20020688 Ver 1_Complete File_20020502

F ImEd ?-un I
nTonj
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GovERNOR SECRETARY
March 18, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Karen T. Orthner
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: B-3378, Wayne County, Replacement of Bridge No. 34 over
Nahunta Swamp, State Project 8.1331501, F. A. Project BRSTP-
111(4)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on February 18, 1999.
The following people were in attendance:
Ray Moore Structure Design
Tom Tarleton Location and Surveys
Dan Duffield Hydraulics
Jerome Nix Hydraulics
Greg Brew Roadway Design
Wayne Best Roadway Design
Wayne Elliott Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Karen Orthner Project Development and Environmental Analysis
The following comments were either given at the meeting or received previously:
Cyndi Bell of the Division of Water Quality gave no specific comments in regard
to this project.
Dan Duffield of Hydraulics recommended the existing bridge be replaced at the
same location with a 100-foot bridge. He recommended the roadway grade be raised 0.5
feet to maintain the same low steel elevation of the existing bridge. Also, to facilitate
deck drainage, he suggested that at least 0.3% roadway gradient be used on the new
bridge. Hydraulics recommended a temporary detour with 2 @ I Ift 5in by 7 ft 3in
corrugated metal pipe arch be placed to the west. Dan added that the detour grade could
be lowered three feet lower than the existing bridge.
Tom Tarleton of Location and Surveys found no utilities within the project area.
Tom noted that farmland exists in all four quadrants of the bridge. Tom recommended an
on-site detour.
Renee Gledhill-Early of SHPO recommended no architectural survey be
conducted in connection with this project. Renee stated that one archaeological site exists
in thc.p1g ect vicinity. SHPO recommended an archaeological survey for any area to be
sb#d5yii"Pr*ct.
Edward Eamon of Division 4 recommended replacement of Bridge No. 34 at the
sml cacti vhile detouring traffic off-site along surrounding roads.
4 ; ,G" of the Wildlife Resources Commission commented that with the recent
dain 't6 kdin the Neuse River, this site might now support anadromous fish. David
requested that NCDOT follow the officially adopted document "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage." He added that no in-water work should be
conducted between February 15 and June 15.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Bridge No. 34
[Built in 1948] [76 feet long] [25.3-foot wide deck] [23.9 feet clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 12 feet] [Sufficiency Rating 44.3]
[Posted 30 tons for SV and 99 tons for TTST's] [Estimated useful remaining life 5 years]
Traffic Information
NC 111 is a Rural Major Collector with no posted speed limit in the vicinity.
Current ADT is 1600 VPD
Projected 2025 ADT is 2600 VPD
3% Duals, 2% TTST
Accident Information: (6-01-94 through 5-31-97)
No accidents reported.
Bus Information: Sixteen trips a day.
Cross Section of New Bridge: Design Speed >/= 45 mph - 32-foot cross section
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATES
During the alternate discussion, Greg Brew and Wayne Best of Roadway Design
agreed to complete the roadway cost estimates by October 1, 1999.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 34 in approximately the same location with a bridge
100 feet in length. The roadway grade will be raised 0.5 feet to maintain the same low
steel elevation of the existing bridge. Detour traffic along surrounding roads during
construction.
Alternate 2: Replace Bridge No. 34 in approximately the same location with a bridge
100 feet in length. The roadway grade will be raised 0.5 feet to maintain the same low
steel elevation of the existing bridge. Maintain traffic using an on-site detour. The
temporary structure will consist of 2 @ l lft 5in by 7ft 3in corrugated steel pipe arch.
TIP Estimate:
Construction Estimate:
$ 584,000
Not available yet
.w ?Fo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOvERNOR SECRETARY
March 18, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Karen T. Orthner
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: B-3538, Wayne County, Replacement of Bridge No. 296 over
Neuse River Overflow, State Project 8.2331301, F. A. Project BRZ-
1222(4)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on February 18, 1999.
The following people were in attendance:
Greg Brew Roadway Design
Wayne Best Roadway Design
Ray Moore Structure Design
Tom Tarleton Location and Surveys
Dan Duffield Hydraulics
Jerome Nix Hydraulics
Jessica Darnell Traffic Control
Wayne Elliott Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Karen Orthner Project Development and Environmental Analysis
The following comments were either given at the meeting or received previously:
Cyndi Bell of the Division of Water Quality had no specific recommendations in
regard to this project.
Dan Duffield of Hydraulics recommended that Bridge No. 296 be replaced with a
175-foot bridge at the same location and roadway grade as the existing bridge. Dan also
recommended that a roadway gradient of at least 0.3% be used on the new bridge to
facilitate deck drainage. Dan suggested that traffic be maintained on-site using a
temporary bridge, 160 feet in length, to the north of the existing bridge in order to avoid
utilities to the south. Dan also recommended that the grade of the detour bridge be three
feet lower than that of the existing bridge.
Tom Tarelton of Location and Surveys located underground telephone cables
intersecting SR 1222 150 feet southwest from the bridge. The cables become aerial 120
feet from the bridge and underground again 75 feet northeast of the bridge. Tom also
located aerial power lines at the intersection of SR 1222 and SR 1247. No power lines
cross the Neuse River Overflow. Tom also located a water line along the southeast side
of SR 1222 at the project site. The line is exposed over the Neuse River Overflow and
suspended on timber pilings at approximately the same elevation as the bridge. Southern
Wayne Sanitary District owns the water line. Tom also discovered an abandoned well
located 34 feet northwest of SR 1222 at the intersection of SR 1222 and SR 1247.
Renee Gledhill-Early of SHPO recommended no architectural or archaeological surveys
be conducted in connection with this project.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resources Commission commented that this site over the
Neuse River overflow is known to support anadromous fish. David requested that NCDOT
follow the officially adopted document "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish
Passage." David added that no in-water work should be conducted between February 15 and
June 15.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Bridge No. 296
[Built in 1953] [161 feet long] [19.2-foot wide deck] [18.3 feet clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 28 feet] [Bridge not posted]
[Sufficiency Rating 46.7] [Estimated useful remaining life 5 years]
Traffic Information
SR 1222 is a Rural Local Route with a 20 mph posted speed limit.
Current ADT is 800 vpd
Projected 2025 ADT is 1300 vpd
2% Duals, 2% TTST's
Accident Information: (1-01-95 through 12-31-97)
No accidents reported.
Bus Information: Six trips a day.
Cross Section of New Bridge: Design Speed > 35 mph - 28-foot cross section.
If Design Speed must be </= 35 mph, then 26-foot cross section.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATES
During the alternate discussion, Greg Brew and Wayne Best of Roadway Design
agreed to complete the cost estimate by October, 1999.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 296 with a bridge 175 feet in length at approximately
the same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. Maintain traffic using an
on-site detour located to the north of the existing bridge. The temporary structure will be
160 feet in length at an elevation three feet lower than the existing bridge.
TIP Estimate: $ 876,000
Construction Estimate: Not available yet
o'STAT£o
V ? n
?@Gwr W?
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 18, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Karen T. Orthner
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: B-3539, Wayne County, Replacement of Bridge No. 164 over
Stoney Creek, State Project 8.2331401, F. A. Project BRSTP-
1571(3)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on February 18, 1999.
The following people were in attendance:
Ray Moore Structure Design
Tom Tarleton Location and Surveys
Dan Duffield Hydraulics
Jerome Nix Hydraulics
Greg Mintz Traffic Control
Greg Brew Roadway Design
Wayne Best Roadway Design
Wayne Elliott Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Karen Orthner Project Development and Environmental Analysis
The following comments were either given at the meeting or received previously:
Cyndi Bell of the Division of Water Quality gave no specific comments in regard
to this project.
Dan Duffield of Hydraulics recommended that Bridge No. 164 be replaced with a
3 @ 12 ft (width) by 10 ft (height) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). He
recommended road closure with an off-site detour during construction. If a temporary
structure is considered for maintenance of traffic, a 2 @ 72 in corrugated steel pipe will
be required. Dan recommended that the grade on the temporary structure be
approximately three feet lower than that of the existing bridge. To avoid utility conflicts
and reduce wetland impacts, Dan recommended the temporary structure be located to the
south.
Tom Tarelton of Location and Surveys located underground telephone cables on
both sides of the project area that run aerial across the creek. Tom also located a fiber
optic cable, owned by Southern Bell Telephone Company that runs aerial across the creek
on the north side. Tom located aerial power lines, owned by CP&L. on the north side of
the project. He also located an underground television cable, owned by Time Warner
Cable, on the north side that runs aerial across the creek. Tom also located a county
water line on the north side of the project that ends prior to the bridge on the west side.
Official comments from SHPO will be available in the near future.
Edward Eatmon of the Division 4 Office recommended replacement of Bridge
No. 164 in place with an off-site detour during construction.
Ray Moore of Structure Design approximated the construction days needed for a
triple 10'x12' pre-cast culvert at a length of 50 feet. According to Ray, the culvert could
be constructed in two months. This time period assumes cast-in-place wing footings and
wing walls due to the height of the culvert. Ray said that a conventional cast-in-place
culvert would take about three months to construct.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resources Commission commented that this site is
known to support anadromous fish. David requested that NCDOT follow the officially
adopted document "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish." He added that
no in-water work should be conducted between February 15 and June 15.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Bridge No. 164
[Built in 1958] [36 feet long] [25.3-foot wide deck] [25.3 feet clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 12 feet] [Sufficiency Rating 37.9]
[Estimated useful remaining life 4 years] [Posted 27 tons for SV and 34 tons for TTST's]
Traffic Information
SR 1571 is a Rural Local Route with a 45 mph posted speed limit in the vicinity.
Current ADT is 3000 vpd
Projected 2025 ADT is 5100 vpd
3% Duals, 1% TTST
Accident Information: (1-01-95 through 12-31-97)
Accident 1) Vehicle ran off the road to the right traveling west on SR 1571.
Bus Information: Twelve trips a day. No problem on road closure.
Cross Section of New Bridge: 40-foot cross section
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATES
During the alternate discussion, Greg Brew and Wayne Best of Roadway Design
agreed to complete the roadway design cost estimate by October, 1999.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 164 with a 3 @ 12 ft (width) by 10 ft (height)
reinforced concrete box culvert at approximately the same location and roadway elevation
as the existing bridge. Maintain traffic using a temporary on-site detour structure
consisting of 2 @ 72 in corrugated steel pipes to the south. The temporary structure
should be three feet lower than the existing bridge.
Alternate 2: Replace Bridge No. 164 with a 3 @ 12 ft (width) by 10 ft (height)
reinforced concrete box culvert at approximately the same location and roadway elevation
as the existing bridge. Detour traffic along surrounding roads during construction.
Alternate 3: Replace Bridge No. 164 with a pre-cast culvert in approximately the same
location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. Detour traffic along surrounding
roads during construction.
TIP Estimate: $ 402,000
Construction Estimate: Not available yet
020688
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
April 23, 2002
t. b
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1000 MAY - 2Q?'
Washington, NC 27889-1000
9T??NDS 6; u,I?
ATTN: Mr. Mike Bell N y??TY SF?Tf??,
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Wayne County, Bridge No. 34 over Nahunta Swamp on NC 111, TIP No.
B-3378, State Project No. 8.133150 1, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-111(4).
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning documents for the
Subject project. This project consists of a bridge replacement at the existing location,
with traffic being maintained on-site using a temporary detour west of the existing
alignment. The existing bridge is 23.2 m (76 ft) long and 7.7 in (25.3 ft) wide. The
proposed bridge is 30.5 in (100 ft) long. The roadway cross section of the bridge will
consist of two 3.6 in (12 ft) lanes with 1 in (3 ft) offsets. The existing bridge is composed
of concrete, steel, and timber. There is potential for components of the bridge to be
dropped into waters of the United States. The resulting temporary fill associated with
this bridge is 12 cubic yards (9 cubic meters). This project can be classified as Case 2,
which allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish
migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas. No wetlands will be
impacted by this project. Approximately 0.04 ac of temporary fill in surface waters
associated with the temporary detour will occur. Approximately 0.28 ac of buffers will
be impacted in Zone 1 and 0.17 ac in Zone 2. These impacts are allowable and not
mitigable.
. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2082; January 15, 2002. The General Conditions
of 67 FR 2020; January 15, 2002 will be followed in the construction of the project.
The NCDOT requests that you review this work for authorization under
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] _ TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET -
1548MAIL SERVICE CENTER . - - -WEBSITE:-WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US - RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH. NC 27699-1548
Nationwide Permit No. 23. It is anticipated that 401 General Certification No. 3107
(Approved Categorical Exclusions) will apply to this project, and the attached
information is being provided to the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Matt Haney at
[phone], extension 333.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. N.L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Omar Sultan, Program Development Branch
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Timothy Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Jim Trogdon, P.E., Division 4 Engineer
Mr. Bill Goodwin, PD&EA

