 on US 70 Bypass over the Trent River in New Bern, Federal
Aid No. BR-OOOS(33), State Project No. 8.1170801, T.I.P. B-2531, AID No. 199401568.
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the NC Division of Coastal Management's
(RCM's) comments on a letter from the NC Department of Transportation (DOT) dated
November 17, 2000 about the above referenced project, B-2531. I have also attached a letter
from Kelly Williams, DCM Wetland Restoration Specialist, with comments on the mitigation
proposed for wetland impacts incurred by B-2531 (Neuse River Bridge) and R-2301 (New Bern
Bypass).
As you will quickly note from the information provided in this letter and in Ms. Williams'
attached letter, the issues surrounding the permit conditions, project commitments and the
proposed mitigation for T.I.P. No. B-2531 and T.I.P. No. R-2301 are extraordinarily complex.
For this reason, I strongly suggest that DOT convene a meeting with relevant state and federal
agencies to review the project status. Participants in such a meeting should include at a
minimum N.C. Department of Transportation staff working on B-2531 and R-2301, N.C.
Division of Coastal Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, N.C. Division of Water Quality, N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission and N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries.
If DOT agrees that such a meeting is warranted, I recommend that it be scheduled as soon as
possible. This suggested meeting is not intended to delay final approval of the Sawmill and
Croatan wetland mitigation plans. Rather, it is DCM's hope that the suggested meeting would
expedite approval of the Sawmill and Croatan wetland mitigation plans to facilitate DOT's
ability to meet its project commitments relative to T.I.P. No. B-2531 and T.I.P. No. R-2301.
In the November 17`h letter, DOT requested a modification of existing permits (CAMA Major
Development Permit, Section 404 permit, and Section 401 Water Quality permit), and an
extension of the permit expiration date. CAMA Permit No. 81-95 for T.I.P. No. B-2531 does not
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY \ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED / 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER
4
contain any conditions that contain the specific requirements that DOT is requesting for
modification in the November 17`h letter. Please clarify specifically which conditions within
CAMA Permit No. 81-95 DOT would like to modify. A permit modification request for CAMA
Permit No. 81-95 will require an additional fee of $100.
The renewal of CAMA Permit No. 81-95 was requested by DOT to accommodate a change in
the schedule for completion of the Croatan and Sawmill wetland mitigation sites, which are
being constructed to provide mitigation for B-2531 and R-2301. In the November 17`h letter,
DOT requested a four-year permit renewal. Please note that DCM does not have the authority to
grant a four year permit renewal as requested in DOT's November 17`h letter. The rules of the
Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) allow DCM to grant as many two year permit extensions
as necessary to complete the initial development for permitted projects where substantial
development has begun and is continuing. Construction of mitigation sites, and monitoring of
those sites to meet conditions of a CAMA permit, are valid reasons for permit renewal.
Therefore, DCM does not anticipate a problem granting a two-year permit renewal this year, and
another two-year permit renewal in late 2002. However, the November 17`h letter did not include
a fee in the amount of $100 as required to process the requested permit renewal. As soon as
DCM receives a check in the amount of $100, a two-year permit renewal for CAMA Permit No.
81-95 will be issued.
In addition to the information provided above in response to DOT's November 17th letter, DCM
would appreciate a summary of DOT's success in meeting conditions #16, #17 and #19 of
CAMA Permit No. 81-95.
16) During the construction phases of this project, the DOT will monitor and record all
impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) habitat that occurs as a result of the
permitted activity.
17) Prior to the expiration date of this permit, the DOT will develop and implement an
approved mitigation plan to compensate for SAV losses associated with this project. The
plan will be coordinated with and approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
N.C. Division of Coastal Management, the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
19) Wetland sites impacted by temporary construction access, regardless of the access
alternative chosen, shall be monitored to insure that natural revegetation is occurring. If a
site is not revegetating within one year following removal of the construction access,
NCDOT shall undertake remedial action. Monitoring and restoration of wetlands
impacted by temporary construction access shall be addressed by NC DOT in their
comprehensive mitigation plan.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. If you have any questions or would like to
discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact either myself or Cathy Brittingham at (919)
733-2293. 1 look forward to working with you and your staff to resolve these issues.
v
Sincerely,
Doug Huggett
Major Permits and Consistency Coordinator
CC: Charles Jones
Craig Deal, DENR
David Franklin, USACOE
Mike Bell, USACOE
Bill Arrington, DCM
David Cox, WRC
John Hennessy, DWQ
Alice Gordon, DOT
Ed Lewis, DOT
Tom McCartney, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries Service
Mike Street, DMF
Ted Tyndall, DCM
Kelly Williams, DCM
l( I' I i/ j i ,\
Ir 7 Yry_ . ? ?? ? ??' i%e 1 •,?, ,-ytl?;? I ; ? . ? ' I \ ? i 1 I ? ; 1 ? (i'
J? z
t XD
//; ~ rte. _ • ;
••.? N C° `>
~d d 3 ( n
? t o r ' n o a-
W ° m : D 1
10
L.A
\ ?? ? n n • i; '? 1'1-1 t _ , i ,',.? z ,;,? L _
lit
t . V) J1 • /J
(D 0
li E •-• ? z ? III > 1 !? ' ., '.? .\
cn r? it
/? . •?• • \ \ ?9, / //!???
14,
I£1'.h/,l?,l,? ?. / ' C ••• i 1 ? ? `1 ??`? ?'s ?`p • ? 1
.t?sl z O ,
1 Ili' t:. o~oJ _ --7
\K CL
?z . u tt, NM•? o' 1 'It
t u' 1
1 ' !E," \p ?`yl ``? ?• iNr! 'I \ 1 : _ '?I W\
•? - 'r I ? `\?a 1 ? ,/ fj', ?' 11 1 ?%'!1`i?l'1'' ! ?. 1? t T - ru\ Q. ,?.
..a1'_ :5'. 11 1 111 ai 6I,,:tt ,. `I UI , = YO ) .?i? \1 _,`l`a•. - /
Via \ ^ E t,' n 1 I '?1, 1Ir 1? 1 'Ll''>t4 1l ' ` 1 r l ' ?` `' (,Z ` ;T. , " 2
11 j 1 I • ?,E •?•.? ` %, J
LI, it dt I ••\?S ••;.= ti` % n
t :: 1 4 a 10- i lilt 1
i tt , C+ I I \
cob
l \ • 1 Iw • _./
E' I 'J. I ?; I I I, I• U ' 1 to
pll'io' \ ?'' ' .i rsl' \ t ?•? _•• o f ' •i `? 33' V]
LL_
?' --?J' ) I:11 I?E'a?``II?F11,1 a' ;'•• %''ll_ ? .t ' r •a ?.
E r ,.: i } , L 17,' f I I -I •
E,t 1, ?t 1311 11 rr II1 ? II , A? y ? _ ,:I' ? ?, 1•-?.l"• a S
1. 4I I ?,. •1/ ? \ ''t l,? 1,?1 EI' IF .S 1 ?, 1 ,IIFIf? ? 9`,1.1','4•,. ? ?,I, I'; ,?', 'll'?,?, •'1 i , ? ? Q ?O
1 , I; / I , r ' °ti ' '1 . II I 1 ' 1 'E '! t{ r .I .?••
1
I , :;. a , : (1? 1 } I If r 'Y 1"11 I' 1 1,' 1 1 1 1 '}` E , C/1 ??
r !?'i 1 1 1 ; Q; ? III' I ,?I
+ I 1 1 E I,'•S 1 11.1 iI O
r'1 11 1 1 ?', FI I I ?•
i'11? III.il? i c? .A? I11,1i11,?;1,• 1._,I?,?y??14 11,L Itrl ?t P'?•a11.?' I,EI.,?? .? :3
'1 FI I.t, / H ? ?, ?II I ? I ' '? 1?, ''II'I 1,1. 'II.' '?'p1 (?IgI '?' 1•f'P ? M i !-:? ? ? Q
• 1 ?lyti/ ` r _?il?\ I 1 r ' 1 1fi If rl'F I 1• .I I ? r--. 1 ... ?? U
o lL iE ' I' 1 'P I E t 1? 11 ,? i ,.., '? N } • i O
I'1}'1' lit 1111 w '? ?f '?E I Ihl : ?r O
(" ,? _. r. .- ?•°Y' t,rI1'' I' li 1 I, 1'IE 1'' i} EI I' i; x + •D ••a ! O q
.?? l ' 1 `• .? .h11 ( _ D
t ?? I 11 7 tl.?l I11' I1 III[
Yi
IT I w. r i I E 1 x L• 1 a 1
•l. - e..??` •....?-' „ ?r.. _\ ? .'. III ? 1 ?I 1 ?' I? Ilitll ,?, w IIE1 , ?, ,I?1 ? ` o o _ r• ? p f?
(ul? ? ?\•I \ `' ' I?
j ?? I E ?,I CCC..,JJJ cD M
.. , 1 1\7 ,`??. 1-?C \\ III Ip°I'1,• I - `SI 'il1 1 iE ?` IL. 41 y d OO ..
} t `^'_=?_?J 'll I ? `\ ?? "m li, ' '? ' 1t`\ 1• ter` P°' ,??--J??-1 ? '' s+
COO
1 •? N• t
_4
U, CD 71?p
O
L! 0 CL #4
0 00 00,
O N _ 1 • \ ° - ANC K • • rtt?.
v AE O q> •P n m '• m r 1`) o I: rF• ', / ti OL\
ON-
CD
??90\
m ?< n c I Mn
4.4? 7tlk
CE)
A4 t1j
i. i j I ?aJ lei \tJ'(p j
OD V.?
•
4. A
tTj
o/ -- •4 r••• D N / a o_ o f
' • . r •A 10
Ock
w o
z
/G4 111 0
It 9?
0?, It
=3 U)
10
Cb =3
??" k O D y o / i (gyp
v' ?_ __-?•'?? y x 0
O N / ?? 1 i O d
-on 0"
u ' Yr- - n
'- , n4 ? ;;. I fir' O
Arm
/ ri 11,1' i' ,'I 1 IIf I{.I
- I Il 1, '?x„I ?` 1 , I'f I l if 1 ,I?I?E1 'rl''K!I I I' ,..?.
1 ' #' '1.1 ' F ?,1 I?r 1' 19 I ?r It
I h'
I Ij' ?' , I I I }? I r E ?. Ili 1 1 ,
iI '?,
t11'Ii I' i??` I # I}I J?? IAI
1'?,'II.?E I, I111?11? rl??!
JUG. -IY 00(TUE) 13:44 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT TEL:[phone] P. 001
1 C)
NORTH CAROLINA DERaTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
? ? DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
_ FAX TRANSMISSION
Date l1
To Z-4,\ l ?1ess
ofwe 733- 5? 9 Q ?\?
Fax# _ ? ?5?
From
1 ?
#Pages (including cover shee?
?osw?
Comments: ' a A ?o r i t' -?- Nv
?'r ?^ i'Yto?7 rTi
As 0
?dlv
f
- 9 ` dJ l??re i Olvt ?D' J'I?I"N?/?h ;nil
i c f`e? ? ?'1 J`?dl o? l y
Mailing Address: 1638 Mail Service Center Raleign,1. Y% , c 1699-1638 6??M?
Physical Address. 2728 Capital 131vd Raleigh NC 21604 Phone[phone])Fax[phone]
E,Mail Address : DCMFrontdeshCncmaiL net - I Web Address: dcm2. enr. srate. nc. us
4
JUL.-11'00(TUE) 13:44 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT TEL:[phone] P. 002
O~ ?
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
RECEIVED
JUN 2 7 2000
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COASTAL. MANAGEMENT
JAMES B. BUNT JR Divisim OF HIGHWAYS DAVID McCOY
GOY MOR
6C,
June 22, 2000
Mr, Ted Tyndall
Morehead City District Manager
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and ?..... `_ :.-sources
151- B Highway 24 Hestron Plaza
i
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Dear Mr. Tyndall,
SrOX-TARY
In reference to the enclosed (June 5) letter from McLean Contracting Company
regarding the removal of John Lawson Bridge over toe Neuse river in New Bern, North.
Carolina. McLean Contracting Company proposes a revised alternative to their existing
demolitidn procedure on the pivot pier of the John Lawson Bridge. (Refer to page 2 of
letter) Mr. Mike Bell (USACE) has concurred with this procedure as long as CAMA
finds this to be acceptable. The North Carolina Department of Transportation requests
approval of this procedure to be included into the existing permit. Please let me know if
there is additional information required and if this might be covered with a letter of
refinement.
Please contact me if you have if you require any additional information,
Jay Johnson
Division 2
Environmental Officer
i
CC: Mr. Doug Hugget, Major Permits Coordinator $CDENR. CAMA
Mr. Ed Eatmon, P.E. Construction Engineer NCPOT Div.2
Mr, John Rouse, Jr., P.E. Resident Engineer NCbOT Div-2
Mr. Neil Lassiter, Jr., P.E. Division Engineer N(;DUT Div
s
Division Two • P.b. Box 1587 9 Greenville, N.C. 27835
M.-11'OO(TUE) 13:45 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT
-,LIT =i?ra;.TFUI:TIi?ld Fa,-:91L1-514-4r61
AffCQNt*AGT1NG C041PANY
North Carolina Departtaent of Transportation
265 South Glenburnie Road
New Bern, North Carolina 28500
Attention Mr. John Rouse
Gentlemen:
TEL:[phone] P. 003
Jun 1•j '00 10:2-1 A?EIVED

2000
JUN 144
J e 5 ?Q
RC: Our o. M-4880
North Car ant of
Transportation Projecz
8. 1170807, Craven County
Removal of Existing John Lawson
Bridge Over the Neuse River
New Bern, North Carolina
As we are all aware, the specifications for this projjct state that `The existing bridge shall be
removed by merhods such that no pan of the bridge or any debris wilt fall into the water. ° We feel
that, to date, we have been reasonably successful complyin; nth this requirement.
We have been reviewing several methods for removal of the pivot pier and, unfortunately none
of these methods can comply with a strict interpretation o? the specifications limiting debris falling
into the water. h
We have investigated the use of explosives to remo?re the pier. The pier would be wrapped
with heavy wire mesh, holes drilled in the pier and -1-arges set in the pier to fracture the
concrete. The fractured concrete would there be removed tt-ith a clamshell bucket into a barge for
disposal.
The disadvantages of this method are:
1. Due to the number of piles supporting the pier, wire mesh could not be
installed under the pier and there would be no method to retain the
fractured concrete on the bottom of the pier Thom, falling into the water.
2. Setting of explosive charges in situations'such as this is not an enact
science. We have witnessed a similar project where the explosive charges
were calculated to fracture a mooring dolphin of similar size to this pivot
pier. Instead of fracturing the dolphin the dolphin and all supporting piles
were destroyed.
3. The explosives could not provide a good concrete fracture pattern below the
bottom mats of reinforcing steel. This wood present difficulty in removing
the support piles.
We have investigated the possibility of saw cutting the pivot pier using a diamond wise saw.
This saw has the capacity to cut r- rou&,, the thickness of the entire pivot pier, however there is no
reasonable method to cut the piles below the pier cap. Therefore, in order to utilize this method of
removal, it would be necessary to cut the pivot pier inzp• saiall enough pieces so that our crane
n,
could remove a section of the pier with the piles to the number of piles and their
arrangement, an unreasonably number of saw cuts would have to be made in the pier to utilize this
procedure.
s mo McLEAN WAY • GLEN BUFIN)g, MD 21060-6M0 . 410-553-8700 • r AX 410.553.8718 '
WE BUILD ON SAFErY
a
JUL. -11' OO ME) 13:45 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT
.ijOT T'INSTF-1-117I011 F3; :919-e,1a-.tl?61
North Carolina Department of Transportation
New Bern, North Carolina
Attention: Mr. John Rouse
.Iusi.e 5, 2000
TEL:[phone] P. 004
:?i.?ri 1`:? 'Oil 1???'=_ F.03
Page 2 of 2
After review of the various demolition options Trm ---h-°? ro utilize the following procedure:
1. Install turbidity curtain around pivot pier.
2. Break existing pivot pier concrete using a demolition hammer mounted on a
hydraulic excavator. The excavator shall be mounted on a barge.
3. Use a clamshell bucket suspended from a floating crane to remove broken
concrete.
41 Remove pivot pier concrete around piles until are exposed.
5. Brokers concrete shall be loaded onto a barge, rehandled and removed to the
Bridgeton Recycling Facility.
i
G. Remove entire pile by either jetting or vibrati: g pile.
7. Due to the number of piles supporting the pier and their tight pattern, it is
not possible to install a shield under the pivot pier. Therefore, it is assumed
and will be unavoidable that a certain amount of concrete rubble will fall
into the river within the confines of the turbidity curtain during the course of
the pivot pier removal. Immediately upon removal of all pivot pier piles,
McLean shall remove all concrete rubble generated by this demolition
procedure from the river bottom.
L
8. The turbidity curtain shall remain in place until this operation is complete
ante- s earlier removal is approved by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation.
f
It is our op=on that. his procedure represents the only reasonable method of removes of the
pivot pier and we request your approval of this procedure:!
Please feel free to contact me if you require any additional information.
Yours ? ery truly,
corgal Aos giant, III
price President & Chief Irngineer
{
GB Jneh
cc; Al Mason (Field Office)
d,'Le- u- 5 ems.. S ??,?? M eGtl, ?l eS
64 E
i
. JUL.-11'OO(TUE) 13:45 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A, Preston Howard, Jr,,. P. E., Director
Mr. B, J. O'Quinn
NC DOT
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Dear Mr. O'Quinn:
June 21, 1995
30
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal
Clean Water Act,
Proposed Replacement of Bridge 1 Lr the
Neuse River and the Widening of Bridge 83/84
on US 70 Bypass over the,Trent I iver in New Bern
Project # 95123, COE # 199401568,
Craven County
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 2997 issued to NC DOT dated
1995. This Certification replaces the one issued I June '1995.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate, to contact us.
Attachments
2997mod.wgc
S' erely,
eston o , Jr. P.E.
L
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers t
Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
Washington DBM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. Doug Huggett. Division of Coastal Manageiinent
Central Files
Fifth US Coast Guard District t
Don O'Toole, DOT Design Services Branch
21 June
P.O. Box 29635, Weigh. North Carolina 27626535 TelOphone 919-733-7015 FAX [phone]A96
An Equd oppodunttyAfflrme ive Action Employer SMracycied/ Ic%pot-consumer paper
TEL:[phone] P. 005
09WA
A &7-. 07A
OIL
IDEHNFI
JUL, -11' 00 (TUE) 13:45 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT TEL:[phone] P. 006
NORTH CAROLINA
Craven County
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section
401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to NC
DOT resulting in 2,5 acres of SAV impacts (1.94 acres temporary and 0.6 acres permanent),
29.88 acres (12.10 ha) of permanent fill of wetlands, 4.57 acres (1.852 ha) of temporary fill
of wetlands, 3,81 acres (1,5422 ha) permanent fill of waters and 13.30 acres (5.3834 ha) of
temporary fill of waters in Craven County pursuant to an application filed on the 22nd day of
February 1995, and modified on the 23rd day of LIV.oy .u replace bridge 28 on US 17
and widen bridges 83/84 on US 70 Bypass in New Bern,
The Application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the
waters of the Neuse River and its tributaries in conjunc?on with the proposed development in
Craven County will not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and
discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not
violate Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
Condition(s) of Certification: ,
1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant
increase in- turbidity outside the area of construction or construction related
discharge (50 NTUs in streams and riveri not designated as trout waters by
DEM; 25 NTUs in all saltwater classes, aid all lakes and reservoirs; 10 NTUs
in trout waters). 3
2. Wetland mitigation is required for this prbject. DEM agrees to after-the-fact
wetland mitigation for this project provirlP,d that grading, and planting of trees
is undertaken nr for to the 401 Certificaubn approval of the New Bern Bypass
(TIP No. R-2301 or other number that pexforms the same purpose and need).
Written DEM approval is required for the mitigation plan before DEM's
approval of TIP # R-2301 or its equivalent.
3. Barges are to be floated and then sunk e4d may not be dragged along the
bottom for positioning.
4. DOT will use a shell for the drilled shaft: A turbidity curtain will be installed
outside of each shell. The turbidity curtains are to be properly maintained and
retained in the water until construction ii complete.
JUL..-11'00(TUE) 13:46 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT TEL:[phone] P. 007
Water Quality Certification 2997
Page 2
5. DOT is proposing several construction method that result in temporary fill in
wetlands. If trees are removed, DOT shall revegetate with the same species (or
others with DEM approval) within one year after project completion. If SA'V''s
are impacted by a temporary construction technique, replanting with the
appropriate species shall be undertaken within one year after project completion
unless the method under condition 7 is selected.
6. The application package does not clearly list the various construction methods.
They are as follows:
Method 1: Temporary work bridge
Method 2: Temporary access roads
Method 3: Temporary umber mats
Method 4: Temporary grounded barges
The following are acceptable construction' methods for the wetland sites listed:
i
Wetland site Acceptable construction method
IA 1 only
2 1 or 3
2A 1 or 4
3 1, 2, or 3
4 1, 2, or 3
5 Loop BA 1 or 3
7 Ramp DA r 1 or 4
A draft study plan shall be developed an4 submitted to DEM for review and
comment for each location that DOT proposes to use method 3. The plan will
include pre-construction and control sample points to gather information such
as: the elevation above mean sea level, tl#e percent species composition, the
percent coverage, and the height of vegetation. DOT will be responsible for
annually monitoring all sample points after removal of the timber mats for a
minimum of three (3) years. A copy of the report shall be submitted to DEM
no later than 3 years and 3 months after the mats are removed. If recovery is
rapid (4 years), then mats may be acceptable for future projects. If after 3
years the wetland has not recovered to the satisfaction of DEM, DOT will be
responsible for developing a recovery elan. This plan must then be shall be
submitted to DEM for review. DO i w114 oe responsible for implementing this
plan within the fourth year (or earlier) after the mats are removed.
7. In lieu of mitigation for SAV impacts, the planting of clean shellfish clutch in
areas of potential shellfish habitat is acceptable. An agreement between DOT
and NC Division of Marine Fisheries shall be reached prior to initiation of
construction.
JUL, -11' 00(TUE) 13.46 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT TEL:[phone] P. 008
Water Quality Certification 2997
Page 3
8. If discharges of drilling fluids are proposed by DOT or its conttactors, an
NPDES permit should be obtained from DEM.
9. If an upland diked disposal area with return water will be used, a 401
Certification will be needed (Nationwide 16).
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this
Certification. This Certification shall become null and void unless the above conditions are
made conditions of the Federal 404 and/or Coastal Area Management Act Permit. This
Certification shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or LAMA permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory
hearing upon written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification.
This request trust be in the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the
North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O.
Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. Unless such demands are made, this Certification
shall be final and binding.
This the 21st day of June, 1995.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
I
WQC2997.mod

