20040937 Ver 1_Complete File_20050217

R
.swco
e
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR
February 16, 2005
PG s ?.%
A-
LYN?PETT
SECRETARY
WBS Element: 33251.2.24M K p 4 0173,7
Contract No. C201123
F. A. Number: BRSTP-111 (9)
County: Wayne
Description: Bridge over Neuse River Overflow and Approaches on NC 111
MEMORANDUM TO: Ellis C. Powell, Jr., PE
State Construction Engineer
FROM: Wendi O. Johnson, PE
Division Construction Engineer
SUBJECT: Approved Preconstruction Conference & Permit Meeting Minutes
We are transmitting an approved copy of the minutes covering the Preconstruction Conference for
the above project, which was held on February 1, 2005. The minutes were approved by the
Contractor, Dellinger, Inc., as recorded.
Attachment
c: Ron Lucas (FHWA)
Dr. Garland Pardue (US Fish & Wildlife)
Nicole Thomson (NCDENR, Division of Water Quality)
John Holley (NCDENR, Land Quality Section)
David Cox (NCWRC)
Ron Sechler (National Marine Fisheries)
Kevin Pfautz (BellSouth)
Clay Rollins (Time Warner Cable)
Tony Grantham (Tri-County EMC)
Joey Threewitts (Wayne Water District)
Post Office Box 3165, Wilson, North Carolina 27895-3165
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Ellis C. Powell, Jr., PE
February 16, 2005
Page 2
ec: Scott L. VanHorn (NCWRC)
Michael F. Bell (US Army Corps of Engineers)
Cecil Jones, PE
Donald Pearson
Robert Simpson
Andy Brown, PE
Bryant Bunn, PE
Michael Robinson, PE
Andy Pridgen
Shannon Sweitzer, PE
Lloyd Johnston, Jr.
Kevin Bowen, PE
Kevin Lacy, PE
Victor Barbour, PE
Don G. Lee
Ashley Reid
K. J. Kim
Jimmy Marler
Jamie Shern
Warren Walker, PE
Haywood Daughtry, PE
John Williamson
David R. Henderson, PE
Jermery Armstrong
Tim Little, PE
Gerald McCauley
PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE AND PERMIT MEETING MMUS
WBS Element: 33251.2.2 (B-3711)
Federal Aid No.: BRSTP-111 (9)
Contract No.: C201123
County: Wayne
Description: Bridge over Neuse River Overflow and Approaches on NC 111
The Preconstruction Conference for the above project was held in the Wilson Division Offict Conference
Room on February 1, 2005 with the following persons in attendance:
NAME REPRESENTING
Heather Scott NCDOT - Right of Way
Andy Pridgen NCDOT - QA Lab
Mike Robinson NCDOT - Construction Unit
Bobby Francis Dellinger, Inc.
Spence Grantham NCDOT - Construction
Jerry Branch NCDOT - Construction
John Finnell NCDOT - Construction
Kevin Bowen NCDOT - Construction
Todd Lewis NCDOT - Construction
Katie Simmons NCDOT - Roadside
Frank Evans NCDOT -Roadside
Samuel Lane Best S#nd & Gravel
David Chandler Best Sand & Gravel
Kevin Bowen, Resident Engineer, presided over the conference. He asked everyone present t? introduce
themselves and their company affiliation.
Gene Johnson will act as Project Superintendent and Traffic Control Coordinator for the Contactor.
Spence Grantham will act as Project Inspector and Traffic Control Coordinator for the Division of Highways.
The Contractor advised they plan to begin work February 2, 2005.
The Contractor presented his progress schedule which will be checked, and he will be advisedif
satisfactory. By copy of these minutes, we are advising the Contractor that his progress schedule has been
checked and is approved as submitted.
RIGHT OF WAY
Heather Scott covered this portion of the contract.
All of the right of way necessary for this project has been acquired. Right of way agreements have been given
to the Resident Engineer that cover all right of way and easements necessary for this project acquired by
negotiation.
There are no 215 Series items on this project.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3711
Page 2
There is no known asbestos contamination, underground storage tanks, or any known soil contamination
within the right of way of the project.
The Contractor is advised not to exceed the right of way or easement areas shown on the project plans
unless written permission is obtained from the property owner.
On plan sheet 4, parcel 2, property owner (Leah Best) requests that berm along the river be reconstructed
exactly as it is now. Currently the berm is 3-4 feet in height. (There is a note on the plans tothis effect.)
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS
Andy Pridgen, Division QA Supervisor, asked the Contractor if he had any questions of the special
Provisions outlined on pages 28 thru 45.
Mr. Pridgen advised that the Special Provisions in this contract are dated 02/17/04.
The quantity of prime coat to be paid will be the number of gallons (liters) of prime coat material that has
been satisfactorily placed on the roadway. Each distributor load of prime coat material delivered and
utilized on the project will be measured.
S. T. Wooten will do the paving on this project.
UTIQ,TTY CONFLICTS
Tri-County EMC - The Contractor shall notify Tri-County EMC one week prior to completing the detour
and will then allow Tri-County EMC three weeks to relocate their existing power distrilbutio -v facilities to
the new, temporary location shown on the utilities by others plarss. Will relocate lin:es after t enporary
detour has been constructed. Tri-County EMC will relocate to a permanent location after th?eproject has
been completed.
Bell South - Bell South will abandon existing, buried telephone cables as shown on the utilities by others
plans. Buried Fiber optic telephone cables will remain in place to be adjusted as necessary asshown on the
utilities by others plans. The only possible conflict is at the toe of the Rip Rap slope protecti an.
Time Warner Cable - Time Warner Cable will relocate aerial CATV lines in joint use with proposed power.
The Contractor shall allow Time Warner Cable two weeks to relocate their aerial telephone lines after Tri-
County EMC has completed their relocated power facilities.
UTILITY CONSTRUCTION
There is a 16" water line and force main sewer line to be constructed. Existing water line belongs to
Wayne Water District. The contact person is Joey Threewitts. The Contractor shall provide access for the
owner's representatives to all phases of construction. The owner shall be notified two weeks prior to
commencement of any work and one week prior to service interruption. The Contractor shall submit his
proposed method of anchoring to the Engineer for review and approval before any applicable sewer force
main construction. Pressure testing will be required for sewer and water.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3711
Page 3
All fittings, valves and back flow prevention devices required for chlorination and testing shall be incidental
to the cost of the proposed pipe being tested. Copies of bacteriological testing reports shall be provided to
the utility owner prior to activating new water mains.
Water will be bored under the creek. Drilling fluid shall consist of a bentonite slurry. Admixtures may be
added which are suitable to the site conditions encountered. The Contractor is cautioned not to lose any
bentonite slurry in the creek.
Contractor was advised to submit his catalog cuts to the Resident Engineer for approval as soon as
possible. Contractor should follow Section 1500 of the 2002 Standard Specifications for submittal
instructions. Design Services and all of the utility owners will review these catalog cuts.
Utility owners must be notified of date and time of interruption of service.
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
Ronnie Moore covered this portion of the contract.
The Contractor's EEO Officer and Minority Liaison Officer is Lee Bradley
It is the policy of the N. C. Department of Transportation that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises shall
have the opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts financed in whole or in pail by federal
funds in order to create a level playing field.
The Contractor is also encouraged to give every opportunity to allow DBE participation in Supplemental
Agreements,
The Contractor shall exercise all necessary and reasonable steps to insure that Disadvantaged Business
Enterprises participate in at least 9% of the contract.
The Resident Engineer furnished the Contractor with required posters for his bulletin board. The Contractor's
EEO Policy Statement is to be posted on the project's bulletin board, which should be weatheproof, along
with the following posters:
1. Davis-Bacon Nfinimum Prevailing Wage Rate Schedule
2. Wage-Rate Information - F/A Project, Form PR-1495
3. Notice Relating to False Statements, Form PR-1022
4. EEO Poster - Discrimination is Prohibited
The Contractor is urged to document, in writing, all actions taken in complying with Equal Opportunity of
Employment Provisions, Training Provision, and Minority Business Enterprise Provision. This includes
applicant referrals, meetings with employees, on-site inspections, wage evaluations, etc.
All subcontractors and suppliers are responsible for meeting the same requirements as the prime contractor,
and it is the prime contractor's responsibility to oversee that both are in compliance.
All alleged discriminatory violations should be brought to the attention of the Resident Engineer.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3711
Page 4
The State and/or FHWA will conduct a Contract Compliance Review sometime during the life of this contract.
Therefore, fair employment practice should be maintained at all times. Women should not beIscriminated
against in any way.
Reporting Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Participation - When payments are made to Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise firms, including material suppliers, contractors at all levels shall provide the Engineer with
an accounting of said payments.
Retainage and Prompt Payment - The Department will not deduct and hold any retainage from the Prime
Contractor on this project. The Department will withhold an amount sufficient to cover anticipated liquidated
damages, as determined by the Engineer. Contractor at all levels, prime, subcontractor, or second tier
contractor, shall within seven calendar days of receipt of monies resulting from work performed on the project
or services rendered, pay subcontractors, second tier subcontractors, or material suppliers, asippropriate.
Recycled Steel - Recycled steel shall be incorporated into this project provided it meets the following
requirements:
1. Recycled steel shall meet the Department's specifications and standards.
2. Recycled steel shall be acquired competitively for a reasonable price and withn a reasonable
time period.
Domestic Steel and Iron Products - All steel and iron products which are permanently incorporated into this