dcCaller
401
5
a
Buie$
{ Cree?

Scale of Miles
0 .. 5 15 20 30
0 -10 20 30 40 A8
Scale of Kilometers
-
One I xh eowls aaWoximwety 13 miles and approximately 21 kilometers.
? ITE
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
FREMONT, N. C,.
ryytCL ?"' - - f_- \ SW/4 WILSON 15' OUADRANOLE
N a N3530-W7752.517.5
1978
J
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
SCALE 1:24 000
1 2 0 1 MILE
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
SURFACE WATER IMPACT NT. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SITE WAYNE COUNTY
PROJECT. 8.1331501 (B3378)
MAPS BRIDGE N-O.34 ON NC-111
OVER NAHUNTA SWAMP
SHEET / OF 2/ 25 / 02

- 134 52 1 /
FREMO EUREKA
<
-1' 1 506

32
:? /
?i?j 525
524
,SSZ?
END
4 _
- 36?! _6 PROJEC
1336

15
i -,1364 r PIKEVILLE o 535 ,608 l -
I 153
, 1 .?
-h -
15 BEGIN

1 o ` ?rti d .535 534
PROJECT
318 336 1rossroctd4 1543 15 S
_
20 o 1 4
1323 132
1 3 r '
\ 154 11 , 1575.
_
\ waym
\

,
'
- dl
Airpo.r ' 1574
Patetown 1676 535
? 1546 ; 1680__/ 15
'
`Y 1671 167
tl
131
546
5 t 5 1 ? 11
39

l
t
S 1653
7
157
on
au
s
547 1§_54
1 7 l 703, 13
/ 556
1 17
-
ROSEWbOD
/
(
?RTFNVOR

?`
?
1
4 ~

t3
p
moo
? ?. ? ? \ /
VICINITY MAP
SURFACE WATER IMPACT N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY WAYNE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1331501 (B3378)
MAPS BRIDGE NO. 34 ON NC. III
OVER NAHUNTA SWAMP
SHEET 2 OF 6 .2/24/02
WETLAND LEGEND