.
ate/--o?
r

„ t
t7,aze? M,
z9?
wiz sad
`? ?• ` ?, ? ? emu- ? s:?2?y??
?f.
A4,
0 0
l
e?w?aAd, -4- 1
DEC. '18' 03 (THU) 17 : 43 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT
,
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Dlvlslan of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr.,. p.E., Director
Mr. B. J. O'Quinn
NC DOT
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Dear Mr. O'Quinn:
rune 21, 1995
V
au``?2?,1
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal
Clean Water Act,
Proposed Replacement of Bridge 28 on US 17 over the
Neuse River and the Widening of Bridge 83/84
on US 74 Bypass over the,Treat River in New Bern
Project # 95123, COE # 199401568,
Craven County
P. 002
Attached hereto is- a copy of Certification No. 2997 issued to NC DOT dated 21 June
1995. This Certification replaces the one issued 1 June 1995.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Attachments
2997mod.wgc
P S' erely,
. Lon o , Jr. P.E.
cc; Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
Washington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Mr. Doug Huggett, Division of Coastal Management
Central Files
Fifth US Coast Guard District
Don O'Toole, DOT Design Services Branch
TEL:[phone]
A. L OIL
[D 1E F=?L
f'.o. Box 29535. Rdelgh. North Garvlha 2762641535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity AffirmOlve Actlon Employer 50% recycled/ 1096 post-consumer paper
DEC. -18' 03 JHU) 17:43 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT
NORTH CAROLINA
Craven County
CERTIFICATION
TEL:[phone] P. 003
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section
401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to NC
DOT resulting in 2.5 acres of SAV impacts (194 acres temporary and 0.6 acres permanent),
29.88 acres (12.10 ha) of permanent fill of wetlands, 4.57 acres (1.852 ha) of temporary fill
of wetlands, 3.81 acres (1.5422 ha) permanent fill of waters and 13.30 acres (5.3834 ha) of
temporary fill of waters in Craven County pursuant to an application filed on the 22nd day of
February 1995, and modified on the 23rd day of May 1995 to replace bridge 28 on US 17
and widen bridges 83/84 on US 70 Bypass in New Bern.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the
waters of the Neuse River and its tributaries in conjunction with the proposed development in
Craven County will not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and
discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not
violate Sections 301, 302, 303, 305, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95217 if conducted in
accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant
increase in-turbidity outside the area of construction or construction related
discharge (50 NTUs in streams and rivers not designated as trout waters by
DEM; 25 NTUs in all saltwater classes, and all lakes and reservoirs; 10 NTUs
in trout waters).
2. Wetland mitigation is required for this project. DEM agrees to after-the-fact
wetland mitigation for this project provided that grading, and planting of trees
is undertaken rior to the 401 Certification approval of the New Bern Bypass
(TfP No. R-2301 or other number that performs the same purpose and need).
Written DEM approval is required for the mitigation plan before DEM's
approval of TIP # R-2301 or its equivalent.
3. Barges are to be floated and then sunk and may not be dragged along the
bottom for positioning.
4. DOT will use a shell for the drilled shaft. A turbidity curtain will be installed
outside of each shell. The turbidity cunains are to be properly maintained and
retained in the water until construction is complete.
DEC.'1813 MU) 11:43 UEHNR COSTAL MGMT TEL:[phone] P, 004
"Water Quahry Certification 2997
Page 2
5. DOT is proposing several construction method that result in temporary fill in
wetlands. if trees are removed, DOT shall revegetate with the same species (or
others with DEM approval) within one year after project completion. If SAV's
are impacted by a temporary construction technique, replanting with the
appropriate species shall be undertaken within one year after project completion
unless the method under condition 7 is selected.
5. The application package does not clearly list the various construction methods.
They are as follows;
Method 1. Temporary work bridge
Method 2; Temporary access roads
Method 3: Temporary timber mats
Method 4: Temporary grounded barges
The following are acceptable construction methods for the wetland sites listed:
Wetland site Acceptable construction method
1 1 or 3
IA 1 only
2 1 or 3
2A - 1 or 4
3 1, 2, or 3
4 1, 2, or 3
5 Loop BA 1 or 3
7 Ramp DA 1 or a
A draft study plan shall be developed and submitted to DEM for review and
comment for each location that DOT proposes to use method 3. The plan will
include pre-construcrion and control sample points to gather information such
as: the elevation above mean sea level, the percent species composition, the
percent coverage, and the height of vegetation. DOT will be responsible for
annually monitoring all sample points after removal of the timber mats for a
minimum of three (3) years. A copy of the report shall be submitted to DEM
no later than 3 years and 3 months after the mats are rernoved.. If recovery is
rapid (<3 years), then mats may be acceptable for future projects. Tf after 3
years the wetland has not recovered to the satisfaction of DEM, DOT will be.
responsible for developing a recovery plan. This plan must then be shall be
submitted to DEM for review. DOT will be responsible for implementing this
plan within the fourth year (or earlier) after the mats are removed.
7. In lieu of mitigation for SAV impacts, the planting of clean shellfish clutch in
areas of potential shellfish habitat is acceptable. An agreement between DOT
and NC Division of Marine Fisheries shall be reached prior to initiation of
construction.
DEC.--18'03JHU) 17:43 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT TEL:[phone]
Water Quality Certification 2997
Page 3
8. If discharges of drilling fluids are proposed by DOT or its contractors, an
NPDES permit should be obtained from DEM.
9. If an upland diked disposal area with return water will be used, a 401
Certification will be needed (Nationwide 16).
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this
Certification. This Certification shall become null and void unless the above conditions are
made conditions of the Federal 404 and/or Coastal Area Management Act Permit, This
Certification shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory
hearing upon written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification.
This request must be in the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the
North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O.
Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. Unless such demands are made, this Certification
shall be final and binding.
This the 21st day of June, 1995.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WHowaren , r. P.E.
P. 005
WQC2997.mod
Permit Class Permit Number
MODIFICATION/NHNOR STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA .81-95
Department of.Environment and'Natural Resources
r ana
'J ..
Coastal Resources Commission
APR - 7
for
X major Development in an Area of Environmental Concen
WETLANDS GROUP
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118 WATER UALITY SECTION
X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to N C Dept of Transportation, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611
authorizing development in Craven County at Neuse and Trent Rivers at New Bern
as requested in the permittee's application dated letter dated 1/30/98 including attached
workplan drawings, 8, dated June 1997.
This permit, issued on - 3 °aS 9 2S , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may
be subiect to a fine, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
1) This minor modification authorizes the construction of the "Lengyel" and "Sawmill" mitigation sites,
as depicted in the attached workplan drawings. Included in this site construction is the excavation
of 0.017 acres of coastal wetlands, for the purposed of creating a tidal creek into the interior of the
Lengyel Site.
2) The additional 0.017 acres of coastal wetland impact must mitigated for in accordance with the
mitigation requirements of the original permit.
NOTE: The permittee is encouraged to meet with the Division's mitigation coordinator prior to
mitigation site construction.
attached sheet for Additional Conditions
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or
other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the
issuing date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work
initiation or continuance, as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on-site to Department
personnel when.the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification not
covered hereunder requires further Departmental approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
December 31, 1998
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees
that your project is`'consistent with the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DEHNR and the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.

~' \ -4 -, Roger N. Schecter, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Permittee
ti
N.C. Dept. Of Transportation
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit #81-95
Page 2 of 2
3) This minor modification must be attached to the original of Permit No. 81-95, which was issued
on 6/26/95, as well as all subsequent modifications, refinements and amendments, and all
documents must be readily available on site when a Division representative inspects the project
for compliance.
4) All conditions and stipulations of the active permit remain in force under this modification unless
altered herein.
1
1
1
1
1
1

US 17/NC 55 NEUSE RIVER AND US 70 BUSINESS
TRENT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS
CRAVEN COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT No. BR-OOOS(33)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1170801
TIP Nos. B-2531 & B-2532
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c) BY THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
COOPERATING AGENCIES
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
D e o Approval
/ /,i-r-/ q "?_p
Dat of A proval
n. rranKnn VICK, r.t., manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
C
ZZ22??
- /L'?
Foe Nich I s L. Graf, P.E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
' Federal Highway Administration N.C. Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Ave., Suite 410 P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27601 Raleigh, NC 27611
[phone] [phone]
This statement documents the need for transportation improvements crossing the Neuse and Trent
Rivers in Craven County. Existing and projected conditions in the study area are described, and
alignments are evaluated with respect to social, economic, and environmental impacts.
1
4.77
A

'.n
11 rl
I1 "
y?
ct?d rLStt ??t t (516) : rra 7-11 lral•191•I 1H1 ;Hm in 0 1 R R i Rt : t t I N I t'F,
,o
R'* 0
tnd t7'?tt s?rZ- rF ir, :nf4 1R! _Ir4t.;"7t; nH! 1I+n? -!n nTr!:CTT nt:bZ IN
I
0
HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & SERGE
ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS
US 17 NEUSE RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT(B-2531/B-2532)
AGENCY COORDINATION MEETING AGENDA
NOVEMBER 18, 1993
1. BACKGROUND
NOTES:
It. ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS
A. Alternative A
NOTES:
B. Alternative B
NOTES:
C. Alternative C
NOTES:
D. Alternative D
NOTES:
III. NATURAL RESOURCES FIELD SURVEYS
NOTES:

US 17 NEUSE RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT(B-2531/13-2532)
AGENCY COORDINATION MEETING AGENDA
NOVEMBER 18, 1993
PAGE 2
IV. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
A. Wetland Impacts/Mitigation
NOTES:
B. Relocations
NOTES:
C. Community Impacts/Support
NOTES:
V. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE C
NOTES:
14199/NEUSEMTG.NOT
Olk-
COMPARISON OF REASONABLE AND
FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
z
6
Alternative Total Wetlands Impacted Relocations

(acres)
Residences Businesses Total
' ority] [Non-profit]
A 12* 4* 16*
87 [N/A] [N/A]
B 86 3* 4* 7*
[N/A] [N/A]
C 86 3 4 7
[3] [1]
D 72 37 10 47
[21] [1l
*estimated
rel&wet.tbl
A_
Wetland Plant Community
Type Code*
POWH E ?/-
E2EM1N
E2SS7P
E2FO6P
PF06
PF06Fg
PF03
PSS6B
Preferred Alternative
Wetland Areas Impacted
Impacted Areas
Name (acres)
Intertidal Emergent Marsh
Intertidal Scrub-Shrub
Swamp Forest
Mixed Hardwood Flat (partially altered)
Deciduous Bay Forest (partially altered)
Evergreen Bay Forest (partially altered)
Nontidal Scrub-Shrub (partially altered)
Open Water
TOTAL WETLAND AND OPEN WATER LOSS
According to the Cowardin classification system.

4.14
13.08
0.0
4.48
0.0
57.45
2.04
5.13
86.32

Tc?V- NI -T' R I\ I
r
m
=
m D
JJ ?

z O
O

D T

z r
D
a
m
z
D
m ?
I
I?
D `-
Cf)

SHEET 1 O
r ?
I
1
m. f
? L33N5 N?idW
7y ? Z ?
I?
J

l Z y ? i
m C) .
V s
04
4t
n {' {'
A
C!) Z
m
c?
= D
C
W
F. " D v -o m
t °D n :l x
oo ° m
cn Cl)
m
n?
i N-1
. - :.
f

?N
I I
m
? 00m
/ •----
k
1 x
m ?
? m
D
m
m r
cn
Z C)

z
> Cf)
5 m c^ 2
c

L Co
m
`
~ = Z
M
O
c -?
o>
D
M
? r
-- m
m
m
m
z
--4
r?
D
r 1
C!7
C) ,:
c 11
•C
z

c
>
m

n
m
N

O
0) m

m
.P
J.
A
m
N

m SyFFT C
/ m
m / JJ
m z
m
z D
m U' m
_ / m D
r z O -? D CC)
I
s, m
Cl) m z
C7 C m D n
m
Cl) O
D =
o C l x
z
03 IN-
a O ??•f T 1? ?1
z I ?
.- n r I
I
x
= o
z
'c, Z ?? C
U 06-R,
A:t
T
m
cn
f ? \ -? .'ylnr ,I
b m
?v
Cl)
D
m \
z y` U
n E+ m
rn
v m c ;..
m A rn' ,,,; m I \ y1
T s ,.? 4 co
C n m m ?a5 \
4 t
70 A `:? ?O o
m m 5
JR, O z0 O z \
1O y ;11 m m O
O ?tv + m O
`emu; ` s r
Cl)
f^
I
. I
p
WT
•T
Cl)
m c '. A' F'
cn
p
8.
n~ ?? m ,? ?Mr:,
' rn
'r. r ti
71
Cj)
n' a
O •?'• :L,F ?= .?„ ? -mss ... i ?
N ? ,l
03
? •, * tiutp,? ' ' "? ' xis +?.w ?c±•t" ?; ?w: ?F `?,
3 wy c as y n a. 1 ktt J.i ' u
f ? ?, n s
iv Aw
D m -? o o Cf) m , $lf
cn z C/) C()
m m ry -
m m t r J3}±
O 0 ?+ ti
air
NCt
I
I
0
-- ------- ---

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
9 March 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Nancy Smith
Regional Manager
Washington Regional office
Deborah Sawyer 4'A'.4- a-kc--
Environmental Technician
Washington Regional office
r?
19,94
SUBJ: A-95 Review
Project #94-0590
US 17/NC 55 Neuse River and US 70 Business Trent River
Bridge Replacements
State Project No. 8.1170801
Craven County
The above subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division
of Environmental Management will review this project upon receipt of the CAMA
Major Permit application. There is additional information which this office will
request of the NC DOT. The information needed is as follows:
Will the new bridges be part of the proposed alternative for the Highway
17 Bypass of New Bern? If yes, will the NC DOT submit the corridor so the
project can be reviewed for all impacts?
If you have any questions or comments, please call this office at
[phone]. Thank you.

NOTICE OF A. PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE PROPOSED US 1.7/NC 55 NEUSE RIVER AND
US 70 BUSINESS TRENT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS IN NEW BERN
B-2531 & B-2532 Project 8.1170801 Craven County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above
public hearing on March 14, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. in the Craven
Community College Auditorium, 800 College Court.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the proposed location
and design, right of way requirements and procedures, relocation
advisory assistance, and the State-Federal relationship. The
hearing will be open to those present for statements, questions,
comments, and/or submittal of material pertaining to the proposed
project. Additional material may be submitted for a period of 15
days from the date of the hearing to: C. B. Goode, Jr., P.E., P.O.
Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611.
The proposed project will construct a multi-lane fixed span bridge
to replace the John Lawson Bridge over the Neuse River from James
City to just south of Sandy Point in Bridgeton and will
rehabilitate the Alfred Cunningham Bridge over the Trent River.
Additional right of way and the relocation of homes and businesses
will be required.
A map setting forth the location and design and a copy of the
Environmental Assessment are available for public review at the
Department of Transportation's District Office, 601 South
Glenburnie Road in New Bern. Copies of the Environmental
Assessment are also available for review at local public libraries.
Anyone desiring additional information about the public hearing may
contact C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E. at the above address or phone
[phone].
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary aids and
services for any qualified disabled person interested in attending
the public hearing. To request the above you may call Mr. Goode at
the above number no later than seven days prior to the date of the
hearing.

' US 17/NC 55 NEUSE RIVER AND US 70 BUSINESS
TRENT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS
CRAVEN COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT No. BR-OOOS(33)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1170801
TIP Nos. B-2531 & B-2532
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Documentation Prepared by
HOWARD NEEDLES
TA
MMEN& BERGENDOFF
,
e
CA p ,,
10
t
r
Thomas Keith Strickland
, SEAL
z 's 16672 1

,' Project Manager /+/
c) 4 yo :F,y f;z,=

•
•. G? NEE •
?'
•
??
'•,, qS'••......••.
?
Q'

' sees ms tO
For the
i NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
1 J.A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., U i H ad
Consultant Engineering Unit
1

I' SIIl?ARY
' S.1 TYPE OF ACTION
' This is a Federal Highway Administration Environmental Assessment.
S.2 PROJECT LOCATION

The proposed action is located near the confluence of the Neuse and Trent Rivers
in New. Bern, Craven County, North Carolina.. At this location US 17 and NC 55
cross east-west over the Neuse River on the John Lawson bridge, and US 70 \.
Business and SR 1004 cross north-south over the Alfred Cunningham bridge on the
Trent River, joining at an intersection in Downtown New Bern.
S
3 PROJE
.
CT NEEDS
The proposed' action would address the following project needs:
• Relieve highway traffic congestion in Downtown New Bern;
• Replace/rehabilitate two ageing, over-capacity, two-lane, swing-span;,
steel bridge structures;
-
• Eli
i
a
m
n
te/reduce highway vs. river
traffic, conflicts at these two
river
crossing locations;,
• Improve safety;

• Improve emergency vehicle access across the rivers; and

• Promote local and regional economic growth.

S
S-1

x 1
S
4
.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
During the course of this Environmental Assessment (EA) study, a no-action and
several build alternatives were evaluated. The action/build alternatives
included: Mass Transit, Transportation System 'Management (TSM), as well as
several preliminary build alternatives. Ten preliminary build alternatives were
initially developed through> input obtained.from_previous studies, the general '
public, elected public officials, as well as from local, state and federal
agencies. A no-action alternative, which by definition does not meet the project
needs, was also included in the study as a point of comparison for project
impacts. These alternatives. were assessed as to how well they met the identified
project needs when considering natural resource, cultural resource, socio-
economic and other criteria. Among the issues 'considered were`:

• Water Quality
• TrafficCongestion
• New'.Bern Historic District
• Wetland Losses
• community Cohesion`
Aesthetics
• Residenti
l
\
a
and Business Relocations
Noise
• Downtown New Bern economy
• Access of'Emergency Service Vehicles (especially,by Ambulances)
• Aviation
• Navigation
Th
e Mass Transit alternative was deemed infeasible and was eliminated due to the
rural nature of the immediate project service area. The Transportation System
Management alternative was also deemed infeasible and eliminated. 'Although this 1
alternative would address the inadequacy and deterioration of the existing

structures, it did not address escalating highway traffic vs. river traffic ,
conflicts nor DOWntown'New Bern traffic congestion issues. _Of the ten build
alternatives,' several were eliminated due to their expected' environmental ,
impacts. During this assessment it was,also determined that a high-level bridge
S-2
fir
' structure over the Trent River, near the location of the current bridge was not
a feasible alternative due to potential impacts to Downtown New Bern's business
and historic districts. Two of these build alternatives were selected for more
detailed evaluations, along with the no-action alternative for comparison of
' impacts. Both of the build alternatives selected for more detailed study cross
the Neuse River in the vicinity of. James City and extend to Sandy Point in
Bridgeton.
During the detailed study, concerns of the Sandy Point community arose from the
extent of residential and business relocations and disruptions resulting from the
alternatives bisecting their community. As a result of this concern, an
' additional alignment alternative was developed which reducedimpacts to the Sandy
Point community. A fourth alternative was added to provide an option which would`
' avoid reconstructing the existing US 70 Bypass/US 70 Business interchange. Three'
of the build alternatives, (Alternatives A, B and D) were eliminated from further
' cons ideration,,thereby 'leaving only one reasonable and feasible build alternative
(Alternative' C). After Alternative c was compared with the no-build alternative,
Alternative C was selected as the Preferred Alternative.
S:5 Potential Protect Impacts
•. Water Quality
Water quality will be affected by short-term construction activities which
disturb the bottom sediments, and ;long-term non-point-source highway
runoff.
• Traffic Congestion
' Traffic congestion is associated with the crossing of the Neuse and Trent
Rivers when traffic is delayed by the limited capacity and, the opening of
the existing two aged, two-lane, swing-span, steel bridges for river
traffic. The proposed` project would reduce traffic congestion in the
study area by increasing traffic capacity over the Neuse River and
reducing future traffic'volumea on the Alfred Cunningham bridge over the
' Trent River. In addition, air quality should' improve with the proposed
action with fewer vehicles idling in traffic.
S-3

• Wetland Losses'
Impacts to wetlands were avoided wherever possible and minimized per the
Clean Water Act of 1977 and the EPA/COE Memorandum of Agreement. As a
water dependent project, however, it is recognized that impacts may not be
totally`.unavoidable.Wetland impacts to six wetland types amount to 86.32 '
acres, while non-wetland impacts amount to 103.27 acres.

• Community Cohesion
Community cohesion in James City would be affected by the displacements of '
three residences '. and one community center there, Minimalimpacts would
result from extending the control.of access along US 70 from Elder Street
to Williams Road, with a break_,in control of access at Meadows. Street.
• Aesthetic
s;
The proposed action would"alter<the current scenic downriver view of the
Neuse River from Union Point Park. Since the proposed bridge would be
located a minimum of 2,400 -feet from Union Point Park, and the proposed
bridge spans would be longer than a normal trestle bridge, the proposed
action would have'no visual effect on Union Point Park
r
• Residential and Business Relocations
An estimated-three households and,four businesses would be displaced by
the proposed' action. All.three of the households are minority. One non- '
profit business, the James City Community Lodge, would require relocation.
Minimizing residential and business relocations was of primary concern,, 1
but was balanced. with project need to promote regional-economic
growth. ,
• Noise '
Noise impacts resulting during; construction and by projected vehicular
traffic were.considered for the James City and Bridgeton communities: A
total of 69 residences'and 6`businesses would be impacted by the proposed '
action.' Noise impact's during
construction will be temporary.
,
S-4

1

1

fl

G
• Downtown New.Bern Economy
Impacts to the Downtown New Bern economy, were considered in the
evaluation., Access to southeast downtown from the south"across the Trent
River was a primary project need:
• Access by"Emergency Service Vehicles (especially by ambulances)
The John Lawson bridge is currently the primary route for ambulances
crossing the Neuse River from eastern `Craven and Pamlico Counties.
• Aviation
The location of a new river crossing in relation to the location of the
Craven County Regional Airport was a critical issue as it relates to
current plan's to extend runway. 4-22. The 'location and 'height of a new
high-level bridge could impact the safe operation of the airport and its
growth, and contribution to the region. Lighting conflicts and
encroachments into the aircraft approach "slope" of the `runway will be
avoided or minimized to ensure safety for air and highway traffic.
•. Navigation
River navigation impact issues involved meeting horizontal and vertical
clearance requirements of the U. S. Coast Guard and local marinas and river
users. A high-level bridge over the Neuse River would eliminate highway
and river traffic conflicts that currently exist because of the existing
swing-span bridges. However, existing conflicts with traffic on the
Alfred Cunningham Bridge over the Trent River will continue.
S.6 PROJECT COORDINATION
Recognizing the importance of agency and public involvement into projects such
as this, the study team, actively sought and received review agency and public
comment at all stages of this study. Comment included written and verbal
comment, in person and anonymously. All input was considered in the evaluation
process.
S-5
• Agency Involvement
This project was coordinated with appropriate government agencies
per NEPA requirements. Involvement and input was sought from 12 '
federal departments, services, divisions and councils; 18 state
departments, divisions, units and programs; and 7 local
jurisdictions, commissions and councils. ,
• Public Participation '
The public participation component of this project study included
requests for information, 'as well reporting on the progress and
status of the study itself. Public involvement in the project
involved: -
• Publication of 3 newsletters as the study progressed. The -'
Newsletter mailing list comprised over 300 addresses;
• A call-forwarding telephone line from the New Bern area
directly to.the project team in Raleigh;
• 2 public officials meetings;
• 2lcit;izens information workshops (first meeting was attended
by over 80 citizens who suggested 8 of the study alignment
alternatives evaluated in the initial alternatives
evaluation s;`the second meeting was attended by over 300 ,
citizens who submitted over 150 project comment cards);
. r
The study team met; with 4 interest groups and organizations
• Several articles
describing the.,. project ..and notifying the
public of opportunities to participate in the process were
' published.
In completing this environmental assessment study, 22 local government and
community organizations passed resolutions supporting and recommending the
preferred alternative. This demonstrates an extraordinary level of public
consensus with the study results and the perceived public need for this project.
S.7 DESCRIPTION.OF THE PREFERRED ALTSRNAT
IVE
The preferred alternative wouldreplace the existing US 17/NC 55 John Lawson
bridge over the Neuse River and rehabilitate,the existing US 70, Business/SR'1004,
" Alfred Cunningham bridge over the Trent River.
• Replacement of the John Lawson Bridge would involve the construction
of an 8,400-foot, multi-lane (4-lane), fixed-span, high-level bridge
over the Neuse River from James City on the west to just south of
Sandy Point in Bridgeton on the east. Ramps from this bridge would
extend over the Neuse River to connect the bridge to the existing US
70/US 70 Business interchange in James City. The new bridge would
connect with US 17 and NC 55 in Bridgeton with a 3-legged
interchange. The level of service will increase from-the existing
LOS-F to LOS-D for design year 2016. The' estimated total,cost of
the above improvements is `$122 million (1993 dollars).
• Rehabilitation of the Alfred Cunningham bridge would extend its
useable service life a minimum of 15 years to a maximum of 25 years,
depending on the extent of repairs, at a cost of $0.75 million to $7
r million .(1993 dollars), respectively. The expected level of
service, however would remain inadequate at LOS-F through the design'
year.
1

S.8 PERMIT REOUTREMENTS
r
The following Federal and State permits will be required before proceeding with
this project:
• Federal
Section9 Bridge Permit (River and Harbors Act of 1899) U.S. Coast
Guard/U.S. Army - Corps of Engineers

Section-10 `Permit (River and Harbor Act of 1899) U.S. Army - Corps of
Engineers
Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit (Clean Water Act,of 1977) U.S. EPA
and U.S. Army - Corps of Engineers
• State
CAMA Major Development,Permit (NC G.S. 113A-101 to 113A-143)

Dredge and, Fill Permit :(NC G.S. 113-117)

Section 401 Water Quality Certification (US Clean Water Act of 1977; 33
CFR 1215, et,. seq.:)
Bridge Easement over Navigable Waters (NC G.S. 143-341.(4)f)
Permit for Exploration:,Recovery or Salvage (NC G.S. 12-1, Article 3)

Open Burning Permit (NC G.S. 143, Article 21B-, Subsection 215.3)

Demolition Permit (NCAC 2D .0525)

I
S
8 ,
-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
1

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . .
.
vii
1 • DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.1 GENERAL . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2 PROJECT STATUS . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
1.3.1 General Description . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
1.3.2 Project Length . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
1.3.3 Typical Sections . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
1.3.4 Existing Traffic Volumes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
1.3.5 Intersection Conditions
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
1.3.6 Speed Limits . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
1.3.7 Access Control .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8
1.3.8 Utilities and Railroads
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8
1.3.9 Existing Land Uses . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8
1.3.10 Existing Zoning . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9
2. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

2.1 PROJECT NEED . . .

2.1.1 Traffic Congestion . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.1.2 Highway Versus River User Conflicts . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2.1.3 Traffic Safety . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
2.1.4 Emergency Services . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
2.1.5 Condition of the Existing Bridges . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
2.1.6 Economic Development . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15
2.2 SUMMARY . . . . . .