project shall be produced in the United States except minimal amounts of foreign steel and iraa products may
be used, provided the combined project cost of the bid items involved does not exceed one-tenth of one
percent (0.1 percent) of the total amount bid for the entire project or $2,500.00, whichever is greater. This
minimal amount of foreign produced steel and iron products permitted for use by this Special Provision is not
applicable to fasteners. Domestically produced fasteners are required for this project.
Before each steel or iron product is incorporated into this project or included for partial payment on a monthly
estimate, the Contractor shall furnish the Resident Engineer a notarized certification stating that the product
conforms to the above requirements of this Special Provision. The Resident Engineer will forward a copy of
each certification to the Materials and Tests Unit.
Submission of Records - Federal Aid Projects - The Contractor's attention is directed to the Standard Special
Provision entitled "Required Contract Provisions - Federal Aid Construction Contracts" contined elsewhere
in this proposal form.
This project is NOT located on the National Highway System; therefore, federal form FHWA47 is not
required. However, payrolls are required.
Contractor Borrow Source - If the Contractor proposes a borrow source, the environmental assessment shall
include wetlands and stream delineation extending 400 feet beyond the proposed borrow source limits.
Contractor stated that he plans to use an existing commercial pit with an approved mining permit from Land
Quality. Resident and Contractor will meet to discuss reclamation issues.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3711
Page 5
Plant and Pest Quarantines -This project maybe within a county regulated for plants and/orpests. If the
project or any part of the Contractor's operation is located within a quarantined area, Contractor should
thoroughly clean all equipment prior to moving out of the quarantined area.
Safety Vests - All Contractor's personnel, all subcontractors and their personnel, and any maerial suppliers
and their personnel must wear an OSHA approved, reflective vest or outer garment at all tines while on the
project. Mr. Bowen advised that non-reflective orange shirts are acceptable for all project personnel except
flaggers.
Twelve Month Guarantee - The Contractor shall guarantee materials and workmanship against latent and
patent defects arising from faulty materials, faulty workmanship or negligence for a period of 12 months
following the date of final acceptance of the work for maintenance and shall replace such defetive
materials and workmanship without cost to the Department. The Contractor will not be responsible for
damage due to faulty design, normal wear and tear, for negligence on the part of the Departtnnt and/or for
use in excess of the design.
Where items of equipment or material carry a manufacturer's guarantee for any period in excess of 12
months, then the manufacturer's guarantee shall apply for that particular piece of equipment ct material.
The Department's first remedy shall be through the manufacturer, although the Contractor is responsible
for invoking the warranted repair work with the manufacturer. The Contractor's responsibility shall be
limited to the term of the manufacturer's guarantee. NCDOT would be afforded the same waranty as
provided by the manufacturer.
Outsourcing Outside the USA - All work on consultant contracts, service contracts and constuction
contracts shall be performed in the United States of America. No work shall be outsourced outside the
United States of America. The Secretary of Transportation shall approve exceptions to this provision in
writing.
Disqualification of Bidders - The Contractor's attention was called to page 22 of the contract regarding
Disqualification of Bidders. Conviction of any employee of company of any applicable state ar federal law
may be fully imputed to the business firm with which he is or was associated or by whom he -vas employed
or with the knowledge or approval of the business firm or thereafter ratified by it.
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS
GENERAL
Any of the special provisions not covered will be as stipulated.
Contract Time and Liquidated Damages - The date of availability for this contract is January 11, 2005, except
that work in jurisdictional waters and wetlands shall not begin until a meeting between the DoT, Regulatory
Agencies, and the Contractor is held as stipulated in the permits.
The completion date for this contract is December 31, 2006.
The liquidated damages for this contract are $200.00 per calendar day. These liquidated darncges will not be
cumulative with any liquidated damages which may become chargeable under Intermediate C catract Time
Number 1.
Preconstruction Conference Mmutes
B-3711
Page 6
Intermediate Contract Time Number ! and Liquidated Damages - Except for work required under Project
Special Provisions entitled "Planting" and/or "Reforestation", the Contractor will be requiredto complete all
work included in this contract and shall place and maintain traffic on same by August 15, 2006.
The date of availability for this intermediate contract time is January 31, 2005.
The liquidated damages for this intermediate contract time are $500.00 per calendar day.
Upon apparent completion of all work required to be completed by this intermediate date, a foal inspection
will be held in accordance with Article 105-17 and, upon acceptance, the Department will assume responsibility
for the maintenance of all work except "Planting" and/or "Reforestation". The Contractor wail be responsible
for and shall make corrections of all damages to the completed roadway caused by his planting operations,
whether occurring prior to or after placing traffic through the project.
Construction Moratorium - To avoid adverse impacts to protected aquatic species, an in-stream construction
moratorium will be observed between February 15 and June 15. This moratorium will includdridge
demolition activities and the construction and demolition of the detour bridge.
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS
ROADWAY
Clearing mid Grubbing- Perform clearing on this project to the limits. established by Methodlll shown on
Standard No. 200.03 of the Roadway Standards.
The property owner will have no right to use or resenye for his use any timber on the project _ All timber
cut during the clearing operation is to become the property of the Contractor and shall either !e removed
from the project by him or else shall be satisfactorily disposed of.
Temporary Detours - Construct the temporary detours required on this project in accordancewith the
typical sections in the plans or as directed by the Engineer. After the detours have served their purpose,
remove the portions deemed unsuitable for use as a permanent part of the project as directed l the
Engineer. Will salvage and stockpile ABC for detour (DOT forces will pick up).
Shoulder and Fill Slope Material - Required shoulder and slope construction for this project shall be
performed in accordance with requirements of Section 226 of the Specifications except as follows:
Construct the top 6" (150mm) of shoulder and fill slopes with soils capable of supporting vegetation.
Provide soil with P.I. greater than 6 and less than 25 and with a pH ranging from 5.5 to 6.8. Remove stones
and other foreign material 2" (50mm) or larger in diameter. All soil is subject to testing and acceptance or
rejection by the Engineer.
Material shall be obtained from within the project limits or an approved borrow source.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3711
Page 7
Reinforced Bridge Approach Fills - Must be constructed in accordance with the plans and as directed by
the Engineer. Contractor must compact the top eight inches (200mm) of select material to a density of at
least 100•/0 of that obtained by compacting a sample of the material in accordance with AASNPO T99 as
modified by the Department. No density testing is required to be performed if Class V material is utilized
to construct the approach fills. The Contractor must perform four passes with low ground possure
equipment if using Class V material.
Construction Surveying - Provide a stakeout of areas where an environmental permit is required prior to
performing any construction in or adjacent to these areas. Stake out limits of the permitted v ork areas
according to the approved permit drawings. Provide clear delineation by use of pink or otherhighly visible
flagging. Insure construction limits do not exceed approved permitted work areas. Immediately notify the
Resident Engineer of any variations of the stakeout limits when compared to the approved pen it drawings.
Street Signs and Markers and Route Markers - Near the completion of the project and when so directed by
the Engineer, move the signs and markers and install them in their proper location in regard to the finished
pavement of the project.
Drums - Provide a minimum of three orange and two white alternating, horizontal stripes cavering the
entire outside of each drum.
Pavement Marking General Requirements - Have at least one member of every Pavement Making Crew
working on a project certified through the NCDOT Pavement Marking Technician Certification Process.
Work Zone Signs - Furnish, install, maintain and relocate portable work zone signs and portable work zone
sign stands in accordance with the plans and specifications. When portable work zone signs and portable
work zone sign stands are not in use for periods longer than 30 minutes, collapse sign stand and reinstall
once work begins. Mount approved composite or roll-up signs to barricade rails so that the signs do not
cover more than 50 percent of the top two rails or 33 percent of the total area of the three rails. Signs are
to be mounted a minimum of one foot from the ground to the bottom of the sign.
Traffic Control - Rigid sign retroreflective sheeting requirements for Types VII, VIII and IX luorescent
are described in Tables 1089-A, 1089-B and 1089-C. Cover the entire sign face of the sign substrate with
NCDOT approved Type VII, VIII or IX fluorescent orange reflective sheeting. Apply the reflective
sheeting in a workmanlike manner so that there are no bubbles or wrinkles in the material.
EROSION CONTROL
The Department desires that permanent seeding and mulching be established on this project assoon as
practical after slopes or portions of slopes have been graded. As an incentive to obtain an early stand of
vegetation on this project, an additional payment will be made to the Contractor for all permanent seeding