-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE

LL
WETLAND
L PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
® DENOTES FILL IN ?..??¦...,
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
WETLAND
12'-48'
DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
'
® SURFACE WATER PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54
& ABOVE
DENOTES FILL IN
® SURFACE. WATER
(POND) SINGLE TREE
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND WOODS LINE
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND DRAINAGE INLET
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE

WATER ROOTWAD
• _ _ DENOTES MECHANIZED -
CLEARING
-F- E-- FLOW DIRECTION RIP RAP
B
TOP OF BANK
'
WE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
- EDGE OF WATER
- 5
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
- -C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
--?- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- - PL - PROPERTY LINE
- TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
ST. ENDANGERED
XI
- EA6
- ' E
.
A
N
- EPB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
WATER SURFACE
X XXX X X LIVE STAKES
X
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
BOULDER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS WAYNE COUNTY
PROJECT. 8.1331501 (B3378)
DITCH / SWALE BRIDGE NO. 54 ON NC. 111
OVER NAHUNTA SWAMP
SHEET 3 OF G FEB. 25, 2002
/ 11 I I I1 ? 8
l 11 I I 11 E-? ? M?? c,
as
w
a % j% I 0 a?H zV) w
U / / I 20 U- i\ E o: U, t M
-1 :D rz.
W la l ??3 ti Wa
z / o I IJ I IzQ A A a ?? w
a 3/ o ? I I IJ ? '? o ?
J ? I t J
a o I I la
I ' a10
J q?
? I Na ? I w ??
I O 4!
I a
I 0:° _ Q.
n. LL I I '
I t
t W z
ww
E-4
'°ooot eov - - - N?
0: LL
ooq go a ?
0 o po B--"'" - (z v=i
00 °O -
._ oo° .too
lz N UNTA 51NAM
ss
?ttn ' ? 1 ? 1 1 t `? ?,
k? V) 1
V0 Q I 1 t J ?i ?,; -
U cr_
vW ? 1 1 a° 1 I o t? rti
b? ?v 1 N O- N I I o
Q. Z ' 2
I
@J ? Vi 1 ? ? t W ?
N I? o ! W Ln
° m I Izz? j z
o °
LL
o \ I v
IZZ Z I t '? W
W N 1 i- \ I 1 m L Q
3 N , o ?I I L W `? N
N \
a w k?j
1Q
\1 1 ?o ( I w `Ln
Z
O
H
Q
F-
w
O
a -
U)
Z
Q

LL
O

CL

O
co
LO
N
co
N w

U N
z
Q
U? N

r
r U
Z U
Z U
Z
O
o

?? O

T
m

Q)
Y

n
o
p
c
o
E
N
(? U a U` Li
a
z °

y
??
W
f `
`
N

L

.
" o
m
UR
O
?
'

?
a N
?r co
a
co
n
Fri G

U Z

r
L ?.
"a

o
co

C
-p
r , LL J W
ci
o

E o
cc
Z
r
N

J

m
c

J

x

to

o
C
m ^
co
C13

zfA?
C N
U ^ f6
F N co
Q W U
a
2

- ? W
LL
?
O
F- ci
d
(0
c v Cl)
o
? fJ
w
U
LL
o

m
? w

Q ?
M
v
N r-

. .
U N C 1
Q
a
En
o
ca
X
w c
W p

a
Z N
o
z W a a,
v
J
~
H

c °

Q
(D E
?
n a
O >. = co
l..
U ` m O p
N
U
C (?\ Q
N Q
3
0
oC
o

U) O
li N

d 0 J
U. Z - - ?'
O

Z N
°o
O N
< U) co CN
Q te
e- E N
O3: r
-,
co U m w
a-
(n om z
C3 C (? -

Y
OO
C

LL

c
_M
Ce)
f- O W c) .
LL
O Z Z '17 0 co
> co Z Z
ca o
v>
a -
W> a
i
m O
O
0 0 a
U !-
Z W
w
z
U)

? I Z11-11
xale OT mneS
0 5 15 20 30
0 t0 - 20 30 40 48
Scale of Kilometers
One Inch equals approximately 13 miles and approximatey 21 kilometers.
.I
it
I 1C
O\ _ I QUADRANGLE LOCATION
l - - "- FREMONT, N. C.
SW/4 WILSON. 15' QUADRANGLE
N3530-W7752.5/7.5
1978
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10.FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
SCALE 1:24 000
1 2 0 1 MILE
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
N E U S E RIVER BUFFER N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
S I T 'APd WAYNE COUNTY
PROJECT. 8.1331501 (B3378)
MAPS BRIDGE NO. 34 ON NC. I11
OVER NAHUNTA SWAMP
SHEET I OF'j 2/25/02

- 52 1

FREMO EUREKA

` 27
b 5Q6 -
'
3
4 `
Q1 525
524
` 2
END
j
r - ,,• 6
- PROJEC -
-1336 -
_ 3a41-
--152
1 -13 ` PIKEVILLE
1.535
1608
l
153 , _
1
- ? 11 5 BEGIN
1 ?-
&' ?4 5
534
( PROJEC
318 336
P 1 \?
' 1543 15 \
1323 1320 -
i -4 1575
153 \ 154 1 - -

\ Go wwro
e
' - town 167 16 574
wwrp?a?e Pat
- 35
-
1546
-- 1680 -/ 1556
/. "
131 ,- V 1
1671 167
e
548
15 1 4

SauLtlon 165
14. 157

11 54
7 13
1 '' 703
556 \ 170
Belf. lu '
\ - l
ROSEVi 901) ' -
LDSBO
\
;,
J

L 13 ngO
VICINITY MAP

NEUSE RIVER BUFFER N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

VICINITY WAYNE COUNTY
PROJECT: 31501 (833781
MAPS
BRIDGE NO. U ON NC.111.
OVER NAHUNTA. SWAMP
SHEET 2 ' OF 7 2 / 25 / 02

XXX XX LIVE STAKES N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
BOULDER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAYNE COUNTY
CORE FIBER ROLLS
PROJECT: 8.1331501 (B3378)
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER BRIDGE NO. 34 ON NC. 111
OVER `NAHUNTA SWAMP
SHEET 3 OF 7 2/'25®02
LEGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
L

L
WETLAND

PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
MITAGABLE IMPACTS PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
TO ZONE I
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
MITAGABLE IMPACTS EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
TO ZONE 2
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS
TO ZONE I
SINGLE TREE
,
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS WOODS LINE

TO ZONE 2 _
¦ DRAINAGE INLET
- BZ1 - BUFFER ZONE ONE -
30 FT (9 M)
ROOTWAD
-BZ2- BUFFER ZONE TWO -
50 FT (15 M)
-F- FLOW DIRECTION 00000 VORTEX ROCK WEIR
T`
? TOP OF BANK Ana
WE RIP RAP
EDGE OF WATER
C PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
F PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
---- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
NG NATURAL GROUND VANE
PL PROPERTY LINE
-TOE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EP6- EXIST. ENDANGERED

PLANT BOUNDARY \
0 WATER SURFACE
r
z
C O

W m V a
O
LLJ
J

W
z

0
N U } U M M Z n

O
p
N
°vv`0v»n O '-+
z p
C

W
W cn

Z
?