3. ALTERNATIVES . . . . .
3.1 INTRODUCTION . . . .
3.2 THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
3.2.1 Impacts to the US 17/NC 55 John Lawson (Neuse River)
Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
i

3.2.2 Impacts to the US 70 Business Alfred Cunningham
(Trent River) Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.3 BUILD ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
3.3.1 Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
3.3.2 Alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
3.3.3 Alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
3.3.4 Alternative 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8.
3.3.5 Alternative 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
3.3.6 Alternative 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
3.3.7 Alternative 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
3.3.8 Alternative 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
3.3.9 Alternative 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
3.3.10 Alternative 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
3.3.11 Preliminary Alternative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
3.4 BUILD ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR DETAILED STUDY . . . . . . . . 3-16
3.4.1 Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16
3.4.2 Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
3.4.3 Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
3.4.4 Alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
3.4.5 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22
3.5 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23
3.5.1 Termini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23
3.5.2 Typical sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-25
3.5.3 Interchange Lane Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28
3.5.4 Bridge Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33
3.5.5 Right-of-Way/Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35
3.5.6 Construction Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-36
3.6 PROJECT COST ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38
4. IMPACTS . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1 LAND USE .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1.1 Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1.2 State and Local Government Plans and Policies . . . . 4-5
4.2 TRANSPOR TATION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
4.2.1 Roadways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
4.2.2 Bicycle Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
ii

4
2
3
.
.
Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10
4.2.4 Navigation . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11
t 4.3 SOCIOECONOMICS . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13
4.3.1 Social Impacts . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
4.3.2 Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . 4-15
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20
4.4 RELOCATION IMPACTS . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22
4.5 UTILITIES . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28
4.6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32
4.6.1 Terrestrial Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . 4-32
4.6.2 Underwater Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . 4-33
4.6.3 Historic Architectural Resources . . . 4
. . . . . . .
-34
4.7 AIR QUALITY . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44
4.7.1 Air Quality Standards .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44
4.7.2 Corridor Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44
4.7.3 Modeling Methods . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-47
4.7.4 Traffic Data . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-52
4.7.5 Build Alternative .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-52
4.7.6 No
Build
Alternative
. . . .
?
. . . . . . . . . . . . 4-54
4.8 NOISE
•
•
. . . . . . . 4-54
4.8.1 Noise Abatement Criteria
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-54
4.8.2 Existing Noise Levels .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-56
4.8.3 Comparison of Field Data vs. Modeled Traffic Counts . 4-56
4.8.4 Noise Impact Prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-62
4.8.5 Abatement Measures
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-66
4.9 SOILS AND GEOLOGY . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-70
4.9.1 Soils . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-70
4.9.2 Prime and Important Farmlands . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-78
4.9.3 Geology and Mineral Resources . . . . . . 4-78
4.10 WATER RESOURCES

4.10.1 Floodways and Floodplains
4-79
4.10.2 Water Quality . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-82
4.11 RIVER MODIFICATION . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 4-88
4.12 NATURAL RESOURCES . .

4.12.1 Plant Communities . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-88
4.12.2 Protected Species . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-107
iii

4.12.3 Fisheries and Benthic Organisms . . . . . . . . . . 4-113
4.13 AESTHETICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-119
4.13.1 Visually Sensitive Locations . . . . . . . . . . . 4-119
4.13.2 Visual Character of Proposed Action . . . . . . . . 4-120
4.13.3 Visual Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-121
4.14 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-124
4.15 COASTAL ZONE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-128
4.16 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-131
4.17 PERMITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-133
5. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-1
5.1 AGENCY COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
5.2.1 Mailing List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
5.2.2 Project Newsletter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
5.2.3 Telephone and Mail Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
5.2.4 Small Group Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
5.2.5 Public Officials Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
5.2.6 Citizens Informational Workshops . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
5.2.7 Corridor and Design Public Hearing . . . . . . . . . 5-7
6. REFERENCES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
7. APPENDICES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
APPENDIX A - COORDINATION LETTERS
APPENDIX B - RELOCATION REPORTS
APPENDIX C - FISHERY SPECIES
APPENDIX D - NEWSLETTERS
iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Traffic Demand and Level of Service for US 70, US 17, & NC 55 2-5
Table 2-2. Area Roadways with Capacity Deficiencies by 2016 . . . . . . 2-6
Table 2-3. Summary of 1989 Draw Openings for John Lawson
' and Alfred Cunningham Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
Table 2-4. Study Area Accident History vs. North Carolina Statewide
Averages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
Table 2-5. Accident Analysis for Bridge Approach Intersections
(July 1987 - October 1990) * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
Table 3-1. .
Summary of Project Needs Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 3-14
Table 3-2. Summary of Potential Adverse Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
Table 3-3. Design Criteria . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
Table 3-4. Comparison of Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives . . . . . 3-22
Table 4-1. Dominant Land Uses in Craven County, Bridgeton,
and New Bern, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Table 4-2. Characteristics of Population Growth in Study Area,
1970 - 2000 . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
4-14
Table 4-3. Average 1992 Unemployment Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21
Table 4-4. . .
Estimated Households and Businesses to be Displaced . . . . .
. 4-23
Table 4-5. Decent, Safe, and Sanitary Dwellings Available in
Study Area 4-24
Table 4-6. Properties Recorded During Historic Architectural Surveys . . 4-35
Table 4-7. National Ambient Air Quality Standards . . . . . . . . . . . 4-45
Table 4-8. Maximum Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) . . . . . . . . 4-53
Table 4-9. Noise Abatement Criteria Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level -
Decibels (dBA) •
• . . . . . . . . 4-55
Table 4-10. Measured Existing Noise Levels . . . . . . . 4
. . . . . . . .
-57
Table 4-11. Comparison of Measured and Modeled Noise Levels . . . . . . . 4-62
Table 4-12. Future Design Hour Noise Levels, dBA Leg . . . . . . . . . . 4-64
Table 4-13. Distance to 67 dBA Noise Contour
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-67
Table 4-14. Summary of Traffic Noise Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-67
Table 4-15. Acoustical Mitigation Noise Barrier Locations Analysis . . . 4-69
Table 4-16. Trace Metal Concentrations in Neuse River at New Bern . . . . 4-83
v
r

T
b
a
le 4-17. Mean Concentrations of Trace Metals in Bottom
Sediment
along
Bridgeton and New Bern Waterfronts (ug/g or ppm) . . . . 4-83
Table 4-18. Wetland Areas Impacted . . . . . .
. . . . .
Table 4-19. Upland Areas Impacted . . . . . .

Table

4-20 . . . . . .
•
North C
l
4-107
. aro
ina Natural Heritage Program List for
Craven County . . . . . . . . :
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-114
1

i
1
vi

1
1
1
I

1
1

1

1

t
1
1
t
11
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1: VICINITY MAP . . ,

FIGURE 1-2: 1994-2000 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT IN NEW BERN AREA
•
1-5
FIGURE 2-1: NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES .
•
2-3
FIGURE 2-2: BUILD ALTERNATIVES AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES .
•
2-4
FIGURE 2-3: IMPACT OF 1989 OPENINGS, JOHN LAWSON (NEUSE RIVER) BRIDGE 2-9
FIGURE 2-4: IMPACT OF 1989 OPENINGS, ALFRED CUNNINGHAM (TRENT RIVER)
BRIDGE . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
FIGURE 3-1: PRELIMINARY BUILD ALTERNATIVES .
. . . . 3-5
FIGURE 3-2: BUILD ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR DETAILED STUDY .
•
3-18
FIGURE 3-3: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

FIGURE 3-4: US 17/NC 55 BRIDGE OVER NEUSE RIVER
. . 3-26
FIGURE 3-5: INTERCHANGE RAMP BRIDGES .

FIGURE 3-6: US 17/NC 55 ROADWAY SOUTH OF EXISTING NC 55

FIGURE 3-7: DELETED
FIGURE 3-8: INTERCHANGE RAMP ROADWAYS

FIGURE 3-9: US 70 BYPASS/US 70 BUSINESS INTERCHANGE LANE CONFIGURATION . 3-31
FIGURE 3-10: US 17/NC 55 INTERCHANGE LANE CONFIGURATION
.
FIGURE 3-11: HAMMERHEAD PIERS . .

FIGURE 4-1: GENERAL LAND USE . . .

FIGURE 4-2: COMMUNITY SERVICES/FACILITIES
. . . . . . .
•
4-18
FIGURE 4-3: UTILITIES . . .

FIGURE 4-4: DELETED
FIGURE 4-5: HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES
.
. .
. 4-36
FIGURE 4-6: BRIDGETON HISTORIC DISTRICT (SHEETS 1-2)
. . . . .
•
4-38
FIGURE 4-7: MT. SHILOH BAPTIST CHURCH

FIGURE 4-8: JONES CHAPEL A.M.E. ZION CHURCH
. . . . 4-43
FIGURE 4-9: AIR QUALITY MODELING SITES (SHEETS 1-4)
. . . .
• -
4-48
FIGURE 4-10: NOISE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS (SHEETS 1-4)
. . , ,
•
4-58
FIGURE 4-11: GENERAL SOILS MAP

FIGURE 4-12: FLOODPLAINS

FIGURE 4-13: PERMITTED POINT SOURCE WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
.
•
4-85
vii

FIGURE 4-14: NATURAL RESOURCES (SHEETS 1-6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-91
. .
FIGURE 4-15: FISHERY RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-118 ,
FIGURE 4-16: VISUAL IMPACT ON UNION POINT PARK (SHEETS 1-2). . . . . . 4-122
FIGURE 4-17: HAZARDOUS MATERIAL AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITES 4-125 '

viii

1
1

1

I

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1

SECTION 1

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
1.1 GE
This document summarizes the findings of the planning study to replace the
existing US 17/NC 55 John Lawson bridge over the Neuse River and to rehabilitate
the existing US 70 Business/SR 1004 Alfred Cunningham bridge over the Trent River
adjacent to Downtown New Bern in Craven County, North Carolina.
I
Replacement of the John Lawson (Neuse River) bridge would involve construction
of a multi-lane, fixed-span, high-level bridge over the Neuse River from James
City to the Sandy Point vicinity, with approach roadways connecting the bridge
with existing highways. The bridge over the Neuse River would be approximately
8,400 feet (1.6 miles) long.
The approach four-lane roadway would terminate at its eastern end at existing US
17 and NC 55 in Bridgeton and at its western end at US 70 near James City.
Approach roadway lengths connecting to US 17 and NC 55 in Bridgeton would be
approximately 2.4 miles along new alignment under the proposed action. In the
James City area, over 5.3 miles of approach roadways and bridges would be
necessary. .The existing US 70 Bypass/US 70 Business interchange in James City
would be reconstructed to connect with the western end of the proposed Neuse
River bridge, requiring the modification of three existing ramps and the addition
of seven new ramps. Portions of the proposed construction which are located over
land would require additional right-of-way. Demolition and removal of the
existing Neuse River bridge would occur after completion of the proposed action.
Rehabilitative measures for the Alfred Cunningham (Trent River) bridge would
depend on the desired duration of extended service life. Minimum rehabilitation
would yield an estimated remaining life of 15 years. Minimum rehabilitative
measures would include:
• Seal cracks and patch spalls in the deck,
• Repair steel plate expansion joints,
• Patch spalls at end diaphragms,
• Replace or repair damaged truss members,
1-1

• Replace and repair decayed fender system members, and
• Clean and paint structural steel.
Maximum rehabilitation would yield an estimated remaining service life of 25 to
30 years and would require the following measures:
• Upgrade bridge rails,
• Rehabilitate the deck,
• Upgrade expansion joints,
• Repair end diaphragms,
• Strengthen bridge members to carry North Carolina Legal Loads
plus 10 percent,
• Clean and paint structural steel,
• Replace damaged truss members,
• Replace fender system,
• Repair prestressed concrete piles,
• Upgrade draw span machinery, and
• Add approach slabs.
1.2 PROJECT STATUS
The area that would be served by the proposed action is located in central Craven
County, North Carolina. The Neuse River, .over which the proposed replacement
bridge would pass, physically divides Craven County into two sections. . Land
south and west of the river is dominated by the City of New Bern, Croatan
National Forest, and the Marine Corps Air Station at Cherry Point near Havelock.
The more rural lands of Craven and Pamlico Counties are found north and east of
the river (see Figure 1-1).
1-2
m aom m m m m m m m m w =? M M?.

F
o,
1
r?!
CD
1
rh 1
O l
O
< In
n
Z C
M
a

The existing US 17/NC 55 John Lawson bridge is one of only three roadway bridge
crossings over the Neuse River in Craven County. The other two crossings include
NC 43 and SR 1470 northwest of New Bern. Thus, the proposed Neuse River crossing
' is a focal point in areawide transportation planning.
The current thoroughfare plan for the New Bern-Bridgeton-Trent Woods area was
mutually adopted by the municipalities and North Carolina Department of
Transportation in 1992. That plan identifies the Neuse and Trent River swing-
span bridges as controlling factors in New Bern area traffic patterns because
most through and local traffic must cross one or both of the bridges (NCDOT,
1992b).
In October 1988, NCDOT published a feasibility study of the US 17 New Bern Bypass
and the Neuse River bridge replacement or relocation. The study concluded that
alternatives for the US 17 New Bern Bypass should be further investigated and
treatment should be given to the following objectives: 1) US 17's importance to
the region and to the state; 2) the replacement of the Neuse River and Trent
River bridges to improve local traffic conditions; and 3) access maintained to
Downtown New Bern (NCDOT, 1988a). The proposed bypass would construct a four-
lane, controlled access freeway around the western limits of New Bern. Adjacent
municipalities, including River Bend, Trent Woods and Bridgeton, would also be
I bypassed (HNTB, 1991a).
North Carolina's 1990-1996 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (NCDOT,
1989a) included the bridge replacements and bypass as separate projects, thus
distinguishing between area transportation needs and regional needs. Figure 1-2
t illustrates the relationship of the US 17 Neuse River/US 70 Business Trent River
Bridge Replacement Project to the US 17 New Bern Bypass and other New Bern area
NCDOT projects. The 1994-2000 TIP programmed the proposed replacement of the
John Lawson bridge for right-of-way acquisition in fiscal year 1994 and
construction in fiscal year 1995. Rehabilitation of the Alfred Cunningham bridge
was identified as a future need.
1

1-4

FIGURE 1-2
1994-2000
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
IN NEW BERN AREA
ERNUL
/ O. n 1 i
CHP
"`) s• ' SKIN T.I.P. R-2513
New Bern Bypass
to Washington
?N Bypass
®
LIMA ? y
s°
..?.. ??
T.I.P. R-2301
US 17 Now Bern
( L ?4? o Bypass
\ a.'' Gti? • 1 T.I.P. R-2530
NC 55
WASNINOTOM, FWKS T.I.P B-2531 - to NC 304
z Neuse River
-? -? Bridge Replacement
(Proposed Action)
NEW BERN RI0KTIN
V I 1 y a _ ,.. N
?`? s ?.,• ?fi ?^ T.I.P. B-2532
'Fpm Trent River
Bridge Replacement x? - 1
„,,am
? (Proposed Action) t ja ?? 4
. . la - 2 514 ' ' ..\ sirr°vs. +D>'>• 'O
{ 1?s„ u?Mwr
' Pollocksville Bypass
to south of New Bern
r qtr ""' .'°.
?.pa ?°.v va ?.JV?t ?nMf 51
1

1 1.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
1.3.1 General Description
The existing US 17/NC 55 Neuse River crossing at New Bern is the John Lawson
bridge, a two-lane swing-span structure. This facility provides direct access
between Downtown New Bern and Bridgeton. The Alfred Cunningham bridge, also a
two-lane swing-span bridge, is the current Trent River crossing for US 70
Business, linking Downtown New Bern with James City at the US 70 Bypass/US 70
Business interchange. While much of the project area covers the Neuse and Trent
River crossings, bridge termini are located in urbanized areas with nearby
I commercial and residential land uses. Front Street in Downtown New Bern connects
these two bridges.
1 1.3.2 Proiect Length
The existing John Lawson (Neuse River) bridge is approximately 1 mile long from
shore to shore. The proposed replacement bridge would pass over approximately
1.6 miles of open water between James City and Sandy Point. The eastern end of
the project area includes improvements to approximately 0.6 mile of US 17 and 0.9
mile of NC 55 in Bridgeton as well as 1.1 miles of approach roadway on new
location between NC 55 and Sandy Point.
t The western (James City) side of the project includes improvements to
approximately a mile of US 70 and a mile of US 70 Bypass. The project area also
includes approximately a mile of US 70 Business, of which the Alfred Cunningham
(Trent River) bridge constitutes approximately a third of the length. Although
not within project construction limits, approximately one-third mile of Front
Street in New Bern connects the two existing bridges.
1 1.3.1 Typical Sections
Both the John Lawson bridge and the Alfred Cunningham bridge (US 70 Business) are
two lanes and are 28 feet wide. Front Street, which links the two facilities in
Downtown New Bern, is a four-lane urban arterial with curb and gutter. US 70
1-6
Bypass is a four-lane divided freeway. US 17 is a five-lane urban street in
Downtown New Bern, a narrow two-lane (John Lawson) bridge over the Neuse River,
and a four-lane divided highway which narrows to a two-lane rural highway within
the Bridgeton town limits. NC 55 is a two-lane rural highway in Bridgeton. US
70 is a four-lane divided highway in James City.
1.3.4 Existing Traffic volumes
Existing traffic volumes for the John Lawson bridge are estimated to average
22,200 vehicles per day. The Alfred Cunningham bridge is currently experiencing
an annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 19,400 vehicles per day. Existing
traffic volumes for connecting roadways include: US 17 (Bridgeton), 12,800 AADT;
NC 55, 12,400 AADT; US 70, 33,900 AADT; and US 70 Bypass, 28,500 AADT. Current
percentages of truck tractor semi-trailers along these routes range between 2 and
4 percent. Current percentages of dual tire trucks range between 3 and 5 percent
for routes in the study area.
1.3.5 Intersection Conditions
The signalized intersection at Broad Street and Front Street in New Bern is over
capacity, based on peak hour turning movement volumes. Signalized intersections
at US 17 and NC 55 in Bridgeton and at US 70 Business and Howell Road in James
City are approaching capacity.
1.3.6 Sfleed Limits
The existing posted speed limit along the John Lawson Bridge varies from 35 mph
along on the western portion of the bridge to 45 mph on the eastern portion. US
17 and NC 55 in Bridgeton are both posted at both 35 mph. The existing posted
speed limit along the Alfred Cunningham bridge and US 70 Business is 45 mph. In
New Bern, US 70 Bypass is posted at 55 mph, while Front Street and Broad Street
have posted speed limits of 25 mph.
1-7

1.3.7 Access Control
Both approaches to the John Lawson bridge are urban streets with no control of
access. Likewise, the north approach (Front Street) to the Alfred Cunningham
bridge is an urban street with no control of access. The south approach has
partial control of access. Full control of access is provided along US 70 Bypass
and interchange ramps at US 70 Business. Access to US 70 in James City is
limited to access points via frontage roads on both sides.
1.3.8 Utilities and Railroads
Utilities within the project study area include:
• Water: City of New Bern
Northwest Craven Sanitary District (James City)
First Craven Sanitary District (Bridgeton)
• Sewer: City of New Bern
Craven County Water and Sewer Dept. (James City)
Town of Bridgeton
• Electricity: Carolina Power & Light
• Telephone: Carolina Telephone & Telegraph
r
The project study area also includes railroad tracks owned by the Norfolk
Southern Railroad.
1 1.3.9 Bxistina Land Uses
Both commercial and residential land uses exist along all major routes of the
study corridor. Heavy concentrations of small businesses line both sides of US
70 in James City, US' 17 in Bridgeton and Front Street (South of Broad Street) in
Downtown New Bern. Two large hotels are located along the Trent River just to
the west of the Alfred Cunningham bridge. Heavy concentrations of single-family
residential uses exist along US 70 close to the James City interchange, in
Downtown New Bern on Front Street (north of Broad Street), and in the Sandy Point
area. Scattered site commercial and residential uses also exist along NC 55 in
1-8

Bridgeton.
Two industrial uses are located on the east side of the US 70 Bypass/US 70
Business interchange in James City, the Weyerhaeuser Company's boat dock and the
Dixie Chemical Company. Public land uses in the project vicinity are Union Point
Park at the confluence of the Neuse and Trent Rivers and the Lawson Creek Park,
near US 70 Bypass.
1.3.10 Bxistina Zoning
Only the Downtown New Bern portion of the project area is zoned. Land along
Front Street in the project vicinity is zoned "Business" south of the Broad
street intersection and "Residential" north of Broad Street.