and mulching that is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the requirements of Section 1660,
"Seeding and Mulching".
Contractor shall establish an early stage of vegetation sufficient to restrain erosion immediately following
grade establishment.
Preconstruction Conference Nlmutes
B-3711
Page 8
Katie Simmons stressed the importance of stage seeding. She stated that check dams should have V-
shaped weirs and ditch slopes should not be vertical. Contractor was given a set of flip guides for erosion
control.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas - This project is located in an "Environmentally Sensitive Area". This
designation requires special procedures to be used for clearing and grubbing, temporary stream crossings
and grading operations within the area identified on the plans. This also requires special procedures to be
used for seeding and mulching and stage seeding within the project.
Clearing and Grubbing - In areas identified on the erosion control plans as "Environmentally Sensitive
Areas", the Contractor may perform clearing operations, but not grubbing operations until immediately
prior to beginning grading operations as described in Section 200, Article 200-1, in the Standard
Specifications. The "Environmentally Sensitive Area" shall be defined as a 50-foot (16 meter) buffer zone
on both sides of the stream (or depression), measured from top of stream bank (or center of depression).
Only clearing operations (not grubbing) shall be allowed in this buffer zone until immediately prior to
beginning grading operations. Erosion control devices shall be installed immediately following the clearing
operation.
Grading - Once grading operations begin in identified `Environmentally Sensitive Areas', work will
progress in a continuous manner until complete. All construction within these areas must progress in a
continuous manner such that each phase is complete and areas permanently stabilized prior tobeginning of
next phase. Failure on the part of the Contractor to complete any phase of construction in a continuous
manner in "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" as specified will be just cause for the Engineer to direct the
suspension of work in accordance with Section 108-7 of the Standard Specifications.
Crimping Straw Mulch - Crimping shall be required on this project adjacent to any section ofroadway
where traffic is to be maintained or allowed during construction. In areas within six feet (2 rneters) of the
edge of pavement, straw is to be applied and then crimped. After the crimping operation is complete, an
additional application of straw shall be applied and immediately tacked with a sufficient amount of
undiluted emulsified asphalt.
Specialized Seeding Under Guiderail and Guardrail (Centipede) - Areas under guiderail and guardrail
sections shall be seeded in accordance with these provisions and as directed by the Engineer. Ns item will
be discussed with Donald Pearson and Wendi Johnson.
Minimize Removal of Vegetation - The Contractor shall minimize removal of vegetation at stream banks
and disturbed areas within the project limits as directed by the Engineer.
Safety Fence - The fence shall be installed (along easement) prior to any land disturbing activiies.
Gravel Construction Entrance - Contractor shall install a Gravel Construction Entrance in accordance with the
details in the plans and at locations directed by the Engineer. Stone shall be Class A Stone aril shall meet the
requirements of Section 1042 for Stone for Erosion Control, Class A.
The Project Inspector will furnish the Contractor with a weekly erosion control checklist.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3711
Page 9
STRUCTURE
Mike Robinson covered this portion of the contract.
Contractor should submit temporary bridge plans as soon as possible for approval.
Curbing will be installed at all four corners of the bridge.
Resident Engineer should receive a copy of all submittals that the Contractor sends to Raleigh
PERMITS
Mr. Bowen advised that the US Army Corps of Engineers has issued a permit for this project, and the
Contractor shall comply with all applicable permit conditions during construction of this proj e-~t.
Agents of the permitting authority will periodically inspect the project for adherence to the pemits.
Should the Contractor propose to utilize construction methods (such as temporary structures x fill in waters
and/or wetlands for haul roads, work platforms, cofferdams, etc.) not specifically identified intfhe permit
(individual, general or nationwide) authorizing the project, it shall be the Contractor's responsibility to
coordinate with the Engineer to determine what, if any, additional permit action is required. The Contractor
shall also be responsible for initiating the request for the authorization of such construction method by the
permitting agency. The request shall be submitted through the Engineer. The Contractor shal not utilize the
construction method until it is approved by the permitting agency. The request normally takes approximately
60 days to process; however, no extensions of time or additional compensation will be granted for delays
res?ulltina from the Contractor's request for approval of construction methods not specifically dentified in the
? el f lit.
Where construction moratoriums are contained in a permit condition which restricts the Contractor's activities
to certain times of the year, those moratoriums will apply only to the portions of the work taking place in the
waters or wetlands, provided that activities outside those areas are done in such a manner as to not affect the
waters or wetlands.
Bridge deck drains will not discharge directly into the Neuse River and will not be located waterward of the
Rip Rap alignment under the bridge
No bridge demolition debris or excavated or fill material will be placed at any time in any wetlands or
surrounding waters, outside of the alignment of the fill area indicated on the work plans.
The temporary placement or double handling of excavated or fill materials within waters or vegetated wetlands
is not authorized.
The fill material will be clean and free of any pollutants except in trace quantities.
All measures will be taken to avoid any temporary fill from entering into the Neuse River fronthe bridge
demolition. Bridge demolition shall follow NCDOT Best Management Practices for Construction and
Maintenance Activities dated August 2003 and incorporate NCDOT policy entitled `Bridge Demolition and
Removal in Waters of the United States" dated September 20, 1999.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3711
Page 10
Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed on mats or other measures must be taken to minimize
soil disturbance.
The Contractor should contain his work within the footprint shown on the plans. Any deviation would be in
violation of the permit. The Resident Engineer will delineate wetlands for Contractor in the field.
Clearing is shown on the permit for everything but where temporary bridge will be (detour bridge will be on
dry land). This should be mechanized clearing. Where mechanized clearing is done, silt fence should be used.
We are pursuing a permit modification to include the necessary mechanized clearing for the detour bridge, but
this should not delay the construction of the detour initially. The Contractor may pursue all work within the
parameters of the existing permit until the modification is approved.
Resident and Contractor's surveyors will meet on site to discuss safety fence, etc.
There should be no problems with rock check dams since there is no water to contend with.
.A01 standard procedures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Kevin Bowen stressed safety to the Contractor. The Contractor was asked to closely follow OSHA Guidelines
in the construction safety emphasis areas, trenching and shoring, crane safety, fall protection and back-up alarms.
The Contractor's requested estimate period for this project will be the last day of the month.
The Contractor presented a letter advising names of persons authorized to sign Supplemental Agreements in
conjunction with this project.
There were no further questions and/or continents and the meeting was adjourned.
DELLINGER, INC.
DATE APPROVED NAME AND TITLE
. - . cD ?4, c) ?-?)7
?v]
Sic
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVExxox SECRETARY
t
January 6, 2005 UL2@R8
JAN 1 0 ?005
WBS Element: 33251.2.2 (B-3711)
Contract No.: C201123 wEr?rans??? k!a
F. A_ No.: BRSTP-111 (9)
County: Wayne
Description: Bridge over Neuse River Overflow and Approaches on NC 111
SUBJECT: PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE AND PERMIT MEETING
Mr. Lee Bradley
Dellinger, Inc.
P. O. Box 929
Monroe, North Carolina 28111-0929
Dear Mr. Bradley:
Per our conversation, the Preconstruction Conference and Permit Meeting for this project is being
scheduled for Tuesday, February 1, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. The Preconstruction Conference is contingent
upon the award of the project by the Board of Transportation. The conference will be held in the
Conference Room at the Wilson Division Office. Our office is located at 509 Ward Boulevard in
Wilson, North Carolina.
Please be prepared to present the following documents at this conference: progress schedule, letter
naming persons authorized to sign Supplemental Agreements, and letter naming your Company EEO
Officer and Minority Liaison Officer.
We look forward to meeting with you at the above time.
Cordially yours,
W
Wendi . Johnson, PE
Division Construction Engineer
WOJ/CBL
Post Office Box 3165, Wilson, North Carolina 27895-3165
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Mr. Lee Bradley
j January 6, 2005
Page 2
c: Ron Lucas (FHWA)
Dr. Garland Pardue (US Fish & Wildlife)
Nicole Thomson (NCDENR, Division of Water Quality)
John Holley (NCDENR, Land Quality Section)
David Cox (NCWRC)
Ron Sechler (National Marine Fisheries)
Kevin Pfautz (Bell South)
Clay Rollins (Time Warner Cable)
Tony Grantham (Tri-County EMC)
Joey Threewitts (Wayne Water District)
ec: Scott L. VanHorn (NCWRC)
Michael F. Bell (US Army Corps of Engineers)
Cecil L. Jones, PE
Donald Pearson
Robert Simpson
Andy Brown, PE
Bryant Bunn, PE
Mike Robinson, PE
Andy Pridgen
Shannon Sweitzer, PE
Lloyd Johnston, Jr.
Kevin Bowen, PE
J. Kevin Lacy, PE
Victor Barbour, PE
Ellis Powell, PE
Don G. Lee
Ashley Reid
K. J. Kim
Jimmy Marler
Jamie Shern
Warren Walker, PE
Haywood Daughtry, PE
John Williamson
David R. Henderson, PE
Jermery Armstrong
Tim Little, PE
Gerald McCauley
p..