-D

W
CO0,a?v

%'R O Z

C
H
.?
N Z
N N
o?aoo»H E H.
a W
w o w
a W z w " w v A a w
? ° a z m
a I V
ol: Z V
J Z
00+LZ

+ I N y,
tiZS
v °
- =
CL
E

7 Q-

o--
3
A
TZS
01 -- 137:1 O Yid - N
C
• u U
(n
m ?fDJ ^ 0.O
N 0- O
O TB _ 9N
NAHUNT SWAMP W °DL
QLL °°``
QLL

O O Om C> CD

. + O? a
S
-
?- - 3-. r`
- JO
QF JO
Q1-

(0 L lu TB
Epo ~
?
U O ?
+3 E -rz8 TZS Z
ZwF-
gzu ?0

V I a
U I z ! ;o

00+ z

5Z 3

I
3
J q
N
O CC u cr-
0
O
I
1.
I
®
U
')
.
:zt
a o
w
3
N
(?
Q
a a

Q

W
Q-
O
J

?

N

°ow4 *+ a

s o

U-)
(n O N W no, .n n
LU

0 n i>
LL 00000>
> f
J
C7 W
In Q
2 N N
N
W Ln
t

LLJ
H /
a

J

U /

'
V) ?
a
U
o
J O ? Q
a 3 1?
J ?
J
_
= LL, co
d
D L

O CL I

O

BZ1

o C
64
M

I ? I O ? ?
3 3 4 x ?
?,, F
\ 2 L a U M ?+
aG
N O '? V Z ?.

/ X J •X a ? ? a C Aa F
?' l i I m _' Q A a a> w
a U 0 x
/ n l I J z

d
0
CL
C p
I I
p

CL
Q.
O
L

N _ N
w r-a 0 a
zi tf .0 o
BZl wcr w0:
/.\
F+d J w
M LL J w
CO L+-
t
co O CO
°o
o J
JO J
JO
TB o
J9 -_ o000
??.?w ooood ooooo. ,. co
ooooa o00 _ co
?.
°°Soo ° ' N UNTA
00 0 PSw?
__ o°oooc Z
SQL °o o '_'
w ad
0
o?
4
-??-TZS o ? TZS
W (? a
c~n o- ZZ ? ti'ZS?,,
O
V? U N 1 N
b vi I LL) C>
L
N 1
0 11
o N O
L O \ co
J
J p \ I? Li
N
h Q
N 1 ` Q N N
Q
`\
a 1 1 ? I
R
ti

_

?

O

U

o

n
co
cN

0

O
LO
N

o

co

N Z
Q

LL

H

w

V

Z
=
LL

Z
0
O
w

}
>
LO
Cl) r-.

00
U

O

a 0

M

Z-

?

m
N

3
u

N
?
0

L

W
w
? N cn

r4
Z Z z

3 0

F-'

W

v g

a
Y 0

a
p
( E
°
E
2
LL
a
0
o Z °
a
x

w
v
N
L

1

Z

0) 0

o

°
13
Q 04 N

0 r-

C)
Q

W Z

" a
o
J
-=a
w
O
? N
0
w+
N
J m
?
J 3
x c
m
m

f N
Z W
W Z
v
W m
w
Lt
_
"
g
00 a z
w ° w

o -

w
CO N
Q
0 W
z x 1
H v

W r - _
O
N

H N
O) r
? Cl)
I
O
?
W F-
?. V m w

rv 0) M O
V
Q a ?

O
z
0
0)
V N
C - -j
L J
Q

W _
O I-
O
Z
0 v u) CN

}
U
O
0. a 0 X
2 x
W
W I
-
d

W
LL o Z
° X
M ??
m U
o
0
N +
O (D N
LL N 0
- O F-
Z
O Uf p . i
N
Q `
+ LO
N
H
CO LO
N

}}
t
Q
w
w
.,
0
d
N
U) 0
c
w - co _ Q U
F Q N
U
Ix d
w
Cl )
F-

Z Q
- W r ?..,

cn
?..
e
February 27,.2002
Summary impact to buffer zone for State Project 8.1331501 (B-3378)
Wayne.Co.
The proposed project involves removing and replacing the existing 75' bridge
with a 100' bridge over Nahunta Swamp. An on-site detour will be required, as this is a
major (NC) route. This will be accomplished with two temporary 120" corrugated metal
pipes with temporary fill just upstream of the existing crossing.
The existing roadway has lateial ditches on all four sides of the road. They are
sufficiently deep to drain any standing water from the adjacent fields. The existing
ditches have 1'to 2' bases with steep, approximately 1:1 side slopes. We propose to
relocate these ditches with grassed swales, having a 2' base and 3:1 side slopes.
The existing bridge is on a flat grade with deck drainage by sheet flow from the
deck. Storm-water discharge from the proposed bridge will be collected in a gutter
system and discharged into the grassed swale beyond the buffer zone limits.
The temporary fill will be removed to the existing ground elevations and
revegetated.

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
020688

MAY - Z,V
WETLANDS GROUP
_?, ?1F1TE? U;?LITY SECTIOPt...
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Wayne County
Bridge No. 34 on NC 111
Over Nahunta Swamp
Federal Project BRSTP-111 (4)
State Project 8.1331501
TIP No. B-3378
APPROVED:
12-2q-o° ? ?` f
Date William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1-4-61 0, -
--4 'it .'
Date Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Wayne County
Bridge No. 34 on NC 111
Over Nahunta Swamp
Federal Project BRSTP-111 (4)
State Project 8.1331501
TIP No. B-3378
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December 2000
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:

Date Karen T. Orthner
Project Planning Engineer
-71
N
'J
Date Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
.
y ,
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 34
On NC 111 over Nahunta Swamp
Wayne County
Federal-Aid No. BRSTP-111 (4)
State Project No. 8.1331501
T.I.P. No. B-3378
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Four Construction Office, Structure Design
Unit
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for "Bridge
Demolition and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 34.
Roadway Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Four Construction
Office
Once construction of the new bridge and approaches are complete, the temporary
bridge and approaches will be removed. The temporary approach fill will be removed to
natural grade and the area will be planted with native grasses and/or tree species as
appropriate.
Roadside Environmental Unit, Hydraulics Unit, Division Four Construction Office
NCDOT will adhere to the construction guidelines outlined in "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage" during construction of Bridge No. 34. No in-
water work will occur between February 15 and June 15.
Green Sheer
Categorical Exclusion
December 28, 2000
Page 1 of 1