1

1-9
2. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

1

2.1 PROJECT NEED
Three major factors determine the transportation needs of an area: population,
economy, and land use characteristics (NCDOT, 1978). During the 19800, Craven
County's growth rate exceeded the growth rate for North Carolina as a whole.
This rapid population growth was accompanied by slow, stable economic growth.
Expansion of existing industry, industrial recruitment, tourism, and the
reputation of Craven County as a desirable retirement community are expected to
result in continued future economic gain (Craven County Chamber of Commerce,
1988). In accordance with population and economic growth, land use has shifted
from an agrarian base to a concentration in commerce, industry, services, and
housing. This growth and development, in turn, has strained the capacity of the
existing highway infrastructure in the New Bern area of Craven County.
The existing John Lawson (Neuse River) bridge and Alfred Cunningham (Trent River)
bridge are vital links in the highway infrastructure of the New Bern area as well
as eastern North Carolina. Three major highways (US 70, US 17, and NC 55)
converge in Downtown New Bern near the confluence of the Neuse and Trent Rivers.
US 70 Business provides access through Downtown New Bern from points southeast.
Extending from the South Carolina to the Virginia state line, US 17 is the
region's principal north-south route east of I-95. NC 55 serves as the primary
route to and from Pamlico County, Craven County's rural neighbor to the east.
Thus, at the present time, most through and local traffic crosses one or both
subject bridges.
2.1.1 Traffic Convestion
The John Lawson (Neuse River) and Alfred Cunningham (Trent River) bridges are
characterized by limited (two-lane) cross sections and high traffic demands. In
1988, annual average daily traffic volumes (AADT's) for the John Lawson and
Alfred Cunningham bridges were 19,400 and 16,800 vehicles per day, respectively
(NCDOT, 1989b). The traffic volumes are projected to increase to 27,500 and
24,000 vehicles per day by 1996 for the John Lawson and Alfred Cunningham
1
2-1
It
bridges, respectively, if no roadway improvements (No-Build Alternative) are
implemented (see Figure 2-1). For the same two crossings, the projected year
2016 traffic volumes are approximately 40,500 and 38,800 vehicles per day,
respectively (see Figure 2-1), assuming completion of the proposed US 17 New Bern
Bypass which will divert US 17 through traffic around New Bern (HNTB, 1993a).
Thus, even with the opening of the proposed bypass, traffic levels would continue
to grow and travel conditions would worsen in the absence of the proposed action;
therefore the most important project need is to increase traffic capacity over
the Neuse River in the vicinity of US 17/NC 55.
With a projected 2016 AADT of 40,500, a critical issue is how this traffic will
be distributed after it crosses the Neuse River. Since most of this traffic will
be travelling to and from points beyond Downtown New Bern, the proposed action
must provide connections to existing arterial highways which will accommodate the
large volume of bridge traffic. The traffic volumes projected for 1996 and 2016,
assuming the proposed action is implemented by 1996 (Build Alternative) and the
US 17 New Bern Bypass is implemented between 1996 and 2016, are illustrated in
Figure 2-2.
At present traffic levels, the John Lawson (Neuse River) bridge has a level of
service (LOS) rating of "F", which indicates poor traffic flow conditions (HNTB,
1990). The level of service concept relates quantitative values, such as traffic
volumes, to qualitative aspects of traffic flow. Level of service is
characterized by letter designations ranging from A to F, with LOS A representing
free flow and a high level of comfort and convenience for motorists. LOS F is
characterized by forced or breakdown flow; volumes exceeding roadway capacity;
formation of unstable queues; and long stoppages due to traffic congestion (TRB,
1985). Table 2-1 summarizes opening year (1996) and design year (2016) traffic
demands and level of service ratings for the subject bridges and the five major
highways in the study area assuming two future scenarios. The first scenario
assumes no future improvements to increase capacity (no-action/no-build), while
the second scenario assumes implementation of the proposed action plus other
planned improvements of US 17, US 70 and NC 55 which are described in Section
1.2.
2-2
Ci
1
A
1
i
17
Neuse
River
15.800 0? ,100
reo?
17
.0 1 Z
Trent
River
0 400 -?
00
jx-D- i
fa
I
SOURCE: HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN 8 BERGENDOFF,
? 1993a (TECH. MEMO.)
FIGURE 2-1
NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
AVERAGE DAILY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
15.900
0
00
600
,
LEGEND
7Z?
4
0000 1996 AVERAGE DAILY
0000 2016 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE 2-2
BUILD ALTERNATIVES
AVERAGE DAILY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
1
15900
Z7, 00 '
1a aoo
Neuse
Trent , 00 River
River 17.700
26,80
17
8 SOO6i
?,?
a 000 ,100 27.600
' 40,600
4 000 12,800
22,800 LEGEND
® 0000 1996 AVERAGE DAILY
0000 2016 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
T441900
17 ? 7a?b00 7?
17 ® ,
4.800
8,x00
7 SOURCE: HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF,
1993a (TECH. MEMO.)
Table 2-1. Traffic Demand and Level of Service for US 70, US 17, & NC 55
1
1

r
11

o-Action/No-Build Proposed
Action &
Planned
Improvements
Segment 1996 1996 2016 2016 2016 2016
AADT LOS AADT LOS AADT* LOS
US 70 Business
US 17/NC 55 to US
70 Bypass
(including Alfred
Cunningham bridge) 24,000 F 38,800 F 26,800 F
US 70 US 70 Bypass to
New Airport Rd.
(SR 1131) 41,600 D 74,900 F 74,900 E
US 70 Bypass
Pembroke Rd. to US
70 Business 30,400 B 51,100 E 59,200 C
US 17 Neuse Blvd. (NC
55) to John Lawson
bridge 17,700 D 26,800 E 24,100 D
John Lawson bridge 27,500 F 47,500 F 40,500 D
John Lawson bridge
to SR 1433 15,900 D 19,500 F 19,500 F
NC 55 US 17 to SR 1600 15,400 C 27,600 F 27,600 C
* Estimate assumes completion of proposed US 17 New Bern Bypass which would
divert approximately 7,000 AADT from US 17.
Source: HNTB, 1993a; NCDOT, 1989b; and TRB, 1985
In conjunction with the proposed US 17 New Bern Bypass, the proposed action would
better handle growing traffic demands and reduce traffic congestion in Downtown
New Bern. The proposed action would reduce congestion most dramatically for
traffic entering and exiting Downtown New Bern via the Neuse and Trent River
crossings. Traffic congestion over the Neuse River would be reduced from LOS F
to LOS D by adding vehicular capacity while congestion over the Trent River would
4
2-5

be reduced by lowering traffic volumes. Even though the 2016 traffic on US 70
Business would be cut by over 30 percent with the proposed action, the Alfred
Cunningham bridge would still operate at LOS F since it would remain a two-lane,
swing-span bridge through the year 2016.
In addition to the capacity deficiency of the Alfred Cunningham bridge, described
above, capacity deficiencies (LOS E OR F) by the year 2016 of several other
roadways in the study area would not be resolved by the proposed action. These
local roadways are described in Table 2-2. These problems areas could affect
traffic operations at the locations where the proposed roadway approaches tie
into these facilities; otherwise,-the proposed action would operate at LOS D or
better through the design year 2016. Under LOS D, there is high-density but
stable flow; speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted; and small
increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems (TRB, 1985).
Table 2-2. Area Roadways with Capacity Deficiencies by 2016
Roadway Existing Laneage Planned Laneage
US 17 (John Lawson bridge 2 2
to SR 1433)
US 70 (US 70 Bypass to 4 6
Airport Rd. (SR 1131))
US 70 Business 2 2
(Alfred Cunningham bridge)
2-6
1
1 2.1.2 Hiahwav Versus River User Conflicts
The swing-span function of the existing two-lane bridges substantially reduces
traffic capacity. When either bridge opens to allow passage of river vessels,
vehicular traffic congestion results, especially during peak travel times, the
tourist season, or special events such as the annual Labor Day weekend Michelob
Cup sailboat race. New Bern's street system cannot adequately handle bridge-
related traffic backups. The problem is compounded when either bridge opens more
than once in rapid succession or both bridges open during a relatively short time
span.
Based on NCDOT Reports of Draw Openings for 1989, the John Lawson (Neuse River)
bridge opens an average of 139 times per month, excluding openings for routine
maintenance. The average number of vehicles delayed per opening is 196. On the
average, the Alfred Cunningham (Trent River) bridge opens 227 times per month
with 129 vehicles delayed per opening. Table 2-3 summarizes 1989 draw openings
and monthly vehicular delays for the John Lawson and Alfred Cunningham bridges.
Note that the Alfred Cunningham bridge averages 276 openings per month during the
summer peak boating period, 50 more than the yearly average, while the John
Lawson bridge showed no substantial changes except in May and June (183 and 190
vehicles per month). The vehicular delay problems at the Alfred Cunningham
bridge are exacerbated here by the presence of two large pleasure craft marinas
associated with hotels located just upstream of the Alfred Cunningham bridge and
' the confluence with the Neuse River. The channel here offers deep and safe
harborage for large boats traveling the Neuse River and the Intracoastal
waterway.
The impact of bridge openings on vehicular traffic can be described by vehicle-
hours delay (the delay of one vehicle for one hour). For the John Lawson bridge,
traffic delay in 1989 ranged from 936 vehicle-hours per month in August to 1,764
vehicle-hours per month in June. For the Alfred Cunningham bridge, 1989 traffic
delay varied from 385 vehicle-hours per month in February to 1,465 vehicle-hours
per month in July (see Figures 2-3 and 2-4).
2-7

Table 2-3. Summary of 1989 Draw ooeninas for John Lawson
and Alfred Cunningham Bridaes
John Lawson Bridge (over the Neuse River)
Monthly Vehicular
Month* No. of Openings Delay (Veh.-Hours)
January 145 1305
February 118 1062
March 141 1269
April 155 1395
May 183 1647
June 196 1764
July 110 990
August 104 936
September 106 954
October 135 1215
November 136 1224
Average 139 1251
Alfred Cunningham Bridge (over the Trent River)
Monthly Vehicular
Month* No. of Openings Delay (Veh.-Hours)
January 128 640
February 77 385
March 147 735
April 244 1220
May 253 1265
June 277 1385
July 293 1465
August 259 1295
September 290 1450
October 286 1430
November 245 1225
Average 227 1136
*No data available for December 1989.
Source: NCDOT Log of 1989 Draw Openings (NCDOT, 1989c)
2-8
t
t
1
1
A
1
r
r
i
i
FIGURE 2-3: IMPACT OF 1989 OPENINGS
JOHN LAWSON (NEUSE RIVER) BRIDGE
DELAY (VEH-HRSJMONTH)
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
MONTH
Source: NCDOT Log of 1989 Draw Openings for Neuse River Bridge (NCDOT 1989c)
FIGURE 2-4: IMPACT OF 1989 OPENINGS
ALFRED CUNNINGHAM (TRENT RIVER) BRIDGE
2,00
1,500
1,000
500
0
DELAY (VEH-HRS/MONTH)
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
MONTH
Source: NCDOT Log of 1989 Draw Openings for Trent River Bridge (NCDOT 1989c) I
w
The following factors influence the magnitude of vehicular delay:
• average number of vehicles delayed per bridge opening;
• average length of bridge opening;
• number of bridge openings per month; and
• traffic flow characteristics such as the startup domino effect
following a bridge opening event.
There is a cost to the travelling public directly related to the vehicle-hours
delay. The vehicular delays caused by each swing-span bridge for the first
eleven months in 1989 were about 14,000 vehicle-hours and 12,000 vehicle-hours
for the John Lawson and Alfred Cunningham bridges, respectively. Assuming a cost
of $8 per hour (1990 dollars), which includes vehicular idling costs and the cost
of the value of time, these delays resulted in a cost of approximately $208,000
(1990 dollars) to the travelling public.
2.1.3 Traffic Safety
Traffic congestion in the New Bern area leads to a high incidence of traffic
accidents with associated fatalities, injuries, and property damage. For
example, between 1987 and 1990, US 70 Business from US 17/NC 55 to US 70 Bypass
(including the Alfred Cunningham (Trent River) bridge) experienced, on the
average, more than twice the statewide average accident rate for similar
roadways. US 17/NC 55 from George Street (SR 1403) to US 70 Business (Front
Street) experienced, on the average, 3.82 times the expected accident rate. This
effectively demonstrates that overall accident rates in the vicinity of the John
Lawson and Alfred Cunningham bridges were much higher than expected based on
statewide averages during the past four years (see Table 2-4).
1

t
2-11

Table 2-4. Study Area Accident History vs North Carolina Statewide Averages
US 17/NC 55 from
George St (SR 1403)
to US 70 Business
John Lawson bridge
US 17 from NC 55
to SR 1433
Accident Rate*
1987-1990
1397.82
NC 55 from US 17
to SR 1600
US 70 Business from
US 17/NC 55 to US
70 Bypass (includes
Alfred Cunningham bridge)
US 70 Bypass from
US 70 Business to New
Airport Rd (SR 1131)
Howell Rd. (SR 1004)
from US 70 Business
to Brice's Creek Rd
(SR 1004)
Statewide Average
Accident Rate Accident Rate/
for Similar Roadways Statewide Ave.
366.10 3.82
269.61 256.77 1.06
341.04 269.92 1.26
412.84 235.91 1.75
435.62 156.38 2.79
248.08 184.47 1.34
853.50 142.25 6.00
* Accidents/Million Vehicle Miles
Source: NCDOT, 1990b; NCDOT Traffic Accident Reports 1987 - 1990
2-12
r
1
1
r
i
1
1
1

I

Accidents occurring along roadway sections in the study area between July 1987
and October 1990 were concentrated around bridge approach intersections (see
Table 2-5). More than 30 percent of the total accidents occurring along US 17/NC
55 from George Street (SR 1403) to US 70 Business, for instance, took place at
the US 17/NC 55 (Broad Street) and US 70 Business (Front Street) intersection.
The proposed action would divert traffic away from these intersections, thereby
reducing traffic accidents and associated costs.
Table 2-5. Accident Analysis for Bridge Avvroach Intersections
(July 1987 - October 19901*
Total Number of Total Accident Property Average Cost/
Intersection Accidents AADT Rate (ACC/MEV)** Damage Accident
US 70 Business 14 20,000 57.59 $55,175 $3,941
at SR 1004
US 17/NC 55 (Broad 51 30,200 170.22 $146,295 $2,868
St.) at US 70
Business (Front St.)
US 17- "D" St. at 22 21,000 86.21 $42,220 $1,920
NC 55 & SR 1604
(Bernhurst Rd.)
* Accidents occurring within 200 feet of intersection
** Accidents per million vehicles entering intersection
Sources NCDOT 1990b, Traffic Engineering, Traffic Accident Analysis Reports
July 1, 1987 - October 31, 1990
2-13

2.1.4 Emergency Services
Ambulance emergency service response tLmes could be affected by current bridge
openings and related traffic flow problems. In many cases, the most direct route
to Craven Regional Medical Center, the primary hospital serving Craven, Jones,
and Pamlico Counties, involves crossing either the John Lawson bridge or the
Alfred Cunningham bridge. For instance, the John Lawson swing-span bridge
separates the Fairfield Harbour retirement community in eastern Craven County
from the medical center. Police and fire protection are not affected by the
bridges because their service areas do not extend across the rivers.
2.1.5 Condition of the Existing Bridges
The proposed action is further made necessary by the condition and estimated
service lives of the existing bridges. Built in 1951, the John Lawson (Neuse
River) bridge over the Neuse River has a relatively short remaining service life.
In 1985 the NCDOT, Division of Highways, Bridge Maintenance Unit, Underwater
Inspection Unit estimated that the bridge had a remaining service life of 16
years (NCDOT, 1985). A later bridge machinery inspection (NCDOT, 1988b)
estimated the remaining service life at 13 years, which concurred with a general
bridge inspection report also from 1988 (NCDOT, 1988c). The 1988 Bridge
Inspection Report rated overall bridge condition for the John Lawson bridge as
"fair" (NCDOT, 1988c). Clearly, th;A ;n,i;r-a*ca need 4:--
replacement/rehabilitation within the next decade for structural considerations.
Spanning the Trent River, the existing Alfred Cunningham bridge was constructed
in 1955. Recent bridge inspection reports, including the machinery inspection
report (NCDOT, 1990b) and the underwater inspection report (NCDOT, 1990c),
conclude that the bridge has a 16-year remaining service life. In order to
safely carry traffic across the Trent River, the Alfred Cunningham bridge must
be replaced/rehabilitated within the next two decades.
2-14
1
1 2.1.6 Economic Development
' Developing the economic potential of Pamlico County, Craven County's rural
neighbor to the east, is the final need for the proposed action. Insufficient
access has been a limiting factor in the development of Pamlico, a county rich
in aesthetic, natural, and recreational resources. Nestled between the Pamlico
and Neuse Rivers, Pamlico County has a high potential for further development of
tourism. Currently, NC 55, a two-lane undivided highway, serves as the primary
east-west route into and out of the county. The proposed action would improve
access to eastern Craven County and, thereby, complement scheduled widening of
NC 55 between Bridgeton and Bayboro. The 1994-2000 TIP programs the NC 55
improvement to begin in 1998.
2.2 SUMMARY
In summary, the proposed action is needed to relieve local traffic demands in the
New Bern area. In conjunction with the proposed US 17 New Bern Bypass and the
proposed widening of NC 55, a new Neuse River four-lane, fixed-span, high-level
bridge and a rehabilitated Trent River two-lane, moveable-span bridge would:
• Reduce chronic traffic congestion in Downtown New Bern;
• Eliminate or reduce the conflict between river traffic and highway
traffic utilizing the existing Neuse River and Trent River bridges;
• Improve traffic safety;
• Facilitate ambulance emergency response to eastern Craven County
and to Pamlico County;
• Replace/rehabilitate bridge facilities with short remaining
service lives; and
• Promote regional economic growth.
r

2-15
1
i
i
t
t
i
t

i
1
A
1
1
1

F

J

L
1
3. ALT L=XI"S
3.1 INTRODUCTION
During the initial stages of the environmental assessment study process, ten
preliminary alternatives for a replacement bridge over the Neuse River at New
Bern were considered along with a no-action/no-build alternative. The evaluation
process determined how well each preliminary alternative would meet identified
project needs as well as the consequences of each proposed action. The proposed
actions were assessed for their potential to affect:
• water quality;
• traffic congestion;
• the Downtown New Bern Historic District;
• wetland losses;
• residential and business relocations;
• aesthetics;
• community cohesion;
• noise; and
• the Downtown New Bern economy.
This section describes the no-action/no-build alternative and various action
alternatives in terms of location, design, relative costs, and impacts on the
human environment in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The action alternatives considered include:
• mass transit;
• transportation system management;
• preliminary build alternatives (10);
• build alternatives selected for detailed study (4); and
• a preferred alternative.
The preliminary build alternatives that were considered are discussed below; also
discussed are the positive and negative impacts and the reasons for their
inclusion or elimination from more detailed consideration.
' 3-1

1

Mass transit was not considered a reasonable and feasible project alternative for
this proposed action, because it cannot address identified project needs in this
predominately rural area (i.e., emergency service access across the Neuse River).
The feasibility and effectiveness of a county-wide public transportation system
is currently being investigated by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Division of Public Transportation, as a separate study.

Similar to mass transit, Transportation System Management (TSM) was also not
considered a reasonable and feasible project alternative, because it also cannot
address identified project needs. No TSM strategy, such as traffic signal timing
improvements, would be able to accommodate the projected growth in traffic
crossing the Neuse River in New Bern. There are no improvements that could be
made to either roadway approach that would enable the existing two-lane bridge
over the Neuse River to handle the projected 40,500 vehicles per day by the year i
2016.

3.2 THE NO-ACTION ALTSRNATIVB
b
e a
As a point of reference, a no-action/no-build alternative is considered to
viable option throughout the environmental assessment process. By definition,
however, the no-action alternative does not meet any of the identified project
needs. In this study, the no-action alternative involves maintenance of the
existing street and bridge infrastructure within the general study area. Major '
transportation routes in the study area include US 17, US 70, and NC 55 (see
Figure 1-1). These primary roadways are supported by the New Bern street system
as well as secondary roads in the James City and Bridgeton/Sandy Point areas.

3.2.1 Impacts to the US 17 /NC 55 John Lawson euse River) d
US 17 is an important north-south route for Craven County and the region, while
NC 55 is an important east-west route through Craven County and Pamlico County
to the east. These routes cross downtown New Bern in an easterly-westerly '
direction, carrying traffic over the Neuse River via the existing John Lawson
bridge. US 70 also feeds highway traffic to and from the Neuse River bridge from
three separate interchanges south of New Bern (Clarendon Blvd/US 17/Broad Street,
3-2

1

1

7

1

A

Pembroke Road/Queen Street/Broad Street, and US 70 Business/East Front Street).
These routes are principal links in the local and regional transportation
network. The posted speed limit along these routes through downtown New Bern
streets is 25 miles per hour. At the Neuse River in Downtown New Bern, US 17/NC
55 (Broad Street) and US 70 Business (East Front Street) form an intersection
that funnels traffic onto an existing two-lane road for the 1.1-mile bridge
crossing. This creates a traffic bottleneck that becomes more congested when the
swing-span bridge opens. Traffic volumes on the John Lawson bridge currently
exceed its design capacity.
The no-action alternative will allow these conditions to deteriorate further as
highway and river traffic increase over time and the swing-span bridge becomes
structurally obsolete as it continues to deteriorate with age.
3.2.2 Impacts to the US 70 Business Alfred Cunningham (Trent River) Bridge
Through downtown New Bern west of the Neuse River, US 70 Business is aligned with
US 17/NC 55. At the Broad Street-East Front Street intersection, US 70 Business
turns south. From the US 17/NC 55 (Broad Street) intersection to the Alfred
Cunningham (swing-span) bridge, US 70 Business is a four-lane, undivided
arterial. At the Trent River, the road narrows to two lanes for the river
crossing and then widens again to a four-lane roadway before intersecting with
US 70 Bypass in James City. Thus, similar to the John Lawson bridge, the Trent
River crossing creates another bottleneck. Further complicating the situation,
the two bridges are separated by only 1,500 feet along East Front Street. With
both the Trent and Neuse River bridges open or open in succession, highway
traffic through Downtown New Bern becomes heavily congested. Posted speed limits
along US 70 Business in James City range from 25 to 45 miles per hour.
Even with the projected opening of the proposed US 17 New Bern Bypass, traffic
levels in and around the project corridor would continue to grow, worsening
travel conditions under the no-action alternative. Project needs would not be
met; therefore, the no-action alternative is not a reasonable and feasible option
for dealing with traffic problems and other project needs associated with the
Neuse River and Trent River bridge crossings in the New Bern area.
3-3

3.3 BUILD ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERM
After the first citizens information meeting was held on October 18, 1990, ten
(10) preliminary build alternatives were developed for consideration as
reasonable and feasible alternatives. The following is a short description of
the ten preliminary build alternatives evaluated in this study.
3.3.1 Alternative 1
Alternative 1 is one of the original NCDOT feasibility study alternatives. This
alternative would involve construction of either a high-level or moveable-span
multi-lane bridge adjacent and parallel to the current Neuse River bridge
location, and a moveable span multi-lane bridge adjacent to the current Trent
River bridge location (see Figure 3-1). This alignment would improve access to
downtown New Bern with minimal additional right-of-way acquisition and limited
approach roadway construction. In addition, this alternative has some aesthetic
appeal in that it would preserve the existing downstream view of the Nauss River
from the downtown New Bern waterfront.
HIGH-LEVEL BRIDGE OPTION
Since the high-level bridge option would increase traffic capacity across the
Neuse River and eliminate bridge openings for Neuse River marine traffic, it
would satisfy or partially satisfy all project needs except: 1) reduce traffic
congestion in Downtown New Bern and 2) reduce highway user-versus-river user
conflicts on the Trent River.
3-4

cn

o'
lop
-fl (/ -,AL,
?: 17
,i/ i

W

mD
D
DD
r ? D C \
mm pmao
00
> > Nmm r r r r r r r r r r
mm Dm m m m m m m m m m m
WD Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
m 0 D D D D D D D D D D
z m
<z < < < < < < < < < <
m-4 m m m m m m m m m m
W OD -4 O (J? W N
0
y?ON

T
m
r-m ?1
m ?
ME

c
z
m m
w
MC

y
r

'
j
v

1
1

In order to provide sufficient vertical clearance for a high-level bridge across
the Neuse River at this location, the river's navigation channel, which currently
hugs its west bank, would have to be relocated closer to the center of the river.
The physical relocation of the existing navigation channel would require
extensive dredging as well as relocation and installation of aides to navigation.
Neither the US Army Corps of Engineers nor the US Coast Guard has indicated any
objection to navigation channel realignment; however, the Corps would require
that any realignment project be funded at no cost to the Federal government and
that any recurring dredging cost be paid by the local sponsor, Craven County.
To gain US Coast Guard approval, the project must not affect navigation or cause
additional danger to mariners (Edge and Associates, 1991). Further, the existing
Atlantic and East Coast Railroad bridge might need to be reconstructed, depending
upon the extent to which the navigation channel would be relocated.
Potential adverse effects of this option include traffic congestion and impacts
on cultural resources and water quality. Traffic congestion in Downtown New Bern
would become even worse due to an increase in bridge capacity without comparable
capacity improvements for Broad Street and South Front Street. Traffic
congestion in this area would also adversely affect the Downtown New Bern
Historic District. Projected environmental effects of bridge construction and
channel relocation include water quality degradation and resulting impacts on
fish, benthic communities and wildlife. Dredging may release heavy metals
(Riggs, 1991) or other toxic materials in the river sediments. These heavy
metals could become absorbed or ingested by plant and animal life.
MOVEABLE-SPAN BRIDGE OPTION
Without relocation of the navigation channel, the Neuse River replacement bridge
would consist of another moveable-span bridge and, thus, would continue to delay
vehicular traffic during bridge openings. A new moveable-span bridge parallel
to the existing John Lawson bridge is therefore not considered a feasible
alternative, because it would not satisfy the project needs to: 1) alleviate
traffic congestion in Downtown New Bern; 2) eliminate or reduce the highway
versus river user conflict; and 3) facilitate emergency service transport access
across the river.
3-6

Potential adverse effects of this option are similar to the high-level bridge '
option described above, except that less severe water quality impacts are
anticipated due to the elimination of the navigation channel relocation. '
3.3.2 Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would consist of the construction of a high-level multi-lane bridge '
over the Neuse River from James City to Sandy Point in Bridgeton and the
rehabilitation of the existing Alfred Cunningham bridge (see Figure 3-1). This '
alternative would divert through traffic on US 17 and NC 55 from Downtown New
Bern with a high-level structure that would not require the relocation of the
existing navigation channel. Local traffic to Downtown New Bern would continue '
to utilize the existing moveable-span Alfred Cunningham bridge. This alternative
would satisfy or partially satisfy all the projected needs. It would not reduce '
the highway user-versus-river user conflicts on the Trent River. The number of
conflicts would be reduced substantially when the project opens, but would '
Increase over time based on traffic projections for the design year 2016.

The projected traffic volumes for US 70 Business over the Trent River for the
design year 2016 are higher than current levels on the Trent River bridge, even

with this proposed new bridge over the Neuse River and the proposed New Bern '
Bypass in place (see Table 2-1).

Water quality impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of
Alternative 1 (Moveable-Span Bridge Option) (See Section 3.3.1.). Traffic ,
congestion impacts are similar to the high traffic volumes projected for 2016
over the Alfred Cunningham (Trent River) bridge. Wetland losses would occur '
within the Sandy Point and James city communities. Residential and business
relocations would be required along US 70 in James City, along NC 55 east of
Bridgeton, and within the Sandy Point community. Aesthetic impacts would result
from the alteration of the downstream view of the Neuse River from Downtown New
Bern and Sandy Point. Impacts on community cohesion and noise impacts would be '
experienced primarily in the Sandy Point community.