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 21, 2004
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
ATTENTION: Mr. Mike Bell
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
JUL 2 0 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
Subject: Revised Permit Drawings for the Replacement of Bridge No. 42 over Neuse River Overflow on NC 111,
Wayne County, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-111(5), State Project No. 8.1331701, TIP B-3711,
Division 4.
Please reference the June 3, 2004 permit application for B-3711. The permit drawings submitted with the
aforementioned application had the wrong scale. Please use these updated drawings with the correct scale to make
your determination.
The NCDOT appreciates your continued assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Mr. Chris Underwood at [phone].
Sincerely,
1 Grego J. Thorpe, PhD, Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Jim Trogdon, PE, Division Engineer
Mr. Jamie Shern, DEO
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)

W/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. John Wadsworth, P.E., Planning Engineer
2
Fnsaas
4 10:40
-cs\Codd\B3711_hyd. drn.dgn
? it
0
m 0 z m O z
O
? ??
c? m m m
Ir (n
D 3 r
m D
D
z -+
z
N
m
0
le'm
D
m
n
°o

w?
I' II VIII.
2 ? ;c
/II
I a
/ ¢ II
II
i-
I
I
I II I I I ??
I
:a ?I ?, I` I I I I I I
?, 1 g , I I
? '° I I. I 1 I
II
I ? II ? I I
i
? ml hill III`
? III ?
I II
17+00 D.€ ?? I I I I' rn O-L-
i?? = '` I I I I I i
m
I? I ? -
C>z
m N ? I m a>
PA
m I I nr"
\ .. (n
IL4
m
\ IS I l0 02 I I'
I
20+00-DET- I i? I I m 20+00-L-
? I I ? I
ICHLI 11 I IS 2 + 10 SEE 5
I I I I ??
ao
w
-f 24' r
P
BS
E
45' 29' 45'
33' 9
32'
N
m
m
N
m
m
--I
"n
O
M
1
r
-o
X
O
m
m
8
r?
8/17/99
o
A
r1 ! -?-
® stem
.1, ffnt*111-
PROGRAM
October 19, 2004
Mr. Michael Bell
US Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Bell:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
D ?@L9 V
?r? ? D
Cr 2 6 2004
'* ?a Q TTER QUALITY
Q4QTE1? K40
B-3711, Bridge 42 over the Neuse River Overflow on NC 111,
Wayne County; Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03200202);
Northern Inner Coastal Plain Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide mitigation for the 0.12 acres of unavoidable riverine
wetlands impacts associated with the above referenced project.
The subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement
among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003; however, EEP intends to provide riverine
wetland compensatory mitigation at a ratio up to 2:1 in Cataloging Unit 03020202 of the
Neuse River Basin
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
_?_ fssy Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
bFile: B-3711
.a v;,.f Y ?' .. ,/,??a+;v r A??v?.. .?.'f , . '..o 't? S- .3` J ililt'4- .^/ ?i?
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
n R
_Np-
o stems
PROGRAM
October 19, 2004
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-3711, Bridge 42 over the Neuse River Overflow, Wayne County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide wetland mitigation for the subject project. Based on the
information supplied by you in a letter dated September 27, 2004, the impacts are located
in CU 03020202 of the Neuse River Basin in the Northern Inner Coastal Plain Eco-
Region, and are as follows:
Riverine Wetland: 0.12 acre
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the
Memorandum of Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The wetland mitigation for
the subject project will be provided in accordance with this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
?/-Z6, ?' c 7t
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Michael Bell, USACE-Washington
r a
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
,I UIRM File: B-3711
t . ? AG'
. f' NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
r