Wayne County
Bridge No. 34 on NC 111
Over Nahunta Swamp
Federal Project BRSTP-111 (4)
State Project 8.1331501
TIP No. B-3378
Bridge No. 34 is located in Wayne County over Nahunta Swamp. It is
programmed in the Draft 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a
bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Highway Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) and has been classified as a
"Categorical Exclusion". No substantial environmental impacts are expected.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 34 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new
100-foot (30.5-m) long bridge at approximately the same location as the existing bridge
(see Figure 2). The roadway cross section of the bridge will consist of two 12-foot
(3.6-m) lanes with 3-foot (1.0-m) offsets. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary on-
site detour located west of the existing bridge. The temporary detour structure will
consist of 2 @ 11 feet, 5 inches (3.48 m) by 7 feet, 3 inches (2.21 m) corrugated metal
pipe arches.
There will be approximately 300 feet (91.4 m) of new approach work to the north
and to the south of the new bridge. The pavement width on the roadway approaches will
be 24 feet (7.2 m), including two 12-foot (3.6-m) lanes. Additionally, there will be 8-foot
(2.4-m) grassed shoulders. Shoulders will be increased to 11 feet (3.3 m) where guardrail
is warranted. The design speed will be 60 mph (100 km/h).
The estimated cost of the project is $1,118,000 including $1,100,000 in
construction costs and $18,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the
Draft 2002-2008 TIP is $500,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
Based on preliminary analysis, a design exception will not be required for this
project.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 111 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional'
Classification System. NC 111 begins at the intersection with US 70 in Goldsboro and
terminates at the intersection with NC 222 near the town of Eureka. Currently, the traffic
volume is approximately 1700 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at 2600 VPD for the
year 2025. There is no posted speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge. The road serves
primarily local residential and agricultural traffic.
Bridge No. 34 was completed in 1948. The existing bridge contains a three-span
concrete and steel superstructure. The bridge deck is 76 feet (23.2 m) long and 25.3 feet
(7.7 m) wide. The bridge substructure contains timber piles with concrete caps. There is
approximately 12 feet (3.6 m) of vertical clearance between the floorbeams of the bridge
deck and streambed. There are two lanes of traffic on the bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of Bridge
No. 34 is 28.6 out of a possible 100. Presently, the bridge is posted with weight
restrictions of 31 tons for single vehicles and 31 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Both vertical and horizontal alignments are good in the project vicinity. The
pavement width on the approaches to the existing bridge is 20 feet (6.1 m). Shoulders on
the roadway approaches to the bridge are approximately 4 feet (1.2 m) wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have been reported
during a recent three-year time period in the vicinity of Bridge No. 34.
There are 16 daily school bus crossings over the studied bridge. According to the
Transportation Director for Wayne County Schools, closing the road during construction
would be a major inconvenience.
No utilities are located within the project area.
IV. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are two "build" options considered in this document as follows:
Alternate 1: Bridge No. 34 would be replaced with a 100-foot (30.5-m) long bridge on
the existing location. Traffic would be detoured along surrounding roads
during construction. The design speed would be 60 mph (100 km/h).
Alternate 2: (Recommended) Bridge No. 34 will be replaced with a 100-foot (30.5-m)
long bridge at the existing location. Traffic will be maintained on-site
using a temporary detour west of the existing alignment. The design speed
will be 60 mph (100 km/h).
"Do-nothing" is not practical; requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating
bridge is neither practical nor economical.
A temporary on-site detour was also evaluated to the east of the existing
alignment. The alignments of the east and west temporary detours, as well as their
resulting environmental impacts, were essentially the same for both options. Due to the
recommendation by the Hydraulics Unit to place the on-site detour bridge upstream
(west) of the existing bridge, the temporary on-site detour option to the west was chosen.
An alternate replacing Bridge No. 44 on new location would result in poor
alignment at the bridge site, as the bridge currently lies in a tangent section of roadway.
Therefore, this alternate was not considered.
2
V. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)