3-7 ,

3.3.3 atternative 3

1

1

Alternative 3 (see Figure 3-1) would be to build a replacement high-level bridge
over the Neuse River parallel and adjacent to the existing Atlantic and East
Carolina Railroad bridge, approximately 4,600 feet north of the existing John
Lawson (Neuse River) bridge, and rehabilitation of t existing would connect with
(Trent River) Bridge. The western terminus of this alignment
Atlantic terminate at
George Street (SR 1403) in New Bern, while the eastern end
17 in Bridgeton. Under this alternative, the moveab Pa
Carolina Railroad bridge would also have to be reconstructed due to he no
navigation channel location. This alternative would satisfy or partially satisfy
project needs in a similar manner to Alternative 1 (High-Level Option) (See
Section 3.3.1.). The potential adverse impacts are also similar to Alternative
1 (High-Level Option).
3.3.4 alternative 4
Alternative 4 would begin at the US 70 Bypass/Pembroke Road Interchange in New
Bern, follow Queen Street to Broad Street, cross the Neuse River as a high-level
bridge, and end at US 17 and Bridge Street in Bridgeton (see Figure 3-1). Also
Also
included in this alternative is the rehabilitation of the existing Alfred
Cunningham (Trent River) Bridge. Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 4 would
navigation channel and potential
require relocation of the existing
reconstruction of the Atlantic and East Coast Railroad bridge. In addition,
arterial,
under this alternative, Queen Street would be converted to a major
which is inconsistent with the existing New Bern thoroughfare plan (NCDOT, 1978).
This alternative would satisfy or partially satisfy project needs in a similar
manner to Alternative 1 (High-Level Option) (See section 3.3.1.) and Alternative
3 (see Section 3.3.3). This alternative would also involve potential adverse
effects similar to Alternative 1 (High-Level option), except that traffic
congestion would be less severe by splitting the traffic flow by maintaining two
Neuse River crossings here. Impacts related to residential business relocations,
community cohesion, and noise would be more severe than Alternatives 1 and 3.
The New Bern street system could not handle the resulting additional traffic flow
3-8

without major reconstruction. Additionally, widening of Queen Street could have '
severe impacts on adjacent properties, potentially including a portion of New
Bern's historic district. Residential and commercial relocations would be '
required in both New Bern and Bridgeton.
3.3.5 Alternative 5
Alternative 5 would consist of a high-level bridge parallel and north of the t
Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad bridge across the Neuse River (see Figure 3- ,
1). The western approach of this alignment would follow Avenue "A", "Kw Street,
and Pembroke Road, ending at the US 70 Bypass. The Alfred Cunningham bridge over
the Trent River would also be rehabilitated to extend its useful life. This '
alternative would satisfy or partially satisfy all of the identified project
needs. '
Advantages of this alignment include reduction of through traffic in downtown New ,
Bern and preservation of the downstream view from the Downtown New Bern
waterfront. In order to provide sufficient vertical clearance for a high-level ,
bridge, however, the existing navigation channel would have to be moved closer
to the center of the river.
Potential adverse effects of this alternative include business and residential
relocations, loss of wetlands, and impacts on community cohesion. This alignment '
would pass through densely developed areas of New Bern and, thereby, have
negative impacts on- several residential neighborhoods and some businesses.
Wetland impacts would be located primarily adjacent to the Neuse River.
3.3.6 Alternative 6 ,
The Alternative 6 high-level bridge would cross the Neuse River from James City
to a point south of Sandy Point in Bridgeton at a location about 500 feet south
of that given in the Alternative 2 proposed route (see Figure 3-1). No '
navigation channel relocation would be required at this location. Also included
in this alternative is the rehabilitation of the Alfred Cunningham (Trent River)
bridge.
3-9 ,

This alternative would satisfy or partially satisfy project needs in a similar
' manner to Alternative 2 (see Section 3.3.2). The potential adverse effects would
also be similar to Alternative 2, except residential relocations and noise
' impacts would be reduced, while wetland impacts would be greater.
3.3.7 Alternative 7
Alternative 7 (see Figure 3-1) would consist of two bridges. The proposed Neuse
River, high-level replacement bridge would be located adjacent to.the existing
John Lawson bridge, similar to Alternative 1. The proposed Trent River bridge
' would be adjacent to the Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad bridge over the
Trent River. An extension of Tryon Palace Drive to lot Street is also required
' in this alternative. By removing the existing Alfred Cunningham (Trent River)
bridge, Alternative 7 would free property that could be used to enhance Union
Point and Bicentennial Parks, while providing access for downtown shopping. Once
the existing Trent River bridge is removed, this alternative would provide
unrestricted access to the Neuse River for boats moored at the Ramada Inn and
' Sheraton Hotel Marinas, located near the confluence of the two rivers and
upstream of the existing bridge.
' This alternative would satisfy or partially satisfy all project needs except for
the reduction of traffic congestion in Downtown New Bern. Alternative 7 would
' involve potential adverse effects similar to those discussed for Alternative 1
(see Section 3.3.1). Additional negative impacts include: 1) undesirable
' traffic operations because the Southern roadway approach would be located
adjacent to the existing railroad with at-grade crossings; 2) traffic using both
' bridges would increase vehicular miles traveled in downtown New Bern; and 3) the
extension of Tryon Palace Drive could detract from the New Bern waterfront by
' concentrating traffic congestion in that area.

3-10

3.3.8 Alternative 8
Alternative 8 would begin at the south and of the existing Alfred Cunningham
(Trent River) bridge, extend across the Neuse River, and terminate at the east
end of the existing John Lawson (Neuse River) bridge (see Figure 3-1). Under
this alternative, both of the existing moveable-span bridges would be removed.
This alternative would require only one new multi-lane high-level bridge, but it
would be the longest single bridge alternative proposed. Alternative 8 would
require minimal approach roadway construction and, thus, minimal right-of-way
acquisition. The existing Alfred Cunningham bridge crossing could not be left
connected under this alternative due to required ramp locations and potential
traffic flow disruptions. In addition, this alternative could possibly be built
without relocating the navigation channel.
Potential adverse effects of Alternative 8 include severe disruption of the
downstream view of the lower Neuse River from the downtown New Bern waterfront
and elimination of direct access to eastern downtown New Bern. The New Bern
Urban Design Plan advocates maintenance of access from the south to the downtown
area across the mouth of the Trent River (LDR International, Inc., 1990).
Emergency ambulance service would also be affected by the removal of the Alfred
Cunningham bridge, which would affect direct access to craven Regional Medical
Center, north of the Trent River. However, bridge opening delays would be
eliminated and access to US 70 and the Pembroke Road exit would be available for
access to the Medical Center and Downtown New Bern.
3.3.9 Alternative 9
Alternative 9 is the most costly alternative proposed. This alternative would
consist of rehabilitating both existing bridges or constructing new moveable
swing-span bridges adjacent and parallel to each existing bridge, and modifying
the two railroad bridges to carry vehicular traffic (see Figure 3-1).
This alternative would satisfy or partially satisfy all the project needs except:
1) reduce traf f is congestion in Downtown New Bern; and 2) eliminate or reduce the
3-11

highway user-versus-river user conflict. Access across the Neuse River would be
' improved, but still subject to bridge opening delays.
' Potential adverse effects of Alternative 9 include traffic congestion,
residential and business relocations, wetland and water quality impacts. By
dispersing traffic between four access points, this alternative could reduce
' traffic problems associated with bridge openings; however, all westbound traffic
crossing the Neuse River would be funneled into Downtown New Bern. Wetland and
' water quality impacts are related to construction activities near and within the
Neuse and Trent Rivers. Alternative 9 does not address the most critical project
' needs, namely, to relieve downtown traffic congestion and provide continuous
access across the Neuse River.
3.3.10 Alternative 10
' Alternative 10 would begin at the east end of North Glenburnie Road north of New
Bern, cross the Neuse River with a high-level bridge, and connect with US 17 in
the vicinity of the Antioch Road intersection north of the Bridgeton city limits
(see Figure 3-1). Also included in this alternative is the rehabilitation of the
Alfred Cunningham (Trent River) Bridge.
Alternative 10 would not satisfy the two most critical project needs: 1)
increase traffic capacity across the Neuse River at US i7/NC 55; and 2) promote
regional economic growth. This alternative would relieve the Downtown New Bern
' traffic congestion yet cause additional traffic congestion on North Glenburnie
Road. Also the Downtown New Bern economy would be adversely affected because of
' the distance the replacement bridge would be from Downtown New Bern.
' 3.3.11 Preliminary Alternative Analysis
The preliminary alternatives compared the ability of the 10 preliminary build
alternatives to meet the project needs with the no-build alternative, which by
definition does not meet any of the projects needs. None of the proposed
preliminary alternatives would completely meet all of the project needs; however,
the analysis indicated that Alternatives 2, 5, 6 and 8 would meet more of the
3-12

project needs than any of the other alternatives proposed (see Table 3-1). '
Further analysis of these four alternatives was conducted to assess their adverse '
impacts on the natural, social and economic environments of the New Bern area and
the region (see Table 3-2). Alternative 5 was eliminated on the basis of having
the highest number of socially and economically adverse impacts, including the '
adverse environmental impacts of relocating the navigation channel.

3-13 '

A

ao >+ >4
>I z >I >l >I >1
o la >+ >4 > 4 >1 >+ >0
>+

a
m

0 >1 >+ >4 >I >+

o
'* >+ z >4 >1 >+ a
O
a)

Ia
N >+ >4 >4 >+ >4 >4 >+

N
1
,4
s >• z z z z z z a

m

>
14
>+
z
>4
>4
y4 Q
z
? u
_z
,? 1 to

z z z z z z z $4
m ,
z o?4
?4 14

O U
01 O m
m d
>1 'd ' U A
41 V) z "4 X 41
u O 0) ca c 10 to 0
C 0
U c C
3 ro e >+ .
4
1 "4 m
ro }J vl 3 41 C w (is V O >4 4•1 > r.

of ld
w 0
01 c 14
m
a) V 4J
m 14 -4
o N
ro w 4J m •-1 41 01 m w U C 41 0 ra U
U $4 ro G U .c > 41 a c ai O ro C W r, E
m u 3 0 0% -4 m m to m 0 41 m 01
U> JJ o V C c a 10 r4 C U • 4 U r1 >
>
•.4 .d A 41 d •.1 •rl U 7 o P-4 4 r1 to
w a U $4 a) N 41 $4 •.+ A a ri >. -A 41 > q 0 1-4
m w r1 1•'.. 3 _4 m .0 U w E m w 4+ .0 ••a $4 O

ro 01
C -A
1.1 4J r4 'a •r1
w
ro w > C
ro 3 a1
?+ ??
?'m o 0 a1.+4ls4 44 ro uroa C m o+
a1 +1 0 LI C A 41 z m w sa
La O
0
d m
N
14 4
z a1 C 0 al O > b 41 ;J >4 U U Sa 01 OI $4 to
01 Z u1 U -4 iA v 01 "4 $4 1d u \ rl C
JJ m In 41 ro U u C 1Y. iJ m 11 c r: 0 0 4J •4 01 11
U 0 m a! m C •rl •rt •r1 > -•a 0 u U U »4 c 41 J» >,
d a1 m U u a1 •.1 r.1 w 41 4.1 $4 o 1-4 m a! •.1 ro r? •.a 0
n LI o z CT C E W W m C 0 $4 -A IJ 4J r•1 r-4 -A ro $ 3
o u >r O C 1a ri C ro .+ a1 > a u m m 04 O E o o r4 o
N C u n 0 o W r•+ O IJ X W rl E ro E Cd
0 ro o
>a w
a 1 IV r4 a U M W U V 0 H 1.1 1- w 0 0 a a 44 Id As 01 r1 n
0
z_
to
0
m
a?
m
b
C
m
v
m
>
ro
c
u
a1
a
1
cry
W
m
m

U
m
m
0

r a
_ ?.
ro ?

m e
41
o

.?n

i: is
ro

`?':1f/:::
ii•?:L :
:ii?': i;:i;:;:
....
}r.'„f.,l,?'.:: :{?:•:•:? is
ir::?l;.vw%•:.i. ii
:.
.......... ......... :.......
m

ro ri
t0 0 o z • 0 0 0 o z to
w
.? 0
41
? i o z o f z • • z ?

U 0

O 3 d

c?
3

ro

........

........

..............

......

.

ro
a
0

C
> > ` :>
0 ?4
4 44
"4
m
s
O
.-1

M 0 o z • 0 0 0 0 z ?; 41 m
?
°°w m
+
•
L? C s 3

....
.......... ? b v

s
I

a

•

s

Z a

.f v,
JJ

ro
..
. ...... ...
a
«<:<:<:» ::::: a A m
ro w
to 41
.4 to 41

'C! II N
.P-4.I z • • z z z z z Z

it Cd
'o
.-4
•.4
0
E
O
•.I $4
0
. C
41
ro .1 O
W '
0 " m U .
0
M x w ?
14 C 41 41

m m w w
LI O V N m
w m U
>r w w co C 41 W w
G m m ? m U N GU
i w
'o
A
r4 o z o ba m z carom C
P4 to U 64 -4 0 u 44 $4
10 0 C 11 ii +1 •4 JJ c w w
- 4 of U 3 U 'o C A.+ 4J "4 3 C> a+
41 ?4 O •A C a A w C O O -4 'o C
C N w 41 $4 ro 'o U 4 0 w 4J Z Z FC •a m
w w w C V r4 •.a O JJ
? m
4 c
3
I I I 'o
to 'o
w
0 4 ro 3 m V m r4 m "
0 s 'I U x O m e
9 3 H o 0 3 z o•
0
t
04
in
I
C"

I
Alternative 8 was likewise eliminated because of the expected impact it would
I have on the Downtown New Bern businesses due to the removal of direct access from
the south across the Trent River. Based on this analysis of preliminary
engineering and environmental factors, public opinion, and input from local
interest groups, public officials, and various agencies, the preliminary
alternatives analysis identified Alternatives 2 and 6 for further in-depth study.
??? _• ?:i> its ?! ' :i ?:a• • ? • :T ??_?.??i•??!_Y??_•?_?
For purposes of the further detailed study, Alternatives 2 and 6 will henceforth
be referred to as Alternative A and Alternative B, respectively. Third and
fourth study alignments, Alternatives C and D, were added during the course of
the detailed environmental assessment study process to avoid and/or minimize
' overall environmental impacts. These additional alternatives were added in
response to environmental impact issues, either natural resource, sociological,
' economic, or public opinion. These two additional alternatives bring the total
number of alternatives considered to twelve (12).
3.4.1 Alternative A
Alternative A (preliminary Alternative 2) consists of the construction of a four-
lane, high-level, fixed-span bridge over the Neuse River from James City to Sandy
Point in Bridgeton approximately 4,000 feet downstream of the existing Neuse
River bridge (see Figure 3-2). The total bridge length would be approximately
5,800 feet. Four-lane roadway approaches terminating at US 17 and NC 55 in
Bridgeton and US 70 in James City would also be constructed. Modification of the
existing US 70 Bypass/US 70 Business interchange would provide a controlled
access connection with the west end of the proposed bridge. A new three-leg
interchange would provide a controlled access connection with the east end of the
proposed bridge.
The east end of the bridge would be anchored directly on Sandy Point. A
controlled access roadway would then extend north through the Sandy Point
community and cross over Sandy Point Road (SR 1609) just east of Beach Street (SR
1608). The proposed action would terminate with a three-leg interchange at US
' 17 and NC 55 in Bridgeton. Design criteria established for this bridge structure
3-16
indicate a design speed of 50 mph for an Urban Arterial and a desired level of
service of C (see Table 3-3; AASHTO, 1990). Environmental impacts include
business and residential relocations, disruption of community cohesion, wetland
losses, noise, water quality degradation, aesthetics and traffic congestion in
Downtown New Bern.
Alternative A would also include rehabilitation of the existing Alfred Cunningham
bridge on US 70 Business/East Front Street. Note that the Trent River crossing
component of this alternative does not address the traffic access/ congestion
issues and project needs associated with the Trent River crossing as was
identified in other alternatives that were eliminated in the preliminary
analysis. It is also inconsistent with the goal to alleviate traffic congestion
in downtown New Bern as identified in the New Bern-Bridgeton-Trent Woods
Transportation Plan (NCDOT, 1978) (see Section 4.1.2).
Subsequent to completion of the Neuse River bridge replacement and approach
roadway component of the proposed action, the existing US 17/NC 55 John Lawson
(Neuse River) bridge could be removed.
3-17
1
Li

1

1
1

;r
FIGURE 3-2
BUILD ALTERNATIVES
SELECTED FOR
DETAILED STUDY
0 1000 2000
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND:
® ALTERNATIVE 'A'
ALTERNATIVE 'B'
® ALTERNATIVE 'C'

•:•:::::::•.' ALTERNATIVE 'D'
51,11 - k •?- -.
=
A
Table 3-3 Desian Criteria
DESIGN SPEED Urban Arterial: 50 MPH
DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE Urban Arterial: C
RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH Urban Arterial: 100 Feet Minimum
MEDIAN WIDTH Graded Median: 30 Feet Minimum
VERTICAL CLEARANCES Over Highway or
Arterial: 16.5 Feet Minimum
Over Local Streets
& Collector Streets: 15.5 Feet Minimum
Over Railroads: 23.0 Feet Minimum
Over Neuse River
Channel: 65.0 Feet Minimum
Over Trent River
Channel: Match Existing
(Approx. 45 Feet)
i
Source: AASHTO, 1990
3-19
Y
3.4.2 Alternative a
Alternative B (preliminary Alternative 6) would also connect James City and Sandy
Point in Bridgeton. However, the eastern bridge terminus would be located
approximately 500 feet south of the Alternative A location (see Figure 3-2). The
total length of the proposed bridge under this alternative would be approximately
7,400 feet, which is 1600 feet longer than Alternative A. Alternative B crosses
SR 1609 farther east than Alternative A, in a less developed area of the Sandy
Point community. This would disrupt the community less, reduce noise impacts,
and require fewer residential relocations. Other characteristics of Alternative
B would be similar to those of Alternative A, including the issues associated
with not alleviating the traffic access/ congestion problems at the existing Trent
River bridge crossing (see Section 3.4.1).
3.4.3 Alternative C
Suggested by concerned citizens of the Sandy Point community, the Alternative C
replacement bridge would span the Neuse River from James City to a point
approximately 1,500 feet southeast of Sandy Point and 2,000 feet north of Duck
Creek (see Figure 3-2). Bridge length under this alternative would approach
7,800 feet, which is 2,000 feet longer than Alternative A and 400 feet longer
than Alternative B.
At the eastern bridge terminus, Alternative C extends north through undeveloped
land and connects with the approach roadway proposed for Alternative B about 900
feet south of Sandy Point Road (SR 1609). Alternatives B and C are identical
north of SR 1609.
This alternative would result in less noise and visual impacts on the residents
along Sandy Point. Other characteristics of Alternative C would be similar to
those of Alternative B.
Similar to the other reasonable and feasible study alternatives, Alternative C
would involve rehabilitation of the existing Alfred Cunningham Bridge over the
Trent River, raising the same issues as Alternatives A and B for Downtown New
Bern traffic congestion (see Section 3.4.1).
3-20

3.4.4 Alternative D
Alternative D was added to the study to provide an alternative that avoids the
complications of connecting with the existing US 70 Bypass/US 70 Business
interchange at the western terminus. The western bridge landing would be located
approximately 4,000 feet downstream of Alternatives A, B and C, and the eastern
bridge landing would be located approximately 300 feet downstream of Alternative
C (see Figure 3-2). Bridge length under this alternative would be approximately
7,600 feet, which is 200 feet shorter than Alternative C.
At the western bridge terminus, Alternative D would extend southwest to US 70,
where it would form a new three-leg interchange in the vicinity of existing
Williams Roads (SR 1167). This interchange would require relocation of the
intersection of US 70 and Williams Road approximately 400 feet to the north. The
relocated Williams Road would pass between an existing shopping center and an old
James City cemetery.
At the eastern bridge terminus, Alternative D extends north through undeveloped
land and ties with the connecting approach roadway proposed for Alternative C
about 1,000 feet south of Sandy Point Road (SR 1609). Alternatives C and D are
identical north of SR 1609.
Alternative D environmental impacts would consist of residential and business
relocations, disruption of community cohesion, economic effects, noise, wetland
losses, water quality degradation, aesthetics, and traffic congestion in Downtown
New Bern.
Similar to the other reasonable and feasible study alternatives, Alternative D
would involve rehabilitation of the existing Alfred Cunningham Bridge over the
Trent River, raising the same issues of traffic access/congestion in Downtown New
Bern identified in the project needs (see discussion in Section 3.4.1).

1
1
3-21

3.4.5 Findin=
During the development of preliminary plans, assessment of environmental impacts
for Alternatives A, B, C and D, and review of public input, a decision was made
to drop Alternatives A, B and D from further consideration. The strongest basis
for this decision is the comparison among the alternatives of potential wetland
acreage affected and relocations. Table .3-4 summarizes these estimated impacts.
Alternative D, although affecting the smallest total acreage of wetlands has the
highest relocation and social impacts, primarily affecting the James City
community. Alternative A, when compared to Alternatives 8 and C, has comparable
total wetland acreage impacts yet much higher quality wetlands are affected,
namely the emergent marsh and swamp forest types. Also Alternative A has more
estimated relocations. Alternative B, like Alternative A, affects more high
quality wetlands than Alternative C. Also Alternative 8 was opposed by the local
public because of its proximity to the homes on Sandy Point. To further support
the selection of Alternative C, there was strong public support for Alternative
C at the last public officials meeting and public informational workshop. Since
the decision to drop Alternatives A, B, and D was made prior to the completion
of the detailed studies, only results from the detailed studies related to
Alternative C are included hereinafter.
Table 3-4 Comparison of Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives-
Alternative Total Wetlands Impacted (acres) Relocations
Residences Businesses
[Minority] [Non-Profit] Total
A 87 12• 4• 160
[N/A1 [N/Al
B 86 3• 4' 7*
[N/A1 [N/A]
C 86 3 4 7
[31 [11
D 72 37 10 47
[211 (1]
Y-d ni.Y V_-"I
3-22

3.5 IN PRaa ALUK revs
of the No-Action Alternative include severe tr
The potential adverse effects affic
congestion in the New Bern Historic District and the possibility that both the
John Lawson (Neuse River) and Alfred Cunningham (Trent River) bridges would be
' closed due to structural obsolescence. The closure of the John Lawson bridge
would increase the travel distance between Downtown New Bern and Bridgeton from
one mile to twenty-four miles. Since the potential adverse effects of the No-
Action Alternative would be more severe than the effects of the proposed build
alternatives, and the No-Action Alternative would not meet project needs, the No-
Action Alternative is not considered to be a feasible alternative. Since
Alternatives A, 8 and D were dropped from further consideration in this study,
' and no other reasonable and feasible alternatives have been identified,
Alternative C has been selected as the Preferred Alternative (see Figure 3-3).
Project. costs (see Section 3.6) and detailed environmental analysis (see Section
4) are discussed only for Alternative C, the Preferred Alternative.- A detailed
description of the Preferred Alternative is provided below.
3.5.1 Termini
The Preferred Alternative would consist of a new bridge over the Neuse River that
would connect with five different routes: US 17, NC 55, US 70, US 70 Bypass, and
US 70 Business.
At the eastern terminus of the proposed action, the proposed bridge and ramps
would connect with US 17 and NC 55. The connection to US 17 would be-located
approximately 900 feet north of Mill Street in Bridgeton. The connection to NC
55 would be located approximately 3,000 feet east of the Bridgeton town limits.

i m m m m m m ? ? ? ? ? ? s ? ? ? ? ?
Cr.
L
--< rn

m -3?
m
O '
iS 0
ijo
i

V
m z
0
o
N
m -si
v a
a z
r_ n
v
z b
z m
-a ai
r
m
O
m
z
c
0

D
r
m 1
p
z 0
0

m
m

-i ro
0
0
0

'o

m
T
m

m
v
a
q
c
M
m
m W
Z
D '
GJ
-I

m

At the western terminus of the proposed action, the ramps of the proposed
interchange would tie into US 70, US 70 Business and US 70 Bypass. Ramp
connections to US 70 would terminate midway between Meadow Street and Williams
Road. The ramp connections to US 70 Business would terminate at Howell Road
t (southbound) and at the south end of the Alfred Cunningham (Trent River) bridge
(northbound). On US 70 Bypass, an auxiliary lane will extend across the Freedom
' Memorial (Trent River) Bridge to the Pembroke Road interchange.
3.5.2 Typical .Sections
Bridges
The proposed main US 17/NC 55 Neuse River bridge spans would consist of dual two-
lane bridges with 41-0" left shoulders and 61-0" right shoulders (see Figure 3-
4). Also under consideration is a single structure with a median barrier
dividing each direction. Combination barrier rails (41-6" high) and 61-0"
outside shoulders would be provided because the proposed action is a critical
link for two designated North Carolina Bicycling Highways (see Section 4.2.2).
The proposed interchange ramps located on structures would have a minimum 4'
inside shoulder and a minimum 6' outside shoulder. Additional shoulder or offset
width may be required to accommodate adequate sight distance on ramps and loops
1 which have sharp degrees of horizontal curvature (See Figure 3-5).