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovERNoR
June 3, 2004
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
ATTENTION: Mr. Mike Bell 4 - -
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
` WETLANDS / 401 GROUP
JUN 0 9 2004
WATER QUAUfr SECTION
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge No. 42 over Neuse River Overflow on
NC 111, Wayne County, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-111(5), State Project No. 8.13 TIP B-
3711, Division 4.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced project, Bridge No. 42 will be
replaced in the existing location with a cored slab bridge, 110 feet in length with a 32-foot, 10-inch clear roadway
width. The bridge will have two 12.0-foot travel lanes and 4-foot, 5-inch lateral offsets on each side. The new
approach roadway will include two '12-foot travel lanes, and 8-foot shoulders on each side, four feet of which will be
paved. A design speed of 60 mph will be provided.
There will be 0.12 acres of permanent jurisdictional wetland impacts associated with this project. There will be
temporary impacts due to construction of an on-site detour consisting of fill in wetlands. There will be no permanent
surface water impacts.
The Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be implemented, as applicable.
The bridge will be built using top-down construction. No causeway or work pad will be needed, and thus, there will be
no temporary impacts from construction access.
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 42 is a six span bridge composed of a reinforced concrete deck with an asphalt wearing surface on steel I-
beams. The existing structure is 104 feet long with a 28-foot clear roadway width. Due to the structural components
of the bridge, the maximum amount of temporary fill that could be dropped into the "Waters of the United States" is
eight cubic yards. All measures will be taken to avoid any temporary fill from entering Waters of the U.S. Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented.
As noted in the project's CE document, NCDOT will observe an in-stream construction moratorium from February 15
to June 15. 'This moratorium will include bridge demolition activities that could result in minor amounts of bridge
material entering the surface waters.
AN
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts to waters that are jurisdictional under the federal Clean Water
Act will be provided by the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). The offsetting mitigation will derive from an
inventory of assets already in existence within the same 8-digit cataloging unit. The NCDOT has avoided and
minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent possible. The remaining, unavoidable impacts to
0.12 acre of jurisdictional wetlands will be offset by compensatory mitigation provided by the EEP. The letter
requesting mitigation from EEP was sent on April 16, 2004.
Federally Protected Species
As of January 29, 2003, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists one federally protected species for
Wayne County. The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) is listed as endangered. This project CE's
Biological Conclusion for the red-cockaded woodpecker remains: No Effect.
Regulatory Approvals _
Section 404 Permit: This 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 23 as authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (67 FR 2020; January 15,
20Q2). The NCDOT requests that replacement of Bridge No. 42 be authorized by Nationwide Permit 23.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3403 will apply to this project. In accordance
with 15A NCAC 211, Section .0500(a) we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
Neuse Buffer Rules: Bridge No. 42 lies within the Neuse River Basin. However, the Neuse River Overflow does not
appear on either a soil survey map or USGS quad map. Therefore, this project is not subject to the Neuse Buffer Rules.
The project is currently. scheduled to be let in December 2004. You may view a copy of this permit application on the
NCDOT website at: http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/PerTnit.html. The NCDOT appreciates your
continued assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr.
Chris Underwood at [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory Thorpe, PhD, Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environment
Mr. J.H. Trogdon, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Jamie Shern, DEO
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only),
Mr. John Wadsworth, P.E.

NORTH CAROLINA
VICINITY
MAPS
NCDO A
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAYNE COUNTY
PROJECT. 3326LL1 8-3711)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 42 ON NC111
OVER THE NEUSE RIVER OVERFLOW
WAYNE COUNTY

i
--j$
?-- ...
- ------------
:.:
?:3:%;`i ii?isa
.
"giM
:':
_. "
.....:... .
flask
...........
..r -
?1'111-?
».» >
:_.>__:-. _• ::::::>:_»::}.::::::.: i:...., iii.. -
__. ^`
_ _ _
__
44 ;s is
4. 444n

1 4 j £
f
ALE:1' = 1000
'
S
C
g
?,
1V
CD®RT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
S I T I E WAYNE COUNTY
PROJECT. 53251.1.1 (B-371D
MAP
REPLACE BRIDGE NO.42 ON NClll
VER THE NEUSE RIVER OVERFLOW
SHEET OF 7 12/19/
.
Ad*
WETLAND LEGEND I
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
= DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING
-?o -? FLOW DIRECTION
TS? TOP OF BANK
- WE EDGE OF WATER
- - C - - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
A- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
--EL-- PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
0 SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
Rm, PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
i
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT DITCH
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE GRASS SWALE
EASEMENT
- EAB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- -V - - - WATER SURFACE
xx xxx x x LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
--- COIR FIBER ROLLS
IoTCY®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAYNE COUNTY
PROJECT- 3325LL1 (B-371D
REPLACE BRIDGE NO.42 ON NCIII
OVER THE NEUSE RIVER OVERFLOW
SHEET _3 OF t-7 12/19/
1
/99
N
r
m
3
0

m 0
m
z m 0 z
0
? ??
()m m m
r- U) --I (.r)
m
D3
x m D
z?
zm or
c
D
z
-+ z
N
m
0
IIII II ----__- --
?III II ------
II II
j j II II
1111 II _- _--:-_
? II II I?1
II ? ICI
III IIII
--------
?mlil
I
rv / II I II
IIII I?,
m
/ IIII II
?? 1 ?1 11 II?
it II II
Q i I I I ? i- _
1 I I i II ?$ 0
?I °I i I I I
'° I I 1
III II
I I II
,?'1 1 ?, I I I I I
1 ? I I i `1
I I I I
Rio A
F I m ?2v
?zn m
m '1 \ I? III
I y\ I5 ,r
I II II002 I I I _?
I r?lllll?fl'rm -
m 1 ?I 11 I
+ I?IIISII ?I 8?
CHLI 1L IS 2p+ SE 5
-, 1 111111 I I I ??
10
/5
D
v
Go
w
20
N
m
m
LA
m
m
m
M
?o
m
? r
r r
r r
t t
8 g
zz
vom
2v
? o
? o
w
r/ pr
r
s
z
co

AAP.
m E
m
z Q
c c
m
CL O
w U E
LL
Q (D co
O
m -
F-
3:.
8
c p
O
_ a w
?
LL
"
N
?
...
Z
LL
} 'D
_-
N
Q c O U p O

m Co
U
U O O
N )

H
V c y
k
a o
>
9 o
H X i v
W c

a v
G

Z LL
t1
a=
O
O
g E 0 0
W ?- c

N
C

m W CIJ
O
O
_
LL j 0 O
>
W

Q

a W
p
m
d Ix D

L o co

N_
CO W
(A O Q
r 1-
1
O
r
r

1.?
o J Q

co M
{c O

U- +
co tf
+
r CD
r

C J

to z N
0
H
qkk-
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO.
NAMES
ADDRESSES
LEONARD KEITH SASSER 2346 NC111 SOUTH
1 GOLDSBORO, NC 27534
3 LEAH H. BEST G483 ST. JOHN OLDSBORO, NC 27534
BRYANT PRICE 2393 HWY 111 SOUTH
4 GOLDSBORO, NC 27534
16
C PN
ONTCT: C201123 TIP PROJECT:B-3711
0 0 0
o?
c m o o
m =
A
X 0 0 o y o y
y
0 c g
C g v
T 0
n* '? C w W
;o • II II II II II II ?.
nn
ANY L°h o• ?a
C4 "U
0
Z Z
? i
a
o ? y
o
m o ?
II II II
0
C ? N
pN. r A
0 m
n
T ?O
w? M?
N y o
b N
m r
? o A
y
?a
? h
?o
O1
i
0

H

0
S

? o

L. Y
C
?
g c '•
g?
'

i

'
1

y o

H

O
p
O

o

ti
l

C
y
tz
o
9
1P
w o ? ?A o
N
b o
Ci
rA
o
o
A ?
a
C)
0
z
n
0
4
k
H
a

M
5/28/99
8 "a a-
N
N
7 to f V V? m 3
mC oa. O
O p O N?
°° n n CL 3 3 O
ti4
N
06
I I I
I ?
-o -o -o g ? ? A -'o ;o gt o0
a s '°O v 0v°
0 o s? o o??? m n 1D °
=7 ON
> > 3
o :251
rn O o o W
3 °
3 o °° : o m O
r ~' 30 ?- a O
78 '0
3 a 0 ?.
0
I I
1
? ? m m IDC?I p
O D} a o
3 N o o 3' o o o S'
?I IIa. t? :
3 O a 1 n ,- N N °
o o? ?y
q
3 0 3 0" A
O '
3
v
I I y
I I
0 (1
I I
I I
0 [1
R !C -4 31 -1 -.4 N N 'O -1 Q0 A- -0 ?gI1 CS m
40 = 3 ° i a
O 3° 3? O ?+ O ?? 4 2 4' Q O x O
o c v o o a m p 'P 'a
n, ° o v o a
O v? -1 f C, Q -4 a° 3 0 3° o n o o m o o` o 0 0
r o ao?-' °
° g° 0 0
In o CA °? S 3 W m o -1 W 3? 0 3 i
3 3 : ° 3
n° ° C b o' o 0 0 c 0 o ? T! a 'u o W C C S V $ o "a 0
a C :« W 3 1 O W o p W O 0 C' ° o ° W °°
CL ga 7" u
0, 02- 57- a
a 0.:
o2 0 x?w o0 CL X
s 1C?
o.
30
Waes' _'
n
¢ o-..
®o2):(0 8 ®m0®O0 ®I tO ©00+®csa210B 212
r
° 3 n '°p '°O 'a0 a gC °?
13p $° o 0 0? o? ? ,- 3 3 0
m m a p c 21
o.? 3 Q ?z407411a ,
a a? ID tr c 0 0 -V 3 o
3 7 rt ? ° 0 3 0 3 W O?? O W
a 40 O o 3 Z O CL 0 3 7
an.a :k ° rt o-'
g° 02.1 o
°-
Q 3 3 O>f ° d l
3 3 c cc o-c
O ma 0 Q
3 C a 3. c
p ? ? G G
3.
?3 a
a
?? IIII?I p„illli
m m i O o o 4. I 6i N 9? I ( I I 1
m° w >F A ma m HX ?''? I I 1
I I mml?l 111 ,
?I?IIII? !Ijll
N N N C A
3 Cl
03 ?-
3 3
O
1 J
trs
f ,o
A N
3 S
3 O
° x to to C -1
a rn n rn
W m y Cl Z° A
C A