COMPONENT
ALTERNATE 1 Recommended
ALTERNATE 2
Structure
Bridge Removal
Roadway & Approaches
Detour Structure and Approaches 224,000
15,380
104,645
0 224,000
15,380
112,745
312,810
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 155,975 300,065
Engineering & Contingencies 75,000 135,000
Total Construction $ 575,000 $ 1,100,000
Right of Way $ 13,000 $ 18,000
Total Cost S 588,000 $1,118,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 34 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new
100-foot (30.5-m) long bridge at approximately the same location as the existing bridge
(see Figure 2). The roadway cross section of the bridge will consist of two 12-foot
(3.6-m) lanes with 3-foot (1.0-m) offsets. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary on-
site detour located west of the existing bridge. The temporary detour structure will
consist of 2 @ 11 feet, 5 inches (3.48 m) by 7 feet, 3 inches (2.21 m) corrugated metal
pipe arches.
There will be approximately 300 feet (91.4 m) of new approach work to the north
and to the south of the new bridge. The pavement width on the roadway approaches will
be 24 feet (7.2 m), including two 12-foot (3.6-m) lanes. Additionally, there will be 840ot
(2.4-m) grassed shoulders. Shoulders will be increased to 11 feet (3.3 m) where guardrail
is warranted. The design speed will be 60 mph (100 km/h).
Alternate 2 is recommended because it maintains traffic safely and efficiently on
NC 111 during the construction of Bridge No. 34. The potential off-site detour roads
associated with Alternate 1 would need upgrading in order to be utilized due to their poor
condition and unsatisfactory sight distances compared with NC 111. The user costs
associated with the off-site detour along with the cost of upgrading the detour roads
would be greater than the cost of maintaining traffic on-site. In addition, the 16 daily
school bus trips across the bridge would be greatly inconvenienced by an off-site detour.
Therefore, Alternate 2 is the most reasonable and feasible alternate. The Division Four
Office concurs in this recommendation.
Consideration will be given to the standard comments that the Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) has submitted, as appropriate, during the design phase of the project.
(See WRC letter dated February 25, 1999.) 1
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in the Project Commitments ("Green") Sheet of this document. In addition, the use
of current NCDOT standards and specifications will be implemented.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. ?he project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
This project will not impact any resource protected by Section 4(f) of the U. S.
Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are considered to be low for the proposed project.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Wayne County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
No negative community impacts are anticipated to result from this bridge
4
replacement project. This project will not result in the substantial loss of any federally or
state designated prime, unique, or important farmland soils, nor will this project disrupt
an active farming operation. In addition, the bridge project is not located on a federally
or state designated scenic river.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended no historic
architectural surveys in connection with this project. However, the SHPO recommended
an archaeological survey due to a known archaeological site near the project vicinity.
Subsequently, NCDOT staff archaeologists on March 9 and April 12, 2000
surveyed the project area. Shane Petersen, Archaeologist, submitted an Archaeological
Survey Report documenting that since no archaeological sites were recorded in the
project area, a finding of "No Historic Properties Affected" is appropriate for this project.
In addition, the report recommends that no further archaeological work be undertaken for
this project. The SHPO concurred in this recommendation as stated in the letter dated
October 25, 2000.
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
1. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Soil and water resources, which occur in the project study area, are discussed
below. Soil types and availability of water directly influence composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
Wayne County lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. Land in the
project study area is characterized as relatively flat. The project is located in a rural area
of Wayne County surrounded by cropland and residential houses. The project study area
is located approximately 80 feet (24 m) above mean sea level.
SOILS
One mapped soil unit is located in the project study area and includes Johnston
loam. Johnston loam is a very poorly drained, alluvial soil on flood plains. Surface
runoff is very slow and permeability is moderate. The water table is usually high with
water ponding in low places and very frequent floods. Johnston loam is a hydric soil.
WATER RESOURCES
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses the resources'
relationship to major water systems, its physical aspects, Best Usage Classification, and
water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed,
as are means to minimize impacts.
Subbasin Characteristics
Water resources located within the project study area lie in the Contentnea Creek
Watershed (Subbasin 03-04-07) of the Neuse River Drainage Basin (N.C. Hydrologic
Unit 03020203). The Neuse River Basin is the third largest river basin in the state,
covering 6,192 square miles (NCDEHNR, 1993). 1
Stream Characteristics
The proposed project crosses Nahunta Swamp. Nahunta Swamp at the project site
is approximately 30 feet (9 m) wide. The depth could not be determined and exceeded
5 feet (1.5 m). The substrate along the creek banks is composed of sandy loam.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the NCDENR (2000).
The best usage classification of Nahunta Swamp (Index No. 27-86-14) is C Sw NSW.
Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. Swamp waters (Sw) is a supplemental
classification intended to recognize those waters that generally have naturally occurring
very low velocities, low pH, and low dissolved oxygen. Nutrient Sensitive Waters
(NSW) is a supplemental classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient
management due to their being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or
macroscopic vegetation. No water resources classified as High Quality Waters (HQW's),
Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW's) are located
within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area.
Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for
the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological,
chemical, and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All
basins are reassessed every five years. Data from ambient monitoring locations on
Contentnea Creek indicate that water quality conditions are being negatively affected by
both point and non-point source pollution. Good, Good/Fair or Fair water quality
conditions were noted at each of the ambient locations from which benthic
macroinvertebrate samples were collected (NCDEHNR, 1993).
Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality
management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network assessed water quality by
sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout
the state. Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can last
from six months to a year; therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be
overcome until the next generation. Different taxa of macroinvertebrates have different
tolerances to pollution, thereby; long term changes in water quality conditions can be
identified by population shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms
(and vice versa). Overall, the species present, the population diversity and the biomass
are reflections of long term water quality conditions. There are no BMAN sampling
stations in the project vicinity (NCDEHNR, 1993).
Point sources refer to discharges that enter surface water through a pipe, ditch, or
other defined points of discharge. Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. There is a
NPDES site located within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area. Eureka
WasteWater Treatment Plant (permit number NC0048062) is located approximately 3800
feet (1158 m) east of the project study area.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater
flow or no defined point of discharge. There are many types of land use activities that
can serve as sources of non-point source pollution including land development,
construction, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems, landfills, roads,
and parking lots. Sediment and nutrients are major pollution-causing substances
associated with non-point source pollution. Others include fecal coliform bacteria, heavy
metals, oil and grease, and any other substance that may be washed off the ground or
removed from the atmosphere and carried into surface waters. Excluding road runoff and
cropland runoff, there were no identifiable non-point sources that could be observed
during the site visit.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Potential impacts to water resources in the project study area are dependent upon
final construction limits. Roadway construction in Nahunta Swamp will result in water
quality impacts. The proposed project will bridge Nahunta Swamp and result in both
temporary and permanent impacts. Clearing and grubbing activities near the creek will
result in soil erosion leading to increased sedimentation and turbidity. These effects may
extend downstream for considerable distance with decreasing intensity.
Construction activities adjacent to water resources increase the potential for toxic
compounds (gas, oil, and highway spills) to be carried into nearby water resources via
precipitation, sheet flow, and subsurface drainage. Increased amounts of toxic materials
can adversely alter the water quality of any water resource, thus impacting its biological
and chemical functions. Indirect impacts to surface waters may extend both upstream and
downstream of the project study area. Indirect impacts may include isolated changes in
flooding regime, discharge, erosion, and sedimentation patterns.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the entire impact area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP's) for the Protection of Surface Waters
must be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project. The NCDOT, in
cooperation with the DWQ, has developed a sedimentation control program for highway
projects, which adopts formal BMPs for the protection of surface waters. The project
study area is located within the coastal plain and crosses a perennial stream.
Accordingly, NCDOT Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage must be
adhered to during the life of the project.
II. BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes
those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between
fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences, and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are
presented in the context of plant community classifications.
Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described and
discussed. Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*).
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations.
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Habitats used
by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions,
were determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and
supportive documentation (Fish, 1960, Martof et al., 1980; Webster et al., 1985; Rohde et
al., 1994; Potter et al., 1980).
TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Two terrestrial communities are identifiable in the project study area: disturbed
community and riparian fringe.
Maintained/Disturbed Community
This community encompasses two types of habitats that have recently been or are
currently impacted by human disturbance: roadside shoulder and cropland.
Roadside shoulder is a regularly maintained habitat that is kept in a low-growing,
early successional state. Species located here include fescue (Festuca sp.), vetch (Vicia
sp.), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), foxtail grass (Alopecurus sp.), henbit
(Lamium amplexicaule), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and crossvine
(Bignonia capreolata).
Cropland is located adjacent to the roadside shoulder and disturbed riparian
fringe. Three crops were observed at the project site. These crops consist of cotton
(Gossypium sp. ), soybeans (Glycine max), and corn (Zea mays).
Riparian Fringe
Disturbed riparian fringe is adjacent to Nahunta Swamp. Herbs, grasses, and
vines present in this community include plume grass (Erianthus ravennae), goldenrod
(Solidago sp.), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), aster (Aster sp.), violet (Viola sp.),
Japanese honeysuckle, blackberry (Rubus sp.), panic grass (Panicum amarum), and
crossvine. Shrubs, saplings, and trees present in this community include sassafrass
(Sassafrass albidum), privet (Ligustrum sp.), silverling (Baccharis halimifolia),
arrowwood (Viburnum sp.), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), hackberry (Celtis
occidentalis), willow oak (Quercus phellos), sweetgum (Liquidambar styracua), green
ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and red maple (Acer rubrum).
AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
One aquatic community type, coastal plain perennial stream, is located in the
project study area. Physical characteristics of the surface waters and condition of the
water influence the faunal composition of the aquatic communities. Perennial streams
support an assemblage of fauna that require a constant source of flowing water. Nahunta
Swamp provides habitat for chain pickerel (Esox niger), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis
auritus), bluegill (L. macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), golden
shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), madtom (Noturus sp.), and eastern mosquitofish
(Gambusia holbrooki).
FAUNAL COMPONENT
Much of the wildlife in the project area likely use various communities for forage,
cover, and nesting habitat. Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of
forests and clearings. In addition, many species utilize both aquatic and terrestrial
habitats, such that both are required for survival and reproduction. .
The raccoon* (Procyon. lotor) is a carnivore often observed along wetland habitats
to moist upland forests as well as urban areas. A raccoon track was observed in the
riparian fringe during the site visit. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are
occasionally observed along broken areas of mixed young forests, old fields, and
croplands. These two ubiquitous species are often observed as roadkill on adjacent
roadways.
The least shrew (Cryptotis parva), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys
humulis), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) frequent disturbed or open areas
dominated by herbaceous vegetation which provide foraging and nesting habitat. Eastern
cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus) prefer brushy edges where they primarily feed on
woody perennials.
Mammals commonly occurring in forested habitats include southern short-tailed
shrew (Blarina carolinensis), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and white-footed
mouse (Peromyscus leucopus). Shrews and smaller mice prefer forests with a thick layer
of leaf litter.
Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) and five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus) inhabit open habitats with plenty of sunlight.
The common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) can be observed in abandoned
fields. The Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) and northern mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos) can be observed along roadside shoulders.
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC RESOURCES
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts
to the natural resources in terms of the ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent
impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of
each community (Table 2). Project construction will result in the clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived using the
entire ROW width [80 feet (24.4 m)] and length [1770 feet (539.5 m)]. Usually, project
construction does not require the entire ROW width; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Community In Place Temporary In Place
Replacement Detour Replacement
Dist. Comm. 0.63/0.25 0.53/0.22 0.63/0.25
Rip. Fringe 0.10/0.04 0.10/0.04 0.10/0.04
TOTAL (see note) 0.73/0.29 0.63/0.26 0.73/0.29
Notes:
-Values are cited in acres/hectares
-Total impacts may not equal the sum impacts associated with each specific community due to
rounding of significant digits.
-Alternate 1 In Place Replacement values indicate permanent impacts associated with the
removal and replacement of Bridge No. 34 and adjacent roadway approaches.
-Alternate 2 Temporary Detour values indicate temporary and permanent impacts associated
with the placement and subsequent removal of the temporary bridge and roadway approaches.
-Alternate 2 In Place Replacement values indicate permanent impacts associated with the
removal of Bridge. No. 34 and adjacent roadway approaches.
The biotic communities found within the project area will be altered as a result of
project construction. Terrestrial communities serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter
habitat for fauna. A majority of the project study area is located in disturbed habitat.
This area is currently in a highly altered state and plants and animals here are well
adapted to disturbed conditions. Flora and fauna occurring in the disturbed community
are common throughout North Carolina because of their ability to persist in disturbed
habitats. Moreover, similar additional disturbed habitats will be re-established after
project construction.
Construction activities will impact the water resources located in the project area
as well as those downstream. Increased sedimentation and siltation is often directly
attributable to construction activities. The suspended particles will clog the feeding
mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and amphibians. These impacts eventually are
magnified throughout the food chain and ultimately affect organisms located in higher
trophic levels. Strict erosion and sedimentation controls must be maintained during the
entire -life of the project.
Construction activities often affect water level and flow due to interruption and/or
additions to surface and groundwater flow. The change in water level may severely
impact spawning activities of mobile and sessile organisms. Construction runoff and
highway spills may result in mortality to aquatic species inhabiting the water resources
located in the project area.
Quantitative differences with regard to cumulative impacts in the proposed impact
width exist between alternatives. Alternative 1 has reduced quantitative cumulative biotic
community impacts when compared to Alternative 2.
III. JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues--Waters of the United States and Protected and Rare Species.
10
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR
§328.3 (b), are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support,
a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Surface
waters are waters used in interstate or foreign commerce, waters subject to the ebb and
flow of tides, all interstate waters including interstate wetlands, and all other waters such
as intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams. Any action that proposes to place fill material into
these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Nahunta Swamp is considered a jurisdictional surface water. This stream is
thoroughly described in the "Water Resources" section of this document. No wetlands
are present at the project study site.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed project will cross jurisdictional surface waters. No wetlands are
present at the project -study site. Impacts are summarized in Table 2. The amount of
surface water impacts may be modified by any changes in the project design. Nahunta
Swamp is proposed to be bridged. Approximately 80 feet (24 m) of Nahunta Swamp is
located in the ROW of the In Place Replacement associated with Alternate 1 and
Alternate 2. Approximately 60 feet (18 m) of Nahunta Swamp is located in the ROW of
the Temporary Detour associated with Alternate 2.
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 34 has three spans totaling 76 feet (23 m) in length. The deck and
bridge railings are composed of concrete. The substructure consists of timber piles with
concrete caps. The bridge railings and timber piles will be removed without dropping
their components into Waters of the U.S. There is potential for components of the deck
and caps of Bridge No. 34 to be dropped into Waters of the U.S. during construction.
The resulting temporary fill associated with the deck and caps associated with
Bridge No. 34 is approximately 12 yd3 (9 m). This project can be classified as Case 2,
allowing no work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish
migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Permits
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated from project construction. In accordance
with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit will be required from the
COE for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United States." Due to
surface water impacts expected at the project study area, a Nationwide 23 Permit will
likely be necessary for this project. Final decision concerning applicable permits rests
with the COE.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to
the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state
issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may
result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from
11
the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit
Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to maintain and restore the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating
for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency and the COE, in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable
in terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Impacts to
wetlands can be minimized by: (1) decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction of ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths; (2)
installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover during
construction; (3) strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the
protection of surface waters and wetlands; and (4) reduction of clearing and grubbing
activity in and adjacent to water bodies and wetlands. Choosing Alternate 1 over
Alternate 2 can minimize impacts to Waters of the United States.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable, adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation, and enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions
should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
DWQ regulations state that fill or alteration of more than 1.0 acre (0.45 ha) of
wetland will require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15A NCAC 211
.0506(a) and (h) and fill or alteration of more than 150 linear feet (450 linear m) of
streams may require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15A NCAC 211
.0506(a) and (h). If these acreage and linear thresholds are exceeded from project
construction, NCDOT will follow these regulations.
12
PROTECTED AND RARE SPECIES
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-
protected, be subject to review by the FWS. Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
Federally-protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA. According to the January 20, 2000 updated U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Threatened and Endangered Species List, there is one federally-
protected species listed for Wayne County. The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis) has a status of endangered. Endangered species are a taxon in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Status: Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of
the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at
least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are > 60 years
old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the
RCW is up to 500.0 acres (200.0 hectares). This acreage must be contiguous with
suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that
are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 12-100 feet (3.6-30.3 m) above the ground and average 30-50 feet (9.1- 15.7 m)
high. A large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree can identify them. The
RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers, in the form
of old growth pine forests, is not located in the project study area. There were no pines of
sufficient size and density located in the project study area or nearby vicinity. A review
of NHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no known populations of
RCW within 1.6 mile (1.0 km) of the project study area. Impacts to this species will not
occur from project construction.
13
Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species, which may
or may not be listed in the future. Five FSC are listed for Wayne County (Table 3).
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern
Common Name Scientific Name NC Status Habitat
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) SC (PT) Yes
rafinesquii
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus SR (PSC) No
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus SR Yes
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni T (PE) Yes
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis C No
Threatened (T) are native or once-native species of wild plant or animal which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. An Endangered (E) species is any native species or once-
native species of fauna or flora whose continued existence as a viable component of the
State's flora or fauna is determined to be in jeopardy. Significantly rare (SR) species are
very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state. Special Concern
(SC) species require monitoring but which may be collected and sold under regulations
adopted under provisions of the Plant Protection and Conservation Act. Candidate (C)
species are very rare in North Carolina, with 1-20 populations in the state, generally
substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction. Proposed (P_) species have been
formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, but has not
yet completed the legally mandated listing process.
FSC species are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject
to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T) or Special Concern (SC) by the NHP list of Rare Plant and Animal species are
afforded state protection under the State ESA and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979; however, the level of protection given to state. listed species
does not apply to NCDOT activities.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats conducted on
November 17, 1999 revealed no records of animal or species within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of
the project study area. Surveys for the above-mentioned species were not conducted
during the site visit, nor were these species observed during the site visit.
14
S
503 a
1505
1' 1 3 %
1507 1505 '
1
?p 1520
1505
2• /1'521 i
1522
1506
9
Mt. Cannel
Crossroads
1.9
' -.._ 1544
I ; Carmel 1
Ch.
Wayne
Municipal
Airport
z 1536
v
Bridge No. 34
$ 1. 8
9 1535
1534 fs
1543 - 15:
1544 ?' I` '•.
1543 111
W J? ..................
Potetown A 1-'+-' 1574
`•.1525 0