LI
1

3-25
4e
C
W
LL.
w
w
O
pW
>
m ?
Le) w
z z
T
W
W
C)
O
m

H
U
W
0
CY
a
V
r;;
r?
v
W
O
_r
m
(to
z
O
U
W
J
Q
U
CL
H
w
i
i
M
LL
O
cc
a
2
Q
W
Z
Q
V
F?
N
Wp
-
cr-
I
c Z :
o ap ?
W Q p I C9 a'
1 N
? i -
t
0 OI ? N
t O N ?
0 ?
i
N
W _ O
-
CD
v+
C13 -p
E m
v a
cr- 0
N J
C
v
J C
v
? J
v v
7
iT)
N
tT ?F
C
cn
Roadways
The proposed mainline roadway approaches south of existing NC 55 would consist
of four 121-0" wide lanes with a 301-0" wide grass median (see Figure 3-6).
Paved shoulder widths for left-and right shoulders for this typical section would
be 41-0" and 101-0", respectively. The proposed roadway grade would be elevated
about 6 feet above existing ground elevation between NC 55 and Sandy Point Road
and about 15 feet above the existing elevation south of Sandy Point.
The proposed US 17 mainline roadway approaches north of existing NC 55 will
transition from the 30' median to the existing two lane roadway. The proposed
interchange ramps would consist of one 141-0" or two 121-0" wide travel lanes,
with 41-0" wide paved shoulders on both sides (see Figure 3-8).
3.5.3 Interchange Lane Configurations
The proposed Neuse River bridge is connected to existing routes by an interchange
at each terminus. The US 70 Bypass/US 70 Business interchange would be located
on the west end, and the US 17/NC 55 interchange would be located on the east end
of the proposed action. The proposed action would provide two continuous lanes
in each direction between US 17 and US 70 to Havelock and between US 17 and US
70 Bypass to Kinston. The lane configurations for the US 70 Bypass/US 70
Business and US 17/NC 55 interchanges are illustrated in Figures 3-9 and 3-10,
respectively.
3-28

c
r4r)
r.
m
v
zz
c r
Z
J N
c
CO)
j
OV
11 Z
M0
X N
VI
zo

v m
z w
n

MN
0
c

z

N
t0
(D
r D
o r
;u 0
a _
30
'v Z
w
o?
? v Q1
C0
v
D C
r- O
a
N
{? O
p

0 O
zv
4 m
N ?
O N
-1 ?
O

OF)

D
O v
C)
D Z ?n
v > "i
D?

r -0
O
-gyp D
3 m
?
CO)
z
0 --j

C
_ _
N
0
P O
o D ?

CD
N
m

` /
= _
N

O 0D C
N Z ?m

}
r
n' C

o Dv o
m v

C o

D
r •
D
FO
t
=
- 0
a
m
N O
OA
o
D
Z v
-+ m
ti
rf)
rg)
m
m
n
G
m r
?0 70
a m
? w
m Co
D
N

N
O
c
n
m
C
o
(0 0 ?
111
d a *?
m0 ?O
Z m
m o co
-

z0
mm o
3
O co
D
3
m
z
RD
W
m
m
z
v
0
n
e
u
u
u
0 U)
(D 0
iu
i
i

O C
S ?
1 O
CD
n
77
?l
N
p c U
v
o .5
?
?m?
=v
Co8 m
v
OZ
C
= V
D
00
n
:v
0
I
t
r

I ?

r- r -n -vc Z
me
?m 0
m
cm vv
<
m o u
* OZ
?o
z
r
0
N
n
Q
m
Z
7m0 Cl)
0-4
X°
Z?
m
zc
mCO)
Oo
zW
"c
?z
?N
O cl)
z
m
w
cC
N
0
c
0
m
cwo O
w?
da
m
n z
= m
m rr- C
0 N 0 to
c?
m
z t°
RD ?-
? o
m
m
z
a
0
m
m
0
c
0
cu v
(D 3
nz
?+ n

r
m
r z
$? v
mm
vv
m
O?
z
0 0
z
O - 400,00e
0
N
Q
Q
a
c
Z -
mn
O Ul
Z cn
z
DI Z
Z G)
m
C
m
W
O
I
I
1 3.5.4 Bridge Types
The proposed US 17/NC 55 (Nauss River) bridge would consist of three general
types of spans. These types would include the navigation channel, east approach
and interchange ramp spans. The proposed substructure type could consist of
single or multi-column concrete hammerhead piers supported by concrete piles (see
Figure 3-11). In areas susceptible to marine vessel impact, the piers would be
strengthened to withstand varying vessel impact loads. The foundation and pier
types will be reviewed during final design to determine the most feasible
I structural system.
Over the Nauss River navigation channel, the proposed bridge would provide a
minimum of 65 feet of vertical clearance during mean high tide and 180 feet of
horizontal clearance. Since the proposed horizontal clearance would be twice the
' desirable minimum clearance of 90 feet, a fender system would not be required to
protect navigation channel piers. The low point along the profile of the east
approach spans would be a top of slab elevation of 19.0 mean sea level (msl),
which would provide approximately two feet of freeboard (assuming 8 feet of
structure depth) during a 100-year storm elevation of 9.0 msl.
Interchange/Overpass Bridges
The land side bridges included in the US 70 bypass/US 70 Business interchange,
' US 17/NC 55 interchange and the Sandy Point Road overpass would consist of steel
and/or concrete girder span bridges and possibly concrete slab span bridges.
The proposed substructure type could consist of hammerhead or post and beam type
piers supported by concrete piles. Similar to the proposed US 17/NC 55 (Nauss
River) bridge, the foundation and pier types will be reviewed during final
design.
Freedom Memorial Bridge Widening
The proposed widening of the existing Freedom Memorial (Trent River) bridge on
US 70 Bypass would consist of bridge construction types similar to the existing
structure wherever feasible. Superstructure and substructure types for
3-33
1
FIGURE 3-11
HAMMERHEAD PIERS t
MULTI-COLUMN PIER
SINGLE-COLUMN PIER
1
navigation channel span may differ from the existing structure to maintain the
s
existing 45-foot vertical and 55-foot horizontal navigation clearances.
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Rehabilitation
The proposed rehabilitation of the existing Alfred Cunningham (Trent River)
bridge on US. 70 Business would yield an estimated remaining life of 25 to 30
' years and consist of the following:
.upgrade bridge rails
.deck rehabilitation
.upgrade expansion joints
.repair end diaphragms
.strengthen bridge members to carry N.C. Legal Loads plus 10%
.clean and paint structural steel
.replace damaged truss members
.replace fender system
.repair prestressed concrete piles
.upgrade draw span machinery
r .add approach slabs
The existing vertical and horizontal clearances for vehicular and marine traffic
would not change substantially.
1 3.5.5 Riaht-of-Flay/Access Control
The proposed right-of-way varies throughout the project limits. This proposed
project alternative would require additional right-of-way beyond the existing
limits within the communities of James City, Sandy Point and Bridgeton.
The proposed action would be a fully controlled access facility within the
project limits except at the following locations:
*at the US 70/US 70 Business/US 70 Bypass interchange, limited access control
at the Howell Road (SR 1004) intersection;
*at the Meadows Street/Brown Drive intersection along US 70 in the James City
community, limited access control;
3-35
*in Bridgeton, no access control near the project terminus at OS 17;
*in Bridgeton, no access control near the project terminus at NC 55.
3.5.6 Construction Methods
The methods used to construct the roadway and bridge structure elements included
in the proposed action and the means of disposal of waste materials resulting
from this construction would affect the extent and nature of environmental
impacts resulting from the construction. Permissible methods of construction are
usually made as flexible as possible in the contract requirements to promote
competitive bidding and assure the most economical construction cost. On major
bridge construction projects, such as the proposed action, optional bridge
designs using alternative material types and structural configurations requiring
different erection methods are often included for bidding. This further broadens
the range of construction methods which could be utilized on a given project.
For these reasons, it is not possible to predict the specific construction method
to be utilized on a given project with any degree of certainty.
For the purpose of evaluating the maximum potential construction related impacts
for the bridges constructed over water, the bridge type requiring the erection
of the largest and heaviest, prefabricated structural elements was selected.
Similarly, it was assumed that these prefabricated structural sections would be
set in place using barge-mounted cranes. These criteria are reflected in the
following construction method descriptions.
Neuse and Trent River Crossings
A precast, post-tensioned segmental concrete box girder superstructure with
integral concrete deck was analyzed for the construction of the bridge spans over
the Neuse River. A precast, prestressed concrete I-girder superstructure was
analyzed for the construction of the bridge spans over the Trent River.
It is anticipated that a floating barge drawing a maximum of 6.0 feet of water
and maneuvered by a tug boat with a similar draft would be required for pile
driving and structural component erection.
3-36
1
Along the alignment of the proposed action, the water depth in the Neuse.River
is less than 6.5 feet below mean low water for a distance of about 2,000 feet.
In the Trent River, water depths less than 6.5 feet below mean low water extend
approximately 800 feet along the existing Freedom memorial bridge. Considering
these water depths and the assumed draft of the erection vessels, a construction
access channel 100 feet wide is expected to be required where the existing water
depth is less than 6.5 feet. This channel construction would require thea-_rsmoval
of in-place bottom materials to an average depth of 3.0 feet over a length of
approximately 2,800 feet, using pumping dredge or clam shell removal methods.
It is anticipated that the dredging of this channel could be scheduled to be
performed during the late fall or winter period, thereby limiting this
disturbance of Nauss and Trent Rivers to a period of lower biological activity.
Existing John Lawson Bridge Removal
The fixed spans of the existing John Lawson (Nauss River) bridge on US 17/NC 55
consist of reinforced concrete deck, steel beams, and reinforced concrete pile
and cap substructure. The movable span is a center-pivoting, 220-foot steel
through truss swing span.
It is considered feasible to remove all fixed-span bridge elements by staging the
work from the in-place portion of the existing bridge. The removal of the swing
span may require barge-mounted cranes and other floating equipment. Water depths
' at the in-place movable span location appear to be sufficient for the work,
without channel deepening.
Roadway Embankment Construction
Where roadway widening encroaches into existing wetland areas, removal of organic
soils and vegetation down to firm, bearing sands would be required. Where these
materials are in a saturated condition, removal would involve the use of clam
shell or dredging methods requiring dewatering of excavated materials.
' Embankment materials can be obtained either by re-use of select granular dredged
material or from borrow sources outside the project limits. If embankment
material from off-site borrow sources is required, this material is expected to
be available from one of several existing commercially developed borrow sources
in the area.
3-37

Construction Phasinq
Due to the magnitude-of the proposed action and the State's limited source of
highway construction funds, the Preferred Alternative may be constructed in two
or more phases. The extent of improvements to be included in the initial phase
will be determined during final design.
3.6 PROJECT COST AVAMSI8 I
The total initial project cost would be approximately $122 million (1993 dollars)
if the proposed action is completed all at once without phasing. This cost would
include construction, right-of-way and engineering, but would not include wetland
mitigation costs. Any scenario that would split the proposed action into two or
more phases would probably reduce the initial cost, but would increase the total
cost of the ultimate improvements. The total project cost, noted above, includes
$3 million (1993 dollars) for right-of-way acquisition.

The estimated total project cost for the rehabilitation of the Alfred Cunningham
bridge would range from $750,000 (1993 dollars) for minor repairs to extend the
service life by 15 years to $7 million (1993 dollars) for major repairs to extend
the service life by 30 years.

1
1
3-38
?'?
ru
1

1 4.1 LAND USE

4.1.1 Existing Land Use
' Currently there are no zoning regulations in Craven County except within
incorporated municipalities, a notable exception being the regulation of building
heights near the Marine Corps Air Station at Cherry Point. The only zoned
' portions of the project area is a section in the Bridgeton town limits zoned for
residential and commercial use and a small area in the New Bern city limits zoned
for commercial and public use. According to North Carolina law (G.S. 160A-360),
both Bridgeton and New Bern have the right to zone all land lying within a one-
mile extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) around their perimeters. The purpose
of this law is to ensure consistency in land use between cities and adjacent
' areas. Neither Bridgeton nor New Bern, however, exercises a full ETJ. With most
planning efforts concentrated within the town limits, Bridgeton has not
identified any specific plans or policies for future development south of US
17/NC 55. New Bern's currently exercised ETJ does not cross the Neuse River or
Trent River (Satilla Planning, 1987).
Existing land use in the general project area is varied (see Figure 4-1; Table
' 4-1). The New Bern Central Business District and outlying commercial facilities
serve the entire region surrounding the city. Commercial strip development, in
the form of service stations and other small businesses,.lines major roadways
such as US 70, US 17, and NC 55. Waterfront property is devoted to residential
development, recreation, and industrial /commercial use, with the exception of
extremely wet and/or inaccessible locations. In addition, large acreages of land
remain undeveloped and are utilized as cropland or for timber production. A
large-scale blueberry farm is located immediately adjacent to the project
corridor just outside the Bridgeton town limits (Satilla Planning, 1987).
A
1 .'

< A n z c N
.h w
c a a v c
+)
r m m -a n
O z .z v O m
0o C) c? r v
I ° O z 0
z m
< ,°- r Z a
a a a o
I

'Al ? J?

1
/',\ `.

? l a c
a m v z
-4 . -q v ?
m
° o
c
v
r z
v n ?
m
m ra n p
0
a m
?
?
? ..
m '7'I

'? z
o n r C
?
m r
? c
? m r n1
D
Z •P
Z c
v ?
m
\ it
I
t
Table 4-1. Dominant Land Uses in Craven County, Bridgeton, and New Bern, NC
LAND USE ACREAGE % of AREA
Craven Co: Farmland 89,149 18.2
Forest* 268,092 55.0
Urban, etc. 21,900 4.5
Water 38,272 7.9
Wetlands 69,800 14.4
TOTAL 487,213 100.0
Bridgeton: Developed Land
Industrial 18.5 7.5
Commercial 24.8 10.1
Public 11.1 4.5
Residential 45.7 18.6
Undeveloped Land
Vacant 69.1 28.0
Right-of-Way 77.0 31.3
TOTAL 246.2 100.0
New Bern: Developed Land
Industrial 118 2.4
Commercial 736 15.1
Public 466 9.6
_ Residential 2,061 42.3
Undeveloped Land
Vacant 1,487 30.5
Transportation &
Utilities 8 0.1
TOTAL 4,876 100.0
* Forested Wetlands are included with Wetlands.
Sources: Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study, 1989;
Bridgeton Planning Board, 1989; Davenport, 1984;
Satilla Planning, 1987
4-3
Land use within the project corridor area can be characterized as follows:
• In the unincorporated James City area, three major highways (US 70,
US .70 Bypass, and US 70 Business) ; several small businesses; a
minority, single-family residential community; and sparse wetland
acreage jointly occupy the study area. Construction was initiated
prior to January 1991 on a new development owned by Bridge Pointe,
Inc., just south of US 70 Bypass along the southern bank of the
Trent River. Limited land use impacts are expected in the James
City area as a result of the proposed action because the majority of
project-related construction would be limited to the US 70 right-of-
way. However, approximately 4.4 acres of undeveloped intertidal
scrub-shrub and mixed hardwood flat wetlands would be converted to
highway use.
• The portion of the project corridor that falls within the New Bern
city limits is characterized by commercial development and the Union
Point Park. According to the September 17, 1991 edition of the New
Bern Sun Journal, a 100-room, limited service hotel is tentatively
planned for the vacant waterfront lot immediately adjacent to Union
Point Park along East Front Street. Minimal direct project impacts
on land use are expected in this area.
• Land on the eastern shore of the Neuse River and south of US 17/NC
55 is devoted primarily to single-family housing. Additionally, a
large adjacent tract of undeveloped land is in single ownership.
Little of this land is currently forested. Much of this land has
been either recently logged, ditched, and drained, or is marshland.
The proposed alternatives would result in the conversion of
residential and undeveloped land, including wetlands, in the Sandy
Point community to highway use.
North of US 17/NC 55, residential and commercial properties would be affected by
construction of a bridge approach and connectors to US 17 and NC 55. In general,
however, project impacts would be limited in these areas.
4-4

1

t
1
H
1
t

In the immediate project area, improved access to the east of the Neuse River may
encourage conversion of undeveloped land to other uses such as residential
communities or commercial development if adequate utilities are provided. A new
multi-lane bridge over the Neuse River would also improve access to eastern
Craven County and to Pamlico County. This improved access might stimulate
economic activity and development in eastern Craven County and in Pamlico County.
No major land use changes are anticipated that would be inconsistent with the
respective Craven or Pamlico County land use policies are anticipated.
4.1.2 State and Local Government Plans and Policies
The proposed action is consistent with the goal identified in the New Bern-
Bridgeton-Trent Woods Transportation Plan (NCDOT, 1978) of alleviating traffic
congestion in downtown New Bern. Traffic flow is hampered when either or both
of the existing swing-span drawbridges open to allow passage of medium to large-
size river vessels. A high-level, multi-lane, fixed span bridge over the Neuse
River from James City to the Sandy Point area would reduce this problem.
Under the proposed action, the Neuse River bridge must cross estuarine surface
waters which are classified as Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) under the
North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) (G.S. 113A-107(a)) (see Section
4.15, Coastal Zone Impacts). Administered by the Coastal Resources Commission
and the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, this law gives high
priority to the protection and coordinated management of estuarine waters to
"safeguard and perpetuate their biological, social, economic, and aesthetic
values and to ensure that development occurring within this AEC is compatible
with natural characteristics so as to minimize loss of private property and
public resources" (T15A N.C.A.C. 07H.0203).
Craven County recognizes the special status of estuarine AECs by classifying them
as conservation areas. The county's policy on roadway construction in estuarine
AECs requires that no significant alterations of the ecological system are made.
It also requires compliance with all existing federal, state, and local
regulations (Craven County Planning Board and Craven County Planning Department,
4-5

1988). The proposed Neuse River bridge would be constructed in accordance with
these policies.
Both the Craven County (1988) and Pamlico County (Coastal Resources
Collaborative, LTD, 1989) Land Use Plans advocate economic growth by means of
commercial and industrial development. The proposed action is consistent with
these goals.
The proposed action would directly impact areas classified as "Developed" and
"Transition" under the 1988 Craven County and 1987 City of New Bern Land Use Plan
Updates (Satilla Planning, 1987). The developed class of land provides for
continued intensive development. Transition areas are those lands expected to
undergo intensive urban development over the following ten years. Within the
project corridor, the existing land use of these transition areas is
predominately residential in character. Conversion of developed and residential
transition lands to highway use would be consistent with the current LAMA land
use classifications.
The proposed action is also consistent with the New Bern Urban Design Plan (LDR
International, Inc., 1990) which seeks to "reinforce the strength" of Downtown
New Bern and the Five Points neighborhood (area around the Broad Street/Neuse
Blvd and Queen Street intersection) by providing a blueprint for planned growth.
Through removal of the existing Neuse River bridge, the proposed action would
lessen through traffic and allow the Broad Street roadway to be narrowed,
"creating an attractive gateway to the city" (LDR International, Inc., 1990).
Rehabilitation of the Trent River bridge would maintain accessibility to downtown
New Bern as advocated by the New Bern Urban Design Plan.
Craven County and the City of New Bern are also committed to providing adequate
recreational facilities for area residents. According to the 1978 New Bern
Recreation Plan (Townsend and Associates, 1978), "special" recreation areas such
as Union Point Park (see Figure 4-1) are scarce in the New Bern region;
therefore, the park is a very important recreational asset. Located on the
northwest shore at the confluence of the Neuse and Trent Rivers, the park serves
a community recreation need. Since the 4.5-acre recreation site provides a
4-6

' picnic area, restrooms, and intensively used boat slips and docks, it could
conceivably be considered a regional facility (Townsend and Associates, 1978).
' A picturesque 15-mile downriver view of the Neuse River from Union Point Park
would be affected by the proposed action. The magnitude of this impact is
considered to be negligible for three reasons:
t • Union Point Park is located in a developed area.
The park's viewshed is already affected by existing
highway development, including the Alfred Cunningham
Bridge over the Trent River.
' • The proposed bridge would be located at least 2,400
feet from the park; thus, the river view would be
' altered rather than obstructed.
• During final project design, aesthetics would be
considered one of the design criteria to reduce
visual impacts.
The proposed bridge would be designed to blend with the surrounding landscape to
' the maximum extent possible within existing economic constraints (see Section
4.13.2, Visual Character of the Proposed Action).
4.2 TRANSPORTATION
4.2.1 Roadways
The proposed action would have an overall positive effect on vehicular travel in
the New Bern area by relieving downtown traffic congestion, improving traffic
flow and safety, and facilitating access to Pamlico County. Currently, the US
17/NC 55 John Lawson (Neuse River) bridge and US 70/SR 1004 Alfred Cunningham
' (Trent River) bridge act as bottlenecks for local and through traffic in New Bern
and, thereby, are the main source of congestion and delay in the area. The
selected alternative would alleviate this traffic congestion through provision
of a multi-lane, fixed-span, high-level bridge over the Neuse River from James
4-7

City to the Bridgeton/Sandy Point area. Local and through traffic crossing the
Neuse River would no longer be required to travel through downtown New Bern.
Motorists crossing the proposed Neuse River bridge from Bridgeton to James City
would have three directional options: 1) go north across the Alfred Cunningham
bridge into New Bern; 2) travel south toward Havelock on US 70 East; or 3)
continue westbound on US 70 Bypass, with the option to make connections with US
17 South or NC 55 West.
A high-level replacement bridge would also act to relieve highway and river
traffic delays and the resulting congestion by eliminating the need for bridge
openings for passage of river vessels. The current impact of these openings on
vehicles using area roadways is documented in Section 2, (Purpose of and Need for
Action) of this report.
Improved access to and from Pamlico County would be a positive impact of the
proposed action on the existing limited roadway infrastructure in that county.
Poor access to and within rural Pamlico County is exemplified by the fact that
no US highways currently cross the county. NC 55, the primary access route to
Pamlico County is scheduled for an upgrade between Bridgeton and Bayboro
beginning in 1998 (NCDOT, 1992a). The proposed bridge replacement and the
improvement of NC 55 together will greatly improve access to Pamlico County. The
proposed action would also improve vehicular access to the Morehead City-Beaufort
area for motorists in eastern Craven and Pamlico Counties. This access would be
especially critical during times when the Minnesott Beach to Cherry Branch ferry
is not in operation. There is currently no charge for use of this ferry.
The proposed action would not disrupt local traffic patterns within the Sandy
Point community since it would overpass Sandy Point Road (SR 1609). A section
of existing NC 55 between "C" Street and "E" Street in Bridgeton would be
removed, and NC 55 traffic would be rerouted through the proposed US 17/NC 55
interchange. Existing US 17 in Bridgeton would be connected to the proposed
bridge approach between New Street and Line Street.
There will be reduced access to US 70 as a result of the proposed action within
the James City community. Access will be eliminated at Vail and Elder Streets.
4-8

' The crossover at Meadows Street will be eliminated thereby only allowing access
to US 70 Westbound from Meadows Street and access to US 70 Eastbound from Brown
' Drive.
t