Z' x

a
g n n m S • O < CL S

3
o
a
a
s
o
c
o
0.
o
c
0

0
S. on
o
C
?.
O'
O m S N O
O o C ? O-
tr N

o? a

1 I
I I I
11 ' I

'?

o

I? cc!!++??
c<y
I
I
I
I I
1 1 I

I

0 I
'
I
? a I I I I I
I ? I ? l I I
C) ;p 43 m 0
IL 40 40 -L 1 0
tz AL 'IDL -n 491L -u icrL CA
D° o- C -i ° ° 0 N 0 O
0 -O ° O M ° °
5 m C o s 3 s o o 3 m
A env O ° A o o
° c o Q' o s Acr y °
A O• S 0 3 ° N C o N
p o n 0 o W in ..in O-n
S o e? in
0 CL CA
Mo.
$ C in c " C Z c
Rf a- n s y
R! en c
eC:)?IIIIi I? I 11??
I ? 1
'y n ? '? H ? ? uK N T
l i l l i i( i l l l I I I

' °
a 5 tr - O
m N. c

? R+
s m
° °
S g 7

s

' II
n
i ? II g

I ^ IL
X' s
a
o c
? S C
W
73C•
V
o c
° 3 a
O 3
o
A a
C)
0
z
m
z
O
Z
D
r
t/1
W
0
r
N
?1 J
?r.

k =o No (? I I x?-%
LI 11

N
C
I
N
c
N
C
A
rn
rn
z
cl
m
rn
w

w
w
R Pro?I 26t ,;dY tyPdan
kasmitF r y 6/2/99
C- m m v v n n
0
m

1 v
Zw
1 m v
IN 1 AM

' m
v O
M 1
() m
r
o
Q V
_. 3N
w <
Vf Z? a
m
r-
wrl
-M, M r,
>z
M
S a '0 r4.

`
C
•
?

m
1
N
?
F
S rfl
x
m >
f-
L
I -'
7 N
Q ?
J / C M
Q m 0

Q '
N
OF
m
=?
m
o

Z
o1
co

w
'
Z
? N

I

k
k <
y
C

A
N

2
-i
M
00

n ?, I
M
v ?¦?¦ N [7 I N
O p s
I
rn
N m
rn i
O ca
?
-F
Z 1
M a€ m 4
m
?m N Z I Io N
Q O 1
s
6
' I
Z

w

rrI
O
g
-?
N

I I
r? r
rI

N
I I
?
V) M
?
N
?
? rn
t
W
M

? w
o?o?o ? v A 'v
IA

o CID

n oo

? A O
m A
Z
rn
n O
$?
Z I

^?.
C
?
? te
.a
..?
(V
r
N
i
N
r
< m m ? 'o y ?
i m >i ?a °a°m?a' 30
4 m>
s i>
'

D
X
?
Z
N
>
O
O
It1?70 0
•OO 1 a
i
< O
o ? o z p =mv my p
?v
at
v
- i ? i
m
> m o as 6
Mu ° ° maD
m o my ?
o ..
v mv
o
v m

-1
p>p
?N ?•
?
a
yx o•
mm
oa

?
vma

?•
?ao
?
m > ?ai o m Z00
?+ OX Zt
il-O X •"?
z mx F"?
m >
r ? i a z mm
? ? m• m
=?a?
> mm ?^• Z
x s n ? v
? _ ;om ia ? ? ?w D
r
-? a ? m z
Tz ?a ? °?
?
9 m i0 ? mv
? >
? 'O
=
> m o m m
o? o
m v >
mx >
<> CO m
ov o>
m
a > ?
pz ? y m ?

c m m
f
' b ? mm ?a m oN ?

? c° r
a
m r i
r? r m
m ? m ao mo m?o so m
° ?? Z
a• a a ?a ?o x?
oo z -?

-?
. m
?v-? m
v1 zmm
0 -•i mz
n o• a
m m o
voo
o
m mm mm mom o
oa
- m?-i mm ?
a a a a m .m v
mm
IS M-1
m ?m> m> m?i Nm m mm 2
m
n gym ? m roa9 621 0
cc, M
f = a Z 9
i D
m o8
' o? rm rm - o o > C
°o c m
v >
?e t
vm
z
M ; z m M
o imm m o z
avi v 0100 o
° 9_ a
m a ?aa
m a
? a??
pp
i
??
pp ?a
•>a 9 ? 'O? 0
0
s
Sm
?vm m Z-4 ?? 2:1 m

m
ia
m
°?
•O9 ?

7°? v•
v m
=°
xm v
?m
o o v
o

a a a
m
a
a

typ.dgn
H
?4 m n?
?rn
o rrn
z ?
my

CA
m
z
0
CA)
y y ? y
I I I I
:ID
m
C-) (A(A(A V1
y ? ? ? O y
2AAAyA
O?tpc,,lOGN??
W
O?V?C(?j1DV1?
rri
?olioyo m
c?AWAC?,A 0
- Z
rr,
z
y O . y 0
co :70 w
?I I'h
N2 to
Zo+o? 2
rn o
v
q -4
wAz v m
0
r ?
A
I
J
N co
W
N N k
------- r
? o
r
oro
CS
D
I 1
co
3
AA
w c+n
00
AA
fb In
cn o
00
aPD
00
r r?
I, IL
'O m
D?
r
yD
rn ?
Q
Zz
Zn
00
?Z
Z
Q
0
Z

r
N
m
O
z
z
0
MI
7
c
n
n
a
n
Z
e
c
n
a
c
a
t
n
c
Z
r
a
m
c
z
s
a
m
m
-1 i i m
N rill N Or N n
m [> 'v 9 m 7 N '9 N
:; > v 9 v a a 71
a I O s ~
> -i x M m
m o m
m a < m < < D
o m m r
m i m i 1 a
9 > ° c
e
-
1 m > c i mm o
S r r- ? m m C
mm 9 -
1
N -4 a >j u x m
v m I
m
m m m m z
m ?+ °
a c a a o arr
m
° fn 0
e 9 m : m S
m m r m
?+ D
V C
A

0 m

0

r L r!
Ap
io {
co ul
2c
z
C° A
z
47
rrl p
O? N
rri
A
N
r-O
$2
m
r
6/2/99

psh_sCdgn
r ?r
$ lit
SXFF
lea
?O
N
3
US od

3 O A1N3d0U 'W 31A?
??
C

r Sr /

all
A
G 4 /

a

4 O
F
a?
9
s:
m
i
i
I
10
pp?
A
N
?a $
?^ g 8
N
N C
to r -?
NR
0

•
Z
v
00
CA)
8 Fij
?r
1 8/17/99

MATCHLINE -L- STA. 20+50 SEE SHEET 5 1
8/17/99
0 4
? QQ? g
N Zj
t?`s r
N gj
N
m
c7s v
C'
O o
g L-4?-
I
4
3
q 8?
QQp N
i O
N
S9
•
A
a.z04658+ as
3 0G bd " 90 .El'6EE
uroasvs.a?
!xll3ri3
1310 • W14 101
3.L0.EL68
L68N d13
e 3
N
3.bL,OZ.BLN? ? a? 'I
-- .b9966 (n !i ??
Is
F
g?
g»
9
a
I j
I
O
fl ? Iy
1I I ?I
I
MATCH LIE SEE SHEET SA -DET- STA.0+53.23
/5
/5
Syr

V
I

Syr
M M ?