J Branch
co i 1517
i
` 8
1513 3 1'A--l
' 1516

1518

EUREKA
. POP. 282 1527 .8

`
1527
00
0 1528

1529
1524 i
% V1526 1058
? 1608
Faro ? • 3
1525 q?
1058
1532
1534
T
I 33

BranCh ...........
2 ..........
1665
. 1 ?
North Carolina
;. . Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Wayne County
Replace Bridge No. 34 on NC M
Over Nahunta Swamp
B-3378
Figure 1
White .. "-'._
Oak ? _ _. '-''
Ch. '1535 '
1.4 %D r -,
1575
Y///
1535
i
t
' iI I•

* i
yyy
G
y

,{ k ?",J?': 4l?,rvyoF:. I«11. ??$C _ -yl, aq4. .• ? R..?.1

6
#
R
?
.t' f? r
1"?`i--
??i
+ .
f ae"Ss' ?
4 A
Y
t
,
_?Y?1ry
. ?
; a
xf,

I

w
. n.

y' ?'•? ? ? ? 'ma
y

1

.
, ?' `! ...• 'f•„Qy
' r ..f t? - \
; _ t ..? y ,? `
ti
_
.Sl. ? ?
a -y
,
* II
kf C

r,

I

»
N
-f?: ;yr.G.?t- b.? :1? ln. ,'d .;?`.??im. p, A+: - ...:,4'?";c:r'?+?ss/"•S..

t
^ • -
f
'
y
.
.F
Fl
, -
C' f

l; V
I
{

?- a
' 1 s
. _ ,.R.? a,.:++•C' J- ,+?. `p?.._ -?.-°a Vii:,'. 1, ? ,?
r
l J Al TY r+?"' . F
kL L"
,off.°:•3 ,'.. ? ? ?+
• f ;y.

r
A
f9
r?
e••r
au?-I
L
N
a-+
g3jrw

a??