P

1

4.2.2 Bicycle Routes
The existing US 17 John Lawson bridge is an essential connector for two
designated North Carolina Bicycling Highways (NCDOT, 1990e). The Ports of Call
bicycle route, which has been in use since 1986, merges with US 17 from US 70
Business at the west bank of the John Lawson bridge, crosses the river, and
continues east on NC 55 before turning northeast toward Beaufort County. Total
length of the Ports of Call route is 300 miles. The existing bridge is also a
critical link in the Ocracoke Option, a 170-mile route from just east of Wilson
to the Cedar Island ferry to Ocracoke. In use since 1980, the Ocracoke Option
bicycle route provides cyclists with a "glimpse of the natural and cultural
diversity of the state" (NCDOT, 1990d). Within the study area, the Ocracoke
Option route extends east on SR 1005 (Old US 70) to NC 55, connects with US 17
through downtown New Bern, crosses the bridge, and then continues on NC 55 before
turning southeast toward Minnesott Beach in Pamlico County.
According to a scoping response letter received from the North Carolina Bicycle
Coordinator:
"the existing bridge is the only structure available in the New Bern
area for passage over the Neuse River, not just for motor vehicles,
but also for bicyclists. Since there is no alternate bridge
available, provision for safe bicycle access on the replacement
bridge is not an extra feature, but an accommodation to which
bicycles as legally recognized vehicles on North Carolina roadways
have a right."
In accordance with Public Law 97-424, bicycle safety features including wide
shoulders, wide outside travel lanes, bicycle safe bridge deck railing, bicycle
safe drainage grate covers, and wide paved shoulders along the approach roadway
4-9

will be provided during the final design phase of the proposed action.
Because the project is a controlled access facility, bicyclists on both routes
will be required to cross the bridge as traffic from New Bern or Howell Road
would: through the US 70/US 70 Business/US 70 Bypass interchange and the
proposed US 17/NC 55 interchange. The most challenging feature would be the
eastbound route which would include a one-lane loop ramp with a five percent
upgrade for approximately 500 feet.
4.2.3 Aviation
The Craven County Regional Airport, located about 3,000 feet southwest of the
study area near James City, serves both general and commercial aviation needs of
the immediate New Bern area. Although no direct project-related impacts on the
airport are expected, the proximity of the airport and its plans for future
expansion must be considered. The Airport Authority received Federal Aviation
Administration approval for a 1,400-foot extension of the northeast-southwest
oriented runway 4-22. This would place the end of runway 4-22 approximately
2,300 feet from existing US 70. The extended runway centerline of runway 4-22
would cross the proposed action close to its midpoint on the Neuse River.
The presence of this high-level bridge plus appurtenances, such as lighting, near
or encroaching into the approach slope (Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR Part
77 Imaginary Surfaces) for runway 4-22 was evaluated. The proposed bridge's
crest would be located over the current Neuse River navigation channel. This
location is close to the west bank of the Neuse River. A preliminary evaluation
of the approach slope (at 34:1) from the end of the proposed runway extension
indicates that the highest bridge appurtenances, high mast lighting 30' above the
bridge deck, would be at least 74 feet below the approach slope.
A second concern expressed by the Craven County Regional Airport Manager was that
incoming aircraft might mistake bridge lighting for runway lights in foggy
weather and attempt a landing. During the design stage of the proposed action,
a detailed investigation of final bridge location and height in relation to the
extended centerline of the proposed runway 4-22 extension will be undertaken.
A determination that the bridge lighting would interfere with aviation would
4-10

1

u

i

11

11
result in incorporation of either special lighting, hazard lighting or no
lighting. This determination will be conducted in consultation with airport
officials and the FAA if necessary.
4.2.4 Navigation
Navigable waterways potentially affected by the proposed action include the Neuse
and Trent Rivers. The navigable portion of the Neuse River extends from the
Streets Ferry bridge at the NC 43 crossing to Pamlico Sound (see Figure 3-1).
The existing John Lawson (US 17/NC 55) bridge across the Neuse River and Alfred
Cunningham (US 70 Business/SR 1004) bridge across the Trent River are both
moveable swing-span bridges with openings on demand for commercial river traffic,
and limited openings to pleasure craft during peak traffic periods. Available
horizontal navigation clearances through the swing-spans of the John Lawson and
Alfred Cunningham bridges are 60 and 55 feet, respectively, (National Ocean
Service, US Department of Commerce, 1986).
The proposed widening of the Freedom Memorial (Trent River) bridge would maintain
the existing vertical and horizontal navigation clearances. The existing US 70
Bypass Freedom Memorial bridge across the Trent River is a high-level, fixed-span
bridge with navigation clearances of approximately 55 feet (horizontal) and 45
feet (vertical). The proposed horizontal clearance for a replacement bridge over
the Neuse River from James City to the Bridgeton/Sandy Point vicinity is 180
feet, while the proposed minimum (at mean high tide) vertical clearance is 65
feet. These clearances are necessary for safe passage of vessels currently
utilizing the river.
marina facilities:
A survey of representatives for the Sheraton Hotel and Ramada Inn Marinas
revealed the following characteristics of vessels currently using the respective
4-11

Sheraton Hotel Marina
• Draft: 5 - 6 feet
• Width: 16 - 20 feet
• Length: Variable (16 - 120 feet)
• Average Height: 50 - 53 feet
• Maximum Height: 60 feet
Ramada Inn Marina
• Draft: 5 - 8 feet
• Width: 14 - 16 feet (Average)
• Length: 40 - 55 feet
• Average Height: 45 feet
• Maximum Height: 55 - 60 feet
Existing commercial traffic on the Neuse River includes Hanover
Towing, a company which delivers fuel oil weekly via barges and
tugboats to Weyerhauser Company north of New Bern on the Neuse
River. The specifications of the vessels Hanover Towing uses
are:
• Draft: 7.5 - 8 feet
• Width: 40 feet
• Length: 215 feet (barge)
65 feet (tug)
• Height: 52 feet (tug), requiring 40 feet
vertical clearance with antennae
lowered
Other businesses/organizations which currently depend on use of the Neuse and/or
Trent Rivers in the project vicinity for navigational purposes include Hatteras
Yachts, Martin Marietta New Bern Quarry, and Duck Creek Marina. Hatteras Yachts
is located upstream of the study area on the Neuse River and manufactures large
boats, which they frequently test in the Neuse River. Hatteras Yachts is
considered a commercial user of waterways and bridges. Specifications of vessels
associated with these facilities are similar to those mentioned for Hanover
Towing and the Ramada and Sheraton Hotel marinas. Another large marina is
4-12

' located on Northeast Creek, 6-miles southeast of the New Bern/Neuse River area,
as part of the Fairfield Harbour Community.
Vertical navigation clearance would not be a factor in the US 70 Business Alfred
' Cunningham (Trent River) bridge rehabilitation due to the moveable span design
of the bridge. Similar to the US 70 Bypass Freedom Memorial (Trent River)
' bridge, the existing horizontal navigation clearance would be maintained.
4.3 SOCIOECONOMICS
Over the past two decades, the population of eastern North Carolina has increased
' at a rapid pace. During the 1980s, Craven County had the fastest increasing
population among the state's eleven sound-bordering counties with a growth rate
(14.9%) exceeding the statewide level (12.7%) (Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study,
1989). In contrast, neighboring Pamlico County maintained a relatively stable
population level between 1930 and 1980. Population growth did increase during
the 1980s, but was still lower than the state average (see Table 4-2). Lack of
substantial population growth in predominantly rural Pamlico County has been
' attributed to an overall out-migration of people seeking employment
opportunities. Employment opportunity continues to be limited in Pamlico County
due to restricted transportation access and the resulting inhibited economic
activity (Coastal Resources Collaborative, Ltd., 1989; Pamlico County Recreation
Department, 1980).
Demographic characteristics of the general project study area include a large and
increasing elderly population; a larger percent minority population than the
state average; a low median income; and a low population density. However, the
number of people per household is consistent with the state norm and parallels
national trends toward a smaller household size.
1

4-13

Table 4-2. Characteristics of Population Growth in Study Area, 1970 - 2000
JURISDICTION
North Carolina
Craven County
Township 2
Township 7
Township 8
Pamlico County
TOTAL POPULATION
1970 1980 1990
2000*
5,084,411 5,880,095 6,628,637 7,260,748
62,554 71,043 81,613 96,376
3,257 4,414 6,371 N/A
4,757 6,149 8,500 N/A
21,125 24,645 28,793 N/A
9,467 10,398 11,372 11,451
PERCENT CHANGE
JURISDICTION
1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000*
North Carolina +15.6 +12.7 +9.5
Craven County +13.6 +14.9 +18.1
Township 2 +35.5 +44.3 N/A
Township 7 +29.3 +38.2 N/A
Township 8 +16.7 +16.8 N/A
Pamlico County +9.8 +9.4 +1.0
* Projected
N/A = Not Available
Sources: Craven County Planning Board and Craven County Planning Dept., 1988
4-14

The proposed action would be located within the borders of three of Craven
County's nine townships: Townships 2, 7, and 8. Township 2, which has
experienced the highest rate of growth in the recent past, encompasses the entire
' portion of the project corridor located east of the Neuse River. The primary
reason for the rapid growth in Township 2 has been the establishment of Fairfield
Harbour, a retirement community east of the project corridor which includes a
golf course, and a large marina and dock facilities, with access into the Neuse
River 6-miles south of New Bern. Township 7 includes the James City area.
Township 8 contains the small section of the project corridor north of the Trent
River located within the New Bern city limits.
4.3.1 Social Impacts
Social impacts which would occur as a result of the proposed action can be
separated into two distinct categories: 1) impacts to the region as a whole, and
2) impacts on individual communities and neighborhoods. Proposed project effects
on regional resources such as recreation areas, schools, and emergency services
can be discussed in general terms whereas impacts on area-specific social
resources including churches, community centers, minority communities, and
community cohesion must be examined in greater detail.
Recreation Resources
Most recreation resources in the general project vicinity would not be affected
' by the proposed action. However, there are a few examples of both negatively and
positively impacted recreation facilities/resources. For the proposed action,
the James City to Bridgeton/Sandy Point bridge over the Neuse River"would alter
the current scenic downstream vista of the Neuse River from New Bern's Union
Point Park. The park's function as an area recreation facility for boating,
fishing, and picnicking would not be impacted. However, there is no other public
recreational facility in the area that provides a comparative aesthetic benefit.
' Park recreational uses which depend upon the view such as simple nature
observation and photography would be altered by the proposed action. The impact
of the proposed action on Union Point Park is considered to be negligible due to
the existing view of bridges and commercial property within the viewshed. The
El
4-15
11
addition of this proposed bridge and its distance from the downtown park will
only alter the existing view (see Section 4.1.2).
A second negative project-related impact on recreation is potential elimination
of local hunting grounds. Construction of the proposed action through the
undeveloped tracts south and east of the Sandy Point community would affect a
hunting area. Two deer stands and spent shotgun shells were observed during
field reconnaissance (January 1991) of this undeveloped land. The proximity of
many other hunting sites throughout the immediate project vicinity and the region
including Croatan National Forest just south of New Bern, renders this impact
negligible. Improved access to eastern Craven and to Pamlico County resulting
from the new bridge project would in itself mitigate for lost hunting grounds by
improving access to other hunting areas.
The proposed US 17/NC 55 Neuse River bridge location is close to the start/finish
line for the annual Labor Day Weekend Michelob Cup Sailboat Race on the Neuse
River between New Bern and Oriental. This event should be only minimally
impacted as the start/finish line could be shifted slightly downstream or
upstream.
The proposed action would enhance access to Pamlico County and its many
recreational resources. The primary access within the county is NC 55 which
connects New Bern with the town of Oriental. Access has been a limiting factor
in the development of Pamlico County (Pamlico County Recreation Department,
1980). Improved access as a result of the proposed action may allow Pamlico
County citizens to better utilize and benefit from their many recreational
resources. The county has high potential for future development of vacation
homes, campgrounds, small game and waterfowl hunting areas, scenic areas,
shooting preserves, and water sports areas (USDA, Soil Conservation Service,
1974).
4-16
t Schools

1

1

The proposed action is not expected to affect area school districts or school bus
routes. No school facilities (see Figure 4-2) would be impacted by the proposed
action.
Emergency Services
No medical or emergency facilities exist within the study corridor. The general
study area, including Pamlico County, is served by the Craven Regional Medical
Center in New Bern (see Figure 4-2). Currently, the John Lawson swing-span
bridge over the Neuse River separates the medical center from areas to the east
in Craven and Pamlico Counties, such as the Fairfield Harbour retirement
community. The Craven County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Advisory Council
advises that the proposed action would improve EMS response to calls and provide
more rapid transportation to the Craven Regional Medical Center because the
existing swing-span bridge would no longer be a delaying factor. Other emergency
services including police and fire protection would be minimally affected by the
proposed action, as service jurisdictions currently do not extend across the
Neuse River (see Figure 4-2).
Churches
Project-related impacts on churches (see Figure 4-2) would be negligible. Three
churches fall within the project area: Jones Chapel A.M.E. Zion Church, Mt.
Shiloh Baptist Church and Reform Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church. All three of
these churches consist of predominately African-American memberships and are
located in the James City area. Jones Chapel A.M.E. Zion Church is located on
Elder Street at the intersection of Brown Drive. Mt. Shiloh Baptist Church is
located west of the Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad. The Reform Shiloh
Missionary Baptist Church is located on Plum Street beside the James City
Community Center. All three churches would be well outside the area of direct
effect; however, access from US 70 would be affected by the elimination of access
to US 70 at Elder Street.
4-17

S

LEGEND
+ Church
• School
Rescue Squad Station
Fire House
Fire District Boundary
H Craven Regional
Medical Center
FIGURE 4-2
COMMUNITY SERVICES/FACILITIES '
o '
a 1616
p ERSON
1615
cps
j TRI-COMMUNITY F.D.
Iwo
.R•
.A
?E .
5
gRIDGETON
GBRIDGETON F. D.
1608
NDy PoIN
1607 1609
1
PINT
Z II,
1

1

1
1

t

1

L

Although the existing exit ramp from US 70 to downtown New Bern would be
relocated closer to Reform Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church, no adverse impacts
are expected. Similar to the other James City churches described above, access
to US 70 would be affected.
One other church in James City, the Pilgrim's Chapel Missionary Baptist Church,
is located outside the proposed project corridor and, therefore, would not be
affected by the proposed action.
Two other churches, the Bridgeton Christian Church and the Live Oak Freewill
Baptist Church, are located inside the Bridgeton town limits but outside the
proposed project corridor and, therefore, would not be affected by the proposed
action.
Community Center
The only community center affected by the proposed action would be the James City
Community Lodge on Plum Street. There appears to be adequate opportunity to
relocate the community center within the James City community.
Impacts on Minority Communities
The site of the second refugee slave camp in North Carolina, James City has
historically been home to a large African-American community. For the proposed
action, project-related impacts on this long-established minority community are
not expected to be adverse because the majority of new construction will occur
within the existing US 70 right-of-way. The proposed action is consistent with
Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended by the 1968 Civil Rights Act,
which ensures that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, marital status, handicap, or family composition be excluded from
participation in, or be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subject to
discrimination under any program of the federal, state, or local government. The
public participation component of this project analysis has been open for input
from all citizens.
4-19

Community Cohesion
Project impacts on community cohesion are expected to be most pronounced in the
Bridgeton/Sandy Point, residential area on the eastern shore of the Neuse River
and in the James City area.
The approach roadway construction for the proposed action between the bridge's
eastern terminus and US 17/NC 55 would bisect the Sandy Point community, into two
separate areas. Relocation impacts, which are discussed further in Section 4.4,
would be located along US 17 in Bridgeton and NC 55 east of Bridgeton. Since the
proposed action would bisect a large single-owner tract of undeveloped land, and
would overpass Sandy Point Road, which connects the community's residential
areas, community cohesion in Sandy Point would be minimally affected.
on the western shore of the Neuse River in the James City area, minimal
disruption of the community is expected because the proposed action would be
located predominately within the existing highway right-of-way. The primary
effect on community cohesion would result from extending the control of access
along US 70 from Elder Street to Williams Road, with a break in control of access
at Meadows Street. Since the existing facility creates a partial barrier between
the residential areas on either side, the proposed action would have minimum
additional effects on community cohesion. only the no-build alternative would
completely preserve the current community structure in the Bridgeton/Sandy Point
and James City areas which are currently under pressure due to traffic congestion
problems.
4.3.2 Economic Impacts
Employing 35 percent of the labor force in 1987, government currently is the
largest employer in Craven County. This level of government employment is high
compared to the state norm of 15 percent and is attributable to the presence of
military installations in Craven and surrounding counties. Current base closing
and realignment plans of the Clinton Administration (3/93) calls for some related
expansion of the Marine Base at Cherry Point. The wholesale and retail trade and
service industries account for 23 and 14 percent, respectively, of total
employment in Craven County. Manufacturing employment is considerably lower in
4-20

Craven county than in the state as a whole and accounts for less than 20 percent
of total employment (US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1989). In
' neighboring Pamlico County, a relatively large percentage (21%) of the workforce
is employed in the services area. other major employment sectors in Pamlico
' County include manufacturing, farming, fishing, forestry, retail trade, and
wholesale trade (Coastal Resources Collaborative, Ltd., 1989)
' Adequate transportation access is critical to encourage growth of the
manufacturing and service related sectors of the Craven County, Pamlico County,
and New Bern economies. These types of businesses rely on the regional
transportation system. Therefore, since the proposed action would enhance
regional transportation access by facilitating traffic movement through the New
Bern area, the project-related regional economic impacts are expected to be
beneficial. New businesses and industry may be attracted to the undeveloped
areas around Bridgeton and in Pamlico County. If this economic activity occurs,
more and diverse employment' opportunities should be available in the general
project area. Recent (1992) unemployment rates in the New Bern/Craven County and
Pamlico County areas compare well with statewide and national rates (Table 4-3).
Table 4-3. Average 1992 unemployment Rates
Jurisdiction Unemployment Rate*
Project Area
New Bern area 6.6%
Craven County 6.5%
Pamlico County 5.8%
Other Areas
Raleigh, NC (City) 4.6%
1 Raleigh/Durham, NC 4.4%
North Carolina 5.9%
United States 7.4%
* Unemployment rates were supplied by the North Carolina Labor Market
Information Service.
i
1 4-21

Highway-related businesses located along US 70, US 17, and NC 55 should benefit
from improved traffic flow, especially along US 17 and NC 55 northeast of the
Neuse River. Businesses here, such as motels and service stations, conduct a
large proportion of their trade with motorists traveling through the area.
Improved access should boost overall retail sales and boost the local economy.
The proposed action would divert through traffic away from downtown New Bern.
Therefore, highway-related businesses in the downtown New Bern portion of the
project corridor may be adversely affected. Since removal of the existing US 70
Business/Trent River (Alfred Cunningham) bridge could affect businesses in
downtown New Bern, the proposed action would maintain the crossing at the
existing bridge location.
The tax base of Craven County, James City and Bridgeton would be minimally
impacted by the conversion of any private property to public highway right-of-way
use. As the proposed highway improvements would be exempt from property taxes,
access improvements should stimulate economic activity and thus the tax base will
increase overall. The proposed action minimizes impacts to the local tax base
by disrupting only a minimal area of developed land.
The limited access nature of the proposed approach roadway south of NC 55 would
promote commercial development only in areas with access to NC 55. The New_Bern
economy would benefit to a lesser extent from the improved traffic flow in
downtown New Bern.
4.4 RELOCATION IMPACTS
Preliminary plans and county tax maps with the proposed right-of-way delineated
were utilized to determine the households and businesses displaced by the
proposed alternatives. Relocation impacts discussed hereinafter are based on
project relocation reports included in Appendix B.
An estimated three households and four businesses would be displaced by the
proposed action. The total number of households displaced, the number of
minority households, number of handicapped households, number of non-profit
facilities, and number of businesses displaced are given in Table 4-4. As
4-22

1

indicated on the project relocation reports, no large or handicapped families
would be displaced by the proposed action.
Table 4-4. Estimated Households and Businesses to be Displaced
Total Households Displaced 3
Minorities 3
Handicapped -
Total Nonprofit Facilities Displaced 1
Total Businesses Displaced 4

11

L
1

I

1
11

The relocation impacts for the proposed action would be located within three
corridors. The first corridor is US 70 in James City between Scotts Creek and
Meadow Street. This area would experience one non-profit, one business and three
residential relocations. The non-profit relocation would be the James City
Community Lodge located on Plum Street and US 70 North frontage road. The one
business relocation would be Adolf Is Auto at the intersection of Elder Street and
Dudley Street (south of US 70). Although not included in the tally of business
relocations, the Weyerhaeuser Company's wharf at Scott's Creek will also be
affected. The residential relocations would be on both sides of US 70.
The second corridor with relocation impacts is NC 55 east of Bridgeton between
the Bridgeton town limits and SR 1600. This area would experience two small
business relocations: Max Galloway Portable Welding and Fabrication shop, and
Taps2 Lounge, a small bar.
The third corridor with relocations impacts is US 17 in Bridgeton between New
Street and Mill Street, where one small business, Bryan Tile Contractors, will
need to be relocated.
4-23

Included in the project relocation reports is an estimate of decent, safe, and
sanitary housing of comparable cost available in the Bridgeton/James City
vicinity. The total estimate of available units is based on sources such as the
Multiple Listing Service, realtors, and newspaper advertisements as the June
1993. Table 4-5 shows NCDOT's relocation estimate for the area.
Table 4-5. Decent Safe and Sanitary Dwellings Available in Study Area
For Sale For Rent
Price Ouantity Monthly Rent Ouantity

<$20,000 0 <$150 0
$20,000-$40,000 14 $150-$250 1
$40,000-$70,000 137 $250-$400 24
$70,000-$100,000 93 $400-$600 13
>$100,000 56 >$600 0
mobile home lots,
variable 38
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation from Multiple Listing
Service, realtors, and newspaper advertisements, June 1993.
When comparing the decent, safe and sanitary housing available versus the housing
needs of the displacees, a deficiency exists for lower priced units. One
residence valued between $20,000-$40,000 would be displaced by the proposed
action. One residence valued at $20,000 or under and one residence which rents
monthly for $150 or less would also be displaced by the proposed action, yet no
suitable dwellings in the same price range or rental level are estimated to be
available. Where there are higher priced, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings
available, displacees are eligible for supplements from the State to offset
additional housing and utility costs. Because a sufficient number of higher
priced dwellings are available, relocation of the lower priced households would
not indicate a housing shortage, per se, of dwellings in that price range.
4-24

1
The proposed action would be designed in a manner that would reduce the number
of relocatees to the maximum extent possible without compromising the safety and
efficiency of the proposed facility. With the exception of Relocation
Assistance, final design considerations would serve as the primary mitigation
measure for relocation impacts.
' It is the policy of NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be
available prior to construction of state and federally assisted projects.
Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three
programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
• Relocation Assistance,
• Relocation Moving Payments, and
• Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be available
to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes,
apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing
programs. The relocation moving payments program, in general, provides for
payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement
will force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to
lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation
Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to
$22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who
I are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646) and the North Carolina Relocation
Assistance Act (G.S. 133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to provide
assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to
live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway
project for this purpose.
4-25

The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin. NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior
to displacement, for negotiations and possession of replacement housing which
meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least
a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocations of
displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard
to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of
replacement property will be within the financial means of the families and
individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and
moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement
housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3)
moving existing owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The
relocation officer will also supply information concerning other state or federal
programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory
services as needed to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a
new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee for
the cost of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the
Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental
purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys,
appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any
increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-
occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and
incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except
under the Last Resort Housing provision.
4-26

1
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250,
to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental
expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based
upon what the state determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds
$5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by NCDOT's state or
federally assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement
housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable
period of time prior to displacement. No relocation payment received will be
considered as income for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the
purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person
for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not
available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and
the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose
of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the
state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided.
It is not felt that this program will be necessary on the project, since there
appear to be adequate opportunities for relocation within the area.

1

4-27
14
4.5 UTILITIES
Utilities which must be relocated due to project-related construction are moved
at the utility company's expense if located within existing highway right-of-way.
This is the case for water, sewer, telephone, and electric distribution lines,
which are often located along roadsides.
Water Service
Craven County does not currently have a unified county-wide water system. Within
the proposed project study area, water service is provided by the City of New
Bern, the Northwest Craven Sanitary District (NCSD), and the First Craven
Sanitary District (FCSD) (see Figure 4-3).
The Northwest Craven Sanitary District provides water service from two new wells
to unincorporated Township 6, which includes the James City area. A 12-inch main
is suspended from the Freedom Memorial (Trent River) bridge. Eight-inch lines
run along the Alfred Cunningham (Trent; River) bridge, along US 70 Business to Old
Cherry Point Road and along Howell Road. Six-inch lines follow Madame Moore's
Lane, Shiloh Street (SR 1190) and William Street (SR 1138).
The First Craven Sanitary District provides water service to portions of Township
2 in the Bridgeton vicinity, including the Sandy Point community. In Bridgeton,
the system is composed of eight-inch trunk lines with six-inch distribution
lines. An eight-inch water line extends the length of US 17 from NC 55 to well
beyond the Bridgeton city limits. A six-inch main runs along Burnhurst Road (SR
1606), Riverside Drive (SR 1607), Bayside Drive, Sandy Point Road (SR 1609), and
Beach Street (SR 1608) to serve residents of the Sandy Point area. The proposed
action would temporarily affect water service in this neighborhood. Disruption
of water supply to the residents will be.minimized during construction.
4-28
LEGEND
FIGURE 4-3 0600
WATER ?.
SANITARY SEWER UTILITIES
ELECTRIC POWER
TELEPHONE (AERIAL)
?- TELEPHONE (BURIED)
Mq?N
1 S ` \ 0 1000 2000 D
GETON
.NEW BERN SCALE IN FEET I ?,
BROA ST
JQ9. .??
f _ SANDY
POINT
AME \\..
s
CITY
/ ? \ III
1

1
1

r
1
1
1

1

Sewer Service
A majority of the non-municipal Craven County residents utilize septic tanks for
wastewater disposal. Such is the case in the Sandy Point community. Therefore,
prior to initiation of project-related construction, septic tanks located on
acquired property within the project right-of-way should be pumped and removed
in order to prevent possible groundwater contamination.
The Town of Bridgeton provides sanitary sewer service within the town limits;
however, there are currently no lines south of NC 55. The main sewer line that
follows "E" Street represents the most eastern extension of Bridgeton's sewer
service. Currently, the Town is considering proposals from a private developer
to extend sanitary sewer service south to Sandy Point.
The Craven County Water and Sewer Department provides the James City area with
sanitary sewer service in the form of a low-pressure force main collection
system. Main lines run along both sides of US 70. A treatment lagoon is located
between the east side of Craven County Regional Airport and the Atlantic & East
Carolina Railroad tracks. Waste from the lagoon is also piped to a land
application site just west of the airport.
Electric Power Transmission
Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) provides electric power in the portion
of the study area located east of the Neuse River (see Figure 4-3). No high
voltage transmission lines are evident in the proposed project vicinity.
However, a three phase 13.2 KV overhead distribution line extends from the
intersection of US 17 and NC 55 north along US 17 in Bridgeton. In addition, a
single phase 13.2 KV overhead distribution line extends south of NC 55 near the
project corridor. Service lines exist throughout the Bridgeton/Sandy Point
areas.
The western portion of the study area, including New Bern and James City, is
serviced by the City of New Bern (see Figure 4-3). A 23 KV transmission line,
the "city feeder," originates near a 4 KV substation at the intersection of
Hancock Street and Tryon Palace Drive in New Bern and follows the Atlantic & East
Carolina Railroad tracks across the Trent River into James City. A six-unit
1
4-30

capacitor bank is located in the area between Howell Road and the railroad
tracks. The city feeder follows these tracks into James City and connects with
the 23 KV "70 East feeder" near Madame Moore's Lane. The city feeder crosses US
70 at Plum Street and follows old Cherry Point Road. The "70 East feeder"
follows Shiloh, William and Brown Streets, before paralleling US 70 East on its
south side. Another main transmission line follows Howell Road.
Natural Gas
North Carolina Natural Gas (NCNG) provides natural gas in the New Bern area. In
the immediate project vicinity, however, there are no NCNG lines.
Communications
The study area is serviced by Carolina Telephone and Telegraph Company. Service
lines exist throughout the proposed project area (see Figure 4-3). A manhole and
conduit system is located in the James City and New Bern sections of the study
corridor. The system parallels existing US 70 Business in the vicinity of the
proposed US 70 interchange modifications north of James City. The manhole and
conduit system is connected by cables suspended from the Alfred Cunningham (Trent
River) bridge. The main service lines to eastern Craven County and Pamlico
County are suspended from the John Lawson (Neuse River) bridge. Submarine cables
are located in the area around the moveable span. According to the Carolina
Telephone and Telegraph Company Planning Department, the estimated cost for
relocation of these main service lines is approximately $920,000.
In the Sandy Point community, underground telephone cables of various sizes
parallel Burnhurst Road (SR 1606), Riverside Drive (SR 1607), Bayside Drive,
Beach Street (SR 1608), and Sandy Point Road (SR 1609) from Beach Street to the
Duck Creek Marina. In Bridgeton, two underground cables, a 1200-pair local cable
and a 52-pair toll cable, parallel US 17 for the length of the project. Aerial
cables are located along "A" Street (50 pair cable) and "B" Street (1-300 pair
cable and 1-200 pair cable) in Bridgeton.
Railroads
The Norfolk and Southern Railway Corporation owns two operational railways in the
study area: the old Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad in the James City area
4-31

US
ll
l
hi
h
il
d 17 north of Brid
eton
and the Norfolk and Southern Ra s
para
e
w
c
roa g
.
The proposed interchange at US 70 would cross over the old Atlantic and East
Carolina Railroad at several locations. The Norfolk and Southern Railway
Corporation does not currently plan on constructing addi tional mainline tracks
along the old Atlantic & East Carolina Railroad in the foreseeable future.
Minimum vertical and horizontal clearances of 23 feet and 26 feet, respectively,
would be provided for existing tracks. With the above clearances, the proposed
action is not expected to impact either railroad.
1 4.6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES
1 4.6.1 Terrestrial Archaeological Resources
A terrestrial archaeological survey of the proposed project area was undertaken
in January 1991 (Coastal Carolina Research 1991), to address potentially
significant archaeological resources that could represent the prehistoric and
historic occupation of the New Bern area. The survey area encompassed
approximately 247 acres, of which 40 percent was disturbed by previous
construction. Shovel tests and cores were used to investigate areas with no
surface visibility.
The survey resulted in the revisit of a prehistoric archaeological site (31Cvl)
recorded in 1956. The prehistoric site was assessed as not potentially eligible
for the National Register due to the industrial impacts to the site. Only one
site (31Cvl57) was discovered during the survey. This is a historic site
disturbed by previous construction. In a letter of October 15, 1991, the Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer concurred that the two sites were "not
eligible for listing in the National Register." No additional archaeological
work was recommended for terrestrial areas.

1

4-32

4.6.2 Underwater Archaeological Resources
Archival and cartographic research (Tidewater Atlantic Research 1992) indicate
that the Neuse River and Trent River have served as major arteries of trade and
transportation for more than two hundred years. The City of New Bern, located
at the rivers' confluence, developed as the center of that commerce. As a result
of New Bern's maritime history, the Neuse River and Trent River contain the
remains of a variety of potentially significant historic vessels. Maps and
navigation charts of the two rivers consistently locate wrecks in the waters
around New Bern. Cartographic and historic research in combination with site
files at the office of State Archaeology's Underwater Archaeology Unit (UAU)
indicate that at least 40 vessels sank in the New Bern area. As a result, the
proposed project corridor (Tidewater Atlantic Research 1992) was assessed as a
High Potential Area (HPA) (Lawrence and Wilde-Ramsing 1984). A HPA meets at least
one of the following two criteria: 1) a known archaeological site or charted
wreck of historic age is present, or 2) historical research indicates the project
lies in an area with an active maritime history, documented vessel losses, or
known hazards to navigation (Wilde-Ramsing, 1984).
At least two submerged ship wrecks have been identified within the proposed
project corridor. These wrecks (0004NURHN and 0005NURHN) were assessed as
potentially significant when first discovered during a 1984 diving project
undertaken by UAU staff (Wilde-Ramsing 1984). Based on this assessment, the
sites were recommended for avoidance in 1984. The archaeological report for the
proposed project (Tidewater Atlantic Research 1992) recommended additional work
on these submerged wrecks should the proposed project impact the sites. The
Deputy State Historic Preservation officer in a letter of December 10, 1992,
concurred with these recommendations. Consequently, additional underwater
archaeological work will be undertaken with this project.
Based on their previous assessment as potentially significant, in cooperative
effort the FHWA, NCDOT, and UAU developed a Scope of Work for documenting
submerged vessels 0004NURHN and 0005NURHN. Based on the assessment of the bridge
corridor as a High Potential Area for submerged archaeological resources, the
Scope of Work also addresses the survey of the proposed corridor and construction
4-33

area. The archaeological survey and documentation of 0004NURHN and 0005NURHN
will be conducted in the spring of 1994. Should the survey result in discovery
of anomalies that may indicate potentially significant ship wrecks, the FHWA,
NCDOT, and UAU will work cooperatively to develop another Scope of Work for
ground truthing of these anomalies.
4.6.3 Historic Architectural Resources
Information reported here is a detailed compilation of facts obtained from
i available sources, supplemented by field surveys and reported in two previous
studies (Longleaf Historic Resources, 1991 and Longleaf Historic Resources,
1992). The initial Historic Architectural survey was conducted (Longleaf
Historic Resources, 1991) prior to the addition of the Alternatives C and D for
detailed study; therefore, this study focused only on the area of potential
effect for Alternatives A and B. This coverage was considered adequate for
Alternative C since no buildings exist in the Alternative C alignment beyond the
sections of Alternative C that are identical to Alternative B. The final
Historic Architectural survey was conducted (Longleaf Historic Resources, 1992)
for Alternative D. Since the later survey identified two additional properties
in James City which are potentially eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places, the results are also included hereinafter.
During the 1991 survey, the area of potential effect was drawn to include the
entire town limits of Bridgeton in order to determine potential historic district
boundaries. One hundred percent of the area of potential effect was surveyed,
and photographs were taken of all over-fifty-year-old resources outside the
congested area of Bridgeton. As a result of the survey, a total of eight
properties were recorded: a historic district in the Town of Bridgeton, three
isolated reside ntial properties in Bridgeton, one church in Bridgeton, one
dwelling in the. Sandy Point area, one dwelling in James City, and one church in
James City (see Table 4-6). During the 1991 survey, only one of the surveyed
properties, the proposed Bridgeton Historic District (see Figure 4-5), was
determined to be potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places.
1 4-34

Table 4-6. Properties Recorded Durincr Historic Architectural Surveys
Property Location
1991 SURVEY
Bridgeton Historic District Bridgeton
House, 802 East Bridge Street Bridgeton
Houses, 107, 109, 111 "C" Street Bridgeton
House, corner of NC 55 and North
"B" Street Bridgeton
House, 106 Bernhurst Road Sandy Point
Harris House, 407 Plum Street James City
Pilgrim Chapel M.B. Church James City
Meadows Cemetery James City
John Hardison House,
811 Old Cherry Point Rd. James City
Davis House and Andrew House,
1201 and 1202 Old Cherry Point Rd. James City
Morris House,
1503 Old Cherry Point Rd James City
House, 302 Green Springs Rd James City
1992 SURVEY
National Register
Eligibility
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Mt. Shiloh Baptist Church James City Yes
Jones Chapel A.M.E. Zion Church James City Yes
Reform Shiloh M.B.
Church District James City No
Pilgrim Chapel M.B.
Church District James City No
Undenominational P.H.
Church District James City No
Jones Chapel A.M.E. Zion
Church District James City No
Mt. Shiloh Baptist Church District James City No
Sources: Longleaf Historic Resources, 1991 and Longleaf Historic Resources, 1992
4-35

s

1
J
1

NATIONAL REGISTER OR ELIGIBLE DISTRICTS
* ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES
¦ RECORDED HISTORIC PROPERTIES
3 _ BRIDGETON
RIVERSIDE HISTORIC
HISTORIC DISTRICT
DISTRICT
vo?
NEW BERN
M _N_ i :: . a
LEGEND
?7:
( NEW BERN
. . HISTORIC
_ ?^? : • ? DISTRICT
1

1

1

41, ?.' MT. SHILOH BAPTIST
CHURCH DISTRICT `
/ MT. SHILOH
BAPTIST CHURCH'S
JONES CHAPEL AME
ZION CHURCH DISTRIICi
/? JAMES
CITY
?l
FIGURE 4-5
HISTORIC
ARCHITECTURAL
RESOURCES
'x >, \ \\\X?- --
HOUSE, 802 EAST BRIDGE STREET
i?
?
HOUSES X55
,
107, 109, 111 -C- STREET
HOUSE,
NC 55/NORTH 'B- STREET
HO SE, 1Q6 BERNHURST ROAD
1
1 ?, 1
f??--.. i Vll
SANDY
POINT i JG
REFORM SHILOH M.B.
CHURCH DISTRICT
N
HARRIS HOME
\
¦ JONES CHAPEL AME
ZION CHURCH
PILGRIM CHAPEL M.B6 \
CHURCH DISTRICT
. ,. 0 1000 2000
UNDENOMINATIONAL P.H. \
M S EME R CHURCH DISTRICT SCALE IN FEET
?
/ OHN HARDISON OUS 1113
? O HOUSE, 302 GREEN SPRINGS RD.
¦?
¦ DAVIS USE & ANDREWS HOUSE
SOURCES: LONGLEAF HISTORIC RESOURCES, 1992 (TECH. MEMO.) (
LONGLEAF HISTORIC RESOURCES, 1991 (TECH. MEMO.) \ =?
Bounded by Academy Street to the north, "C" Street to the east, an irregular
boundary to the south, and the Neuse River to the west, the proposed Bridgeton
Historic District contains approximately 109 over-fifty-year-old buildings
(churches, houses, commercial buildings, and institutional buildings) constructed
primarily during the town's boom period of 1905-1929. Sixty-nine of the historic
buildings are "contributing", meaning that they are greater than fifty-years-old
and retain their architectural integrity. Typical house styles in the district
include the two-story gable front type, a small number of decorative and sizeable
Queen Anne style houses, bungalows, and Craftsman style houses (see Figure 4-6).
The proposed Bridgeton District is a well-preserved early twentieth century
community with local significance for architecture and history. The Bridgeton
Historic District is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A, for
community development for the 1905-1941 period, and under criterion C for its
concentration of early twentieth century architecture (see Appendix A).
For the proposed action, the new route of US 17 through Bridgeton would be
further from the eligible historic district boundaries than existing US 17. Post
World War II commercial development acts as a buffer between the historic
district and US 17. Thus, it is anticipated that the proposed action would have
no effect on the Bridgeton Historic District. Since the proposed action includes
the removal of the existing John Lawson (Neuse River) bridge, the enhanced
viewscape and reduced noise would have a beneficial effect on the Bridgeton
Historic District. The Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in a
letter of December 7, 1993, does not concur with this determination of effects
(see Appendix A). Additional consultation with the SHPO and Advisory Council
will be necessary prior to the preparation of the final environmental document.
The 1992 intensive survey of James City indicates that the oldest houses are two-
story frame houses, generally of side-hall form. There are less than a dozen of
these, all apparently built between the 1890s and 1920s. Only one or two one-
story houses from this period still stand. Present residents of James City
explain the two-story form of the early houses was the results of large families
and small lots, so that the builders needed the second story for children's
4-37
s
i
i
1
A
1
i
1
1
FIGURE 4-6
(SHEET 1 OF 2)
BRIDGETON HISTORIC
DISTRICT
i
ti
mama
?;-? ¦III wry:.
Hanson House, 303 A Street
402 A Street

SOURCE: LONGLEAF HISTORIC RESOURCES, 1991 (TECH. MEMO.)
A
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
FIGURE 4-6
(SHEET 2 OF 2)
BRIDGETON HISTORIC
DISTRICT

& 506 B Street

}
3
r'
? KID. j -'-
i,
y •v?i
SOURCE: LONGLEAF HISTORIC RESOURCES, 1991 (TECH. MEMO.)

bedrooms. The form was traditional in New Bern throughout the nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, so it is not surprising that it was used in James
City.
In the 1920s, the two-story house ceased to be built, and all subsequent housing
is one or one-and-one-half stories. There are a number of one-story frame, front
gable houses from the 1920s, 1930s and probably the 1940s. Since World War II,
many new houses have been built. Small brick and frame ranches were built in the
1950s, 1960s and 1970s. In more recent years, the dominant house type has been
the mobile home. The old houses have, without exception, been gradually
modernized by the replacement of original fabric. Windows, porches, siding, and
doors have all been replaced or concealed with modern materials.
Four historic church buildings still stand. These are Mt. Shiloh Baptist Church,
Jones Chapel A.M.E. Zion Church, Pilgrims Chapel M.B. Church, and Reform Shiloh
M.B. Church. These have always been the focal point of the community, and the
pastors have always been community leaders. The buildings have always been James
City's largest and most significant landmarks. This is an unusual number of
churches for a small community of approximately 700 residents, but people say the
churches attract worshippers from throughout the region. No other institutional
buildings have survived. The early private school, the Atlantic and North
Carolina Training Institute, built in 1927, is gone. The early public school is
gone. No early commercial buildings remain.
A total of 12 historic properties were recorded: 7 individual buildings and 5
"districts" (see Table 4-6). There are no properties in James City presently
listed on the National Register or on the Study List. Two of the individual
buildings in James City are determined to be potentially eligible, Mt. Shiloh
Baptist Church and Jones Chapel A.M.E. Zion Church. Mt. Shiloh Baptist Church
(see Figure 4-7) is potentially eligible for the National Register under
Criterion A, for its social and political role in founding the African-American
settlement of James City, and under Criterion C for its architectural
significance. Its rich Gothic Revival styling represents the ingenuity of
African-American craftsmen in creating a stylish and monumental edifice on a
limited budget. Although the interior integrity is unknown, the exterior

4-40

integrity seems sufficient to establish its eligibility for the National
Register. Jones Chapel (see Figure 4-8) is potentially eligible for the National
Register under Criterion A, for its embodiment of the social history of the
African-American community of James City, and under Criterion C for its
significance as a stylish early twentieth century church built by and for
African-Americans.
Since both eligible properties would be located over 350 feet from any roadway
improvements related to the proposed action and these eligible properties would
be buffered by vegetation and numerous single-family dwellings, it is anticipated
that the proposed action would have no effect on the eligible properties in James
City. The SHPO has not concurred in the no effect determination at this time.
Additional coordination will be necessary with the SHPO and possibly with the
Advisory Council prior to completion of the final environmental document.
The New Bern Historic District is presently listed on the National Register of
Historic Places and is located across the Trent River from the proposed action.
The specific improvements for the proposed action nearest to this historic
district would be the rehabilitation of the Alfred Cunningham (Trent River)
bridge. Since these improvements would be limited to repairing damaged
mechanical and structural members and bridge deck rehabilitation (without
widening), it is anticipated that the proposed action would have no effect on the
New Bern Historic District. Similar to the Bridgeton Historic District, the
proposed action would benefit the New Bern Historic District by removing the John
Lawson (Neuse River) bridge. The reduced traffic congestion and enhanced
viewscape of the Neuse River would have a beneficial effect on the New Bern
Historic District.
The nearest improvements for the proposed action, which could have a visual
effect on the New Bern Historic District, would be located over 2,500 feet away.
Due to this distance, it is anticipated that there would be no visual effect on
the New Bern Historic District from the proposed action. The Deputy State
Preservation officer does not concur with the above determination of effects on
the New Bern Historic District (see Appendix A). Additional consultation with
the SHPO and Advisory Council will be necessary prior to the preparation of the
final environmental document.
4-41
FIGURE 4-7
MT. SHILOH BAPTIST
CHURCH
1
1
4
t
r
r

?y
1" z
r
I SOURCE: LONGLEAF HISTORIC RESOURCES, 1992 (TECH. MEMO.)
FIGURE 4-8
JONES CHAPEL AME
ZION CHURCH
I
1
7
1
1
1

1

1

I
SOURCE: LONGLEAF HISTORIC RESOURCES, 1992 (TECH. MEMO.)
4.7 AIR QUALITY
A
4.7.1 Air Ouality Standards
The Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1977
required the adoption of ambient air quality standards. These were established
in order to protect public health, safety and welfare from known or anticipated
effects of sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulates (PM10, 10-micron and smaller),
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (03) and lead (Pb). The
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for these pollutants are listed

in Table 4-7.
4.7.2 Corridor Air Quality
I All states are required to submit to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency a list identifying those air quality control regions, or portions. thereof,
which meet or exceed the NAAQS or cannot be classified because of insufficient
data. Portions of air quality control regions which are shown by monitored data
or air quality modeling to exceed the NAAQS for any criteria pollutant are
designated "non-attainment" areas for that pollutant.
Craven County falls within the Southern Coastal Intrastate Air Quality Control
Region (AQCR), which is currently in attainment status for all NAAQS. The North
Carolina State Implementation Plan does not contain any transportation control
measures. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the
air quality of the region in this attainment area. Therefore, the conformity
procedures of the EPA/USDOT Interim Conformity Guidance, dated June 7, 1991, and
FHWA supplemental guidance memoranda dated July 27, 1992 and October 9, 1992, do
not apply to this project.
Cl

1
4-44
11
Table 4-7. National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.03 ppm
Twenty-Four Hour* 0.14 ppm
Three-Hour*
Secondary 0.50 ppm
Particulates (PM10) Annual Arithmetic Mean:
Primary & Secondary 50 ug/m3
Twenty-Four Hour:**
Primary & Secondary 150 ug/m3
Carbon Monoxide (CO) One Hour* 35 ppm
Eight Hour* 9 ppm
ozone (03) One Hour** 0.12 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.053 ppm
Lead (Pb) Three Month Arithmetic Mean 1.5 ug/m3
* = Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
** = Statistically estimated number of days with exceedances is not to be
more than 1 per year.
ppm = Parts of pollutant per million parts of air (by volume) at 250C.
ug/m3 = Micrograms of pollutant per cubic meter of air.
Source: Code of Federal Regulations; Title 40 Part 50: Amended July, 1987.
4-45
14
The primary pollutants from motor vehicles are carbon monoxide, unburned
hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen (NO,). Hydrocarbons and No, can combine in
a complex series of reactions catalyzed by sunlight to produce photochemical
oxidants such as 03 and NO2. Because these reactions take place over a period
of several hours, maximum concentrations of photochemical oxidants are often
found far downwind of the precursor sources. These pollutants are regional
problems. The modeling procedures for 03 and NO2, requiring long-term
meteorological data and detailed area-wide emission rates for all potential
sources, are normally too complex to be performed within the scope of an
environmental document for a highway project. Modeling concentrations of these
pollutants for the purpose of comparing the results with the National or State
Ambient Air Quality Standards is conducted by the regional air quality planning
agency for the State Implementation Plan (SIP).
I Methodology is not available to predict lead concentrations along highways with
reasonable accuracy. FHWA reviewed monitoring studies have shown that lead
concentrations along high-volume highways do not violate the NAAQS for lead for
the year 1982. By 1990, there is predicted to be a further significant reduction
r (from 1982 levels) in lead emissions from motor vehicles. FHWA has advised that
microscale lead analyses for highway projects are not needed or warranted.
Carbon monoxide (CO), a colorless, odorless gas which is the product of
incomplete combustion, is the major pollutant from gasoline fueled motor
vehicles. CO emissions are greatest from vehicles operating at low speeds and
prior to complete engine warm-up (within approximately eight minutes of
starting). Congested urban roads, therefore, tend to be the principal problem
areas for CO. Roadway projects which relieve traffic congestion and result in
higher average operating speeds will usually provide a net reduction in CO
emissions. Because the averaging times associated with the CO standards are
relatively short (1 and 8 hours), CO concentrations can be modeled using
simplified "worst-case" meteorological assumptions. Modeling is also simplified
considerably by the stable, non-reactive nature of CO.
Based on the above discussion, the air quality impact analysis for this project
will be limited to a microscale analysis of ambient CO concentrations. The
1 4-46

criteria for adverse impact shall be exceedance of the 1 or 8 hour NAAQS for CO.
The North Carolina Ambient Air Quality Standards for CO are the same as the
NAAQS.
4.7.3 Modeling Methods
The analysis focused on three areas in the project vicinity, as shown on Figure
4-9 (Sheets 1-4), with the greatest potential for high CO concentrations at
sensitive receptor locations. The first area was near the interchange of US 70
and US 17/NC 55 at the south end of the proposed Neuse River bridge. The next
location was in the vicinity of sandy Point Road and the proposed US 17/NC 55
roadway. The final area was located north of the US 17/NC 55 interchange along
both existing US 17 and NC 55. These areas were selected based on traffic
volumes and distances between sensitive receptor locations and the proposed Neuse
River Bridge roadway alignments. Two EPA-approved computer models were used to
analyze the emission and dispersion of CO from the proposed project.
MOBILES is the latest EPA computer program for calculating average vehicle
emission rates of three pollutants, including CO (USEPA, 1992). Variables used
in MOBILES for this analysis included:
• Average vehicle speeds:
- Build scenario: 40 mph, 45 mph, 55 mph for mainline; 25 mph for ramp
traffic.
- No-Build scenario: 35 mph, 40 mph for mainline; 25 mph for ramp
traffic.
• Vehicle operating modes: 27.3% hot starts, 20.6% cold starts. (Federal Test
Procedure modes)
• Vehicle mix and vehicle registration and mileage accumulation: National
averages (program default values) used.
• Ambient temperature: 37°F (NCDEM, 1990).
Copies of the MOBILES data and output files can found in Appendix A of the
Technical Memorandum on Air Quality (HNTB, 1993c).
4-47

0 7D

Z CO
D
^
C n 2

m rn
m
e
m

'
< ? m

(A

m
N
man r m a Mae gat M M" mm w m mm m
,yt
f
.
,

C m ? n
TO a
r
0

;V~? p
rTl
n
'
r
"
?" ' TI