W

r
8
tip
9
1..1
z
ti
Q
0
1..
F+
1
20 20

psh_s5.dgn
25
Z
6
Go
w
N
PH
m
x
m
m
-a
m
m
O
m
r
.D
O
m
8/17/99
$ ?j W
MATCHLINE -L- STA. 20+50 SEE SHEET 4
8/17/99
Z
OD
W
25
25
u u r 11
NNNO
???oD v
r r r r r se
d
N
m
m
N
m
m
-I
m
0
v
m
0
m
r,
m

MATCH UIiE SEE SHEET 4A -DET- STA. 0+53.23
02-APR-2004 13:345 L
R -iithB 3A?? RD?I230?Sl.dgn 8/23/99

02-APR-2004 13:347 L
R smsthB-3All 1230?1.dgn 8/23/99

ft
NC 111
Wayne County
Replace Bridge No., 42 over Neuse River Overflow
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-111(5)
State Project No. 8.1331701
T.I.P. No. B-3711
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DATE William D. Gilm re, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch, NCDOT
_ 1Z-f-41 / A a
"" ?
DATE iP.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

NC 111
Wayne County
Replace Bridge No. 42 over Neuse River Overflow
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-111(5)
State Project No. 8.1331701
T.I.P. No. B-3711
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November 2001
Document Prepared by:
Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Greg . Purvis, P.E.
Project Manager
ang, Ph.D., P.E.
nt
0
C 94
• E
- 11110,0% 0/110/01
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Stacy B. Ha 's, P.E.
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
NC 111
Wayne County
Replace Bridge No. 42 Over Neuse River Overflow
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-111(5)
State Project No. 8.1331701
T.I.P. No. B-3711
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters,
General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following
special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Mitigation shall be provided for any unavoidable wetland losses.
Roadway Design, Hydraulic Unit, and Division Engineer
The Neuse River Buffer Rules will be implemented during the design, construction and
maintenance of this project.
The Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be implemented, as
applicable.
An in-water construction moratorium will be in effect from February 15 toJune 15.
No deck drainage will be allowed to discharge directly into the water, main channel or Zone 1
(30 feet (nine meters) from the channel banks).
Green Sheet
Preconstruchon Page 1 of 1
November 2001
NC 111
Wayne County
Replace Bridge No. 42 Over Neuse River Overflow
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-111(5)
State Project No. 8.1331701
T.I.P. No. B-3711
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 42 is included in the 2002-2008 North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.)
and the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No
substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion."
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 12.2 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient. The replacement of Bridge No. 42 will result in safer and more efficient traffic
operations.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 111 is classified as a rural major collector. Land use in the project area is predominantly
woodlands and agriculture.
Bridge No. 42 was constructed in 1964. The existing structure is 104 feet (31.2 meters) in
length, which consist of six spans with the maximum span at approximately 18 feet (5.4 meters).
The clear roadway width is 28 feet (8.4 meters), providing two ten-foot (three meters) travel
lanes with four-foot (1.2 meters) shoulders. The superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete
floor on steel I-beams with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure is a spill through
design. The interior bents consist of timber caps on timber piles. The bed to crown height is 12
feet (3.6 meters). The posted weight limit is 24 tons (21.8 metric tons) for single vehicles (SV)
and 30. tons (27.2 metric tons) for truck-tractors semi-trailers (TTST).
The existing bridge and approaches on NC 111 is tangent. The approach roadway width is
24 feet (7.2 meters) providing two ten-foot (three meters) travel lanes with two foot (0.6 meters)
paved shoulders, and approximately seven-foot (2.1 meters) grassed shoulders.
The estimated 2001 average daily traffic volume is 6,400 vehicles per day (vpd). The projected
traffic volume is expected to increase to 10,500 vpd by the design year 2025. The volumes
include one percent TTST and three percent dual tired vehicles.
There is no posted speed limit in the area of the bridge, so the statutory 55 miles per hour (mph)
(90 kilometers per hour [km/h]) speed limit is used.
NC 111 is not a designated bicycle route andthere are no indications that an unusual number of
bicyclists are using this route.
Eastern Wayne Sanitary District owns a 16" (40 centimeters) DIP waterline on the east side of
the project. Underground telephone cables, owned by BellSouth, exist on the east and west
2
10
side of the project south of the bridge; they both go aerial at the bridge but the east side cables
return underground while the west side stays aerial. Underground fiber optic lines on the west
side of the project go aerial at the bridge and continue on the north side. Power lines owned by
CP&L are aerial and on the west side of the project. There are underground cable television
lines on the west side of the project south of the bridge that go aerial at the bridge and continue
north. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
There was one accident reported for the three-year period of January 1, 1997 to December 31,
1999.
Four school buses cross this bridge twice daily.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The proposed structure will provide a 33-foot (9.9 meters) clear roadway width to allow for
two 12-foot (3.6 meters) travel lanes with 4.5-foot (1.35 meters) shoulders. The proposed
approach roadway will consist of a 24-foot (7.2 meters) travel-way providing for two 12-foot
(3.6 meters) travel lanes with eight-foot (2.4 meters) shoulders including four-foot (1.2
meters) paved shoulders. The design speed will be 60 mph (100 km/h).
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, Bridge No. 42 will be replaced with a cored slab
bridge approximately 110 feet (33 meters) in length with a spill through design. The opening
size of the proposed structure may increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate
peak flows as determined from a more detailed hydraulic analysis to be performed during
the final design phase of the project.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
Two (2) reasonable and feasible alternatives studied for replacing the existing bridge are
described below.
Alternate A (Preferred) replaces the bridge at the existing location. During construction,
traffic would be maintained by a temporary on-site detour. The temporary detour structure
will be a temporary bridge approximately 305 feet (91.5 meters) in length, located east of the
existing bridge. The length of approach work will be approximately 475 feet (142.5 meters)
on the south side of the bridge and approximately 487 feet (146.1 meters) on the north side
of the bridge.
Alternate B replaces the bridge at the existing location. During construction, traffic would
be maintained by an off-site detour route along SR 1730, SR 1731, and NC 55 that is
approximately ten miles (16 kilometers [km]) in length. The length of approach work will be
approximately 399 feet (119.7 meters) on the south side of the bridge and approximately
398 feet (119.4 meters) on the north side of the bridge.
A road user analysis was performed based on 6,800 vpd for construction year 2003 and an
average of ten miles (16 km) of indirect travel. The cost of additional travel will be
approximately $8.1 million dollars during a twelve-month construction period.
3
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
The "Do-Nothing" Alternative will eventually necessitate removal of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by NC 111.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternate
Alternate A, replacing the bridge at the existing location is the preferred alternate. Alternate
A was selected because of the high road user cost and high traffic volumes associated with
Alternate B.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs, based on current 2001 prices, are as follows:
Alternate A Alternate B
(Preferred)
Structure Removal (existing) $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Structure (proposed) 235,950 235,950
Detour Structure and Approaches 459,300 0
Roadway Approaches 356,350 330,350
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 484,400 266,700
Engineering and Contingencies 239,000 142,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 49,300 26,300

TOTAL $1,849,300 $1,026,300
The estimated cost of the project, as shown -in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program, is $520,000 including $45,000 for right-of-way and $475,000 for construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a
number of sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic
mapping (Southeast Goldsboro, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping (7.5 minute quadrangle), U.S.
Department of Agriculture Soils, Conservation Service soils mapping (USDA 1974), and
mapping depicting proposed construction impacts for each alternative (scale 1:2400).
The site was visited on January 9, 2001. Weather during the site visit was cold and sunny.
The project corridor was walked and visually surveyed for substantial features. For
purposes of this evaluation, the project corridor was assumed to be approximately 1100 feet
(330 meters) in length and 250 feet (75 meters) in width to ensure proper coverage of the
alternates. For this report, impact calculations are based on a right-of-way width of 100 feet
4
y
(30 meters). Actual impacts will be limited to cut-fill boundaries and are expected to be less
than those shown for right-of-way. Special concerns evaluated in the field include 1)
potential habitat for protected species and 2) wetlands and water quality protection in and
adjacent to Neuse River Overflow.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate,
community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant
names follow nomenclature found in Radford et aL (1968) with exceptions for updated
nomenclature. Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach
(hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979).
Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population
distributions, were determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat,
and supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980, Webster et aL 1985, Menhinick 1991,
Potter et aL 1980, Hamel 1992, Palmer and Braswell 1995, Rohde et al. 1994). Water
quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources
(DWQ 1998a, DWQ 1998b). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing
data.
The Neuse River flows approximately 7.3 miles (11.7 km) south of Goldsboro in Wayne
County (Figure 1). The floodplain of the Neuse River averages approximately 3.5 miles (5.6
km) in width within this reach. The project corridor is located at the crossing of Mill Creek
Road (NC 111) and Neuse River Overflow which is one of several depressional features
located throughout this region of the Neuse River floodplain that store water during high
rainfall or flooding events. Although no stream channel was identified within the project
corridor, the Neuse River Overflow does contain hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
depressional features subject to frequent flooding. Bridge No. 42 spans these depressional
features as well as the adjacent side-slopes described as the Neuse River Overflow. The
project corridor primarily supports a mature bottomland forest with a well-developed canopy
and a well-defined understory.
B.' Physiography and Soils
The project corridor is located in the Black Creek geologic formation within the Upper
Coastal Plain physiographic province of North Carolina. The Black Creek geologic
formation formed approximately 66-96 million years ago by alluvial deposition subject to
inundation and exposure to a series of repeated advances and retreats of ancient oceans as
sea level rose and fell. The alluvial deposition coupled with sea level rise lead to a high
diversity of soil types within this geologic formation.
Topography in the Coastal Plain is described as low-lying, flat to gently rolling with steeper
gradients apparent as permanent stream channels approach. The project corridor is located
within the Neuse River floodplain where elevations and topography climb gradually and
areas are subject to regular flooding. Elevations within the project corridor range from a low
of 45 feet (13.5 meters) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) in Neuse River Overflow
to a high of approximately 65 feet (19.5 meters) NGVD as elevations rise away from the
depression (USGS Southeast Goldsboro, NC quadrangle).
5
Only one soil series has been mapped throughout the entire project corridor. Kinston loam
(Typic Fluvaquents) has been mapped throughout the project corridor. The Kinston loam is
a nearly level, poorly drained soil typically found on low floodplains. According to the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA 1974), these soils formed in recent alluvium. They
have moderate permeability and a high available water capacity. This soil is prone to very
frequent flooding. The seasonal high water table is at the surface (USDA 1974). This soil
type is typically forested and due to frequent flooding is not commonly used for agricultural
or development purposes. Kinston loam is listed as a hydric soil in Wayne County (USDA
1997).
C. Water Resources
1. Surface Waters
The Neuse River Basin, with headwaters originating northwest of Durham, is North
Carolina's third largest river basin and includes a total area of 6,235 square miles
(16,148.6 square kilometers). The project corridor is located within sub-basin 03-05-05
of the Neuse River Basin (DWQ 1998b), which is part of USGS hydrologic unit
03020202 of the Mid-Atlantic/Gulf Region. Waters within this river basin are subject to
riparian buffer rules, which are discussed in section E.3. The Neuse River Overflow is
located approximately 0.7 mile (1.1 km) from the Neuse River channel. The structure
targeted for replacement (Bridge No. 42) spans a bottomland hardwood forest with no
direct involvement of streams or tributaries. No other streams or tributaries exist within
the project corridor.
2. Stream Characteristics
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the
existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the
basin. No streams or tributaries were identified within the project corridor; however,
downstream reaches of the Neuse River maybe directly effected by the proposed
construction associated with this bridge. While no best usage classification has been
assigned to this reach of the Neuse River, a best usage classification of C NSW has
been assigned to adjacent tributaries to the Neuse (DWQ 1998a). The designation
Class C uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with
waters.on an infrequent or incidental basis. The NSW classification refers to nutrient
sensitive waters, which require limitations on nutrient inputs. No designated High
Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or
Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur within one mile (1.6 k%) of the project corridor.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has initiated a whole-basin approach to water
quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water quality for the
proposed project corridor is summarized in the basinwide water quality plan (DWQ
1998b). Water quality for individual streams is based on chemical, benthic, and fish
monitoring stations spread throughout the basin. Neuse River Overflow does not have a
waterbody use support rating; however, the portion of the Neuse River closest to the
Neuse River Overflow received a use support rating of Support Threatened. DWQ
defines Support Threatened as indicating that a water body is currently fully supporting
the designated best usage classification but may not in the future unless pollution
prevention or control action is taken.
6

The leading potential sources of pollution in this sub-basin include both point and non-
point sources. Point source activities that may impact water quality involve major
municipalities within the sub-basin such as waste water treatment plants. This sub-basin
(03-05-05) supports four major point-source dischargers and ten minor dischargers. The
nearest major point-source discharger is located approximately 5.5 miles (8.8 km)
upstream of the project corridor (Goldsboro Wastewater Treatment Plant). Total
permitted flow for this facility is 10.1 million gallons per day (38.2 million liters per day).
Minor point source dischargers include smaller wastewater and stormwater facilities
located throughout the sub-basin. Total permitted flow for minor dischargers is 1.2
million gallons per day (4.6 million liters per day) (DWQ 1998b).
Primary non-point source pollution concerns that may impact water quality include those
associated with agricultural practices such as fecal coliform bacteria, sedimentation, and
increased nutrient levels in surface waters. According to DWQ (1998b), non-point
source impacts from agriculture have been evident throughout the smaller streams
within this sub-basin. However, the Neuse River in this area has received Moderate to
Good water quality ratings since 1983 (DWQ 1998b).
3. Anticipated Impacts
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project,
the NCDOT and all potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge
demolition and removal. These guidelines are presented in three. NCDOT documents
entitled "Pre-Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal", "Policy:
Bridge Demolition and. Removal in Waters of the United States"; and "Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal" (all documents final as of 9/20/99).
Guidelines followed for bridge demolition and removal are in addition to those
implemented for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
Dropping any portion of the structure into waters of the United States should be avoided
unless there is no other practical method of removal. In the event that no other practical
method is feasible, a worst-case scenario is assumed for calculations of fill entering
waters of the United States. There is potential for components of the concrete deck and
interior timber bents of Bridge No. 42 to be dropped into waters of the United States.
The resulting temporary fill is calculated to be approximately eight cubic yards (six cubic
meters). NCDOT's Best Management Practices for. Bridge Demolition and Removal
(BMP-BDR) must be applied for, for the removal of this bridge.
Aquatic life that is not very mobile could be harmed when components of the bridge
enter the water. Species that filter feed, as well as those species that feed upon them,
could be negatively impacted by increased sedimentation. Although submerged aquatic
vegetation is not prevalent in the project area, continued sedimentation could negatively
impact such species if present by obstructing or reducing the amount of sunlight entering
the water.
Under the guidelines presented in the documents noted in the first paragraph of this
section, work done in the water for this project would fall under Case 2, which states that
no work shall be performed in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish
migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
7
Erosion and sedimentation from temporary construction impacts