9 M

a

t ,
\
.
t
_
y rt

4

r-i
a?
a?
? .f Y. T. tr ! {.?Y t
? ?h ? F a`r '? L `tpA
? 1 r
t » .a s
r
v F
E ?
+a f
?c

c
ri

nm

•t

f t`t 4 f Y
y
• + r
S

i
? I

B-3378 FIGURE 3A
Looking North Across the Bridge
Looking South Across the Bridge
West Side of Bridge
-3378 FIGURE 3B
East Side of Bridge
0U
krw
yf ° ?r
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
October 25, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook -?, ",-A, t aGOL
Deputy State HistoM Preservation Officer
Re: Archaeological Survey Report, Bridge #34 on NC 111 over Nahunta Swamp,
B-3378, Wayne County, ER 99-8119
We have reviewed the subject survey report by Shane C. Peterson and offer the following
comments. The report meets the guidelines of this office and those of the Secretary of the
Interior. The level of work performed meets our expectations and we concur with the
conclusions of the report. No further archaeological investigations are necessary for the project
as currently planned.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Roy Shelton, FHwA
Thomas Padgett, NCDOT
Shane C. Peterson, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 733-865
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994619 [phone] • 715-267
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] • 715-480
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] • 715-480
X . J1412 er
!? ?Fq
e ,.+.w.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
January 11, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook poca-
Deputy State Histo c Preservation Officer
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 34 on NC 111 over Nahunta Swamp,
TIP No. B-3378, Wayne County, ER 99-8119
Thank you for your recent inquiry concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of
architectural, historic or archaeological significance which would be affected by the
project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have any questions concerning
the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator,
at 919 733-4763.
DB:aam
cc: Mary Pope Furr
Tom Padgett
Location Mailing Address TelephonefFa:
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919)7334763/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994618 [phone]/7154801
0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Karen Orthner, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coor '
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 25, 1999
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects in Wayne County, North Carolina.
TIP Nos. B-3378, B-3538 and B-3539.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Bridge Replacement Memo 2 February 25, 1999
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Aadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the-culvert or pipe invert is-buried-at least I foot below-the natural_stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to

Bridge Replacement Memo 3 February 25, 1999
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3378 -Wayne County - Bridge # 34 is located over Nahunta Swamp. With the
recent dam removal in the Neuse River this site now may support anadromous fish.
NCDOT should follow the officially adopted document "Stream Crossing Guidelines
for Anadromous Fish Passage". No in-water work should be conducted between
February 15 and June 15.
2. B-3538 - Wayne County - Bridge # 296 is over the Neuse River overflow. This site
is known to support anadromous fish. NCDOT should follow the officially adopted
document "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". No in-water
work should be conducted between February 15 and June 15.
3. B-3539 - Wayne.County - Bridge # 164 is over Stony Creek. This site is known to
support anadromous fish. NCDOT should follow the officially adopted document
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". No in-water work
should be conducted between February 15 and June 15.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects.
G ?- e?cff 93
we1gAe
os STATF o
d w'a?
t7
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
i Sy,re?
C
? ss?e
"C
i syue
January 21, 1999 " R 0
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms Cyndi Bell DWQ - DENR JAN 2 11999
WETLANDS GROUP
FROM: W. D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager yNnTER 11AL?TY SECT
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for,,the following projects:
Project T.I.P. County Bridge No. State Route Planning Engineer
B-3435 Chowan No. 4 SR 1207 Bill Goodwin
-321.7 Onslow No. 21 SR 1503 Bill Goodwin
B-3378 Wayne No. 34 NC 111 Karen Orthner
-3538 Wayne No. 296 SR 1222 Karen Orthner
B-3539 Wayne No. 164 SR 1571 Karen Orthner
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets and location maps for the
subject projects. The purpose of this information and the related review procedure is to have an
early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the projects. Scoping meetings for these projects are scheduled for
February 18, 1999 in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470).
These scoping meetings will be held back to back beginning at 9:00 A. M. in the order shown
above. You may provide us with your comments at the meeting, mail them to us prior to the
meeting, or e-mail them to [e-mail] prior to the meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meetings or the scoping sheets, please call the indicated Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-3141.
WDG/bg
Attachments j3(05W )-1-33-7
Rf_,Q_? (rt4j?

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT: B-3378
F. A. PROJECT: BRSTP - 111(4)
STATE PROJECT: 8.1331501
DIVISION: Four
COUNTY: Wayne
ROUTE: NC 111
DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Bridge No. 34 on NC 111 over Nahunta Swamp
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Fremont Quad Sheet
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Rural Major Collector
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .......................................................................... $ 540,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .......................................................................... $ 44,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................... S 584,000
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 1600 VPD; DESIGN YEAR (2025) 2600 VPD
TTST 2 % DUAL 3 %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: Two lane shoulder section, 20 foot
pavement
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 23.2 METERS WIDTH 7.7 METERS
76.0 FEET 25.3 FEET
COMMENTS:
S
503
- A
`-
_? '
`"~ • .9 i °
1505
! Branch
1' 1 3
/ co 15,17
1505
,-
1507 k ! t i
^ 8
1520/ co 1513

1505 1516

j 518

- ; ..
2• ?
1521
EUREKA
' 1522 2 POP. 282 1527 g

1.7

Mt. Carmel
Crossroads
1. 9
1544
Carmel
/ Ch.
Wayne
Municipal
Airport
cP ,g 1527 1528
1506 .2 N
.6 1.
S /
1525 O
1 111 1524 `i 1058 1529
1526
2' 2 1536
AA ' ! 2
9 _ - - - ' --?.:_
V oo
Bridge No. 34
8 1. 8 7 2 1608 i
9 1535 1 `•
i
1 White '---•-... - -':?
1534 'S 1 Oak
Tj? O Ch. 1535
1543 1534
1.4
15
1544
1575
1543 1 1 1 ` `` ...................
MI//
1535 l
1574 -
Patetown
Faro
•3
1525 q?
1058
1532
1534
v
1533

' h
i

Y' i
1665
.1 ?
NSA
N North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Wayne County
Replace Bridge No. 34 on NC M
Over Nahunta Swamp
B-3378
Figure 1
• / ? ? ?,\ is
?• \Cer
J - Grave. { `
\
Ch Nelson
Bit
Eur
WT -
125
1
]? 1 Jr I 1-? { ? • •
It
1524
i - i oll \\' _ ? J
I ° ,,\.-_ - - I
,37 '
Ito
1 \ I ''? I ?' ` , I
tie !K5'
\ 11
•` !? • ? ??'I ? ? ? 1 .. 111 ??? ? I ?? • ? !.
em11 i 15?s u
Swam
06,
Cl)
00
_ -- I _
GAM
Cern
a _ % e.
_
%
{.Edmundson
Crossroads u I -
n
,zn 153 .,
{ L _
4 235 551 236 237 ? INTER1011-GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. RESTON, VIRGINIA-19]8 2:•-
:38000-E
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
1 MILE
Primary highway, Light-duty road, hard or
5000 6000 70 00 FEET hard surface.-... . improved surface........
I KILOMETER Secondary highway,
........---_
hard surface ........... .... ___ Unimproved road
.T
OF 1929 Interstate Route J U. S. Route ?I State Rc
"'' FREMONT, N.
15' CIjAE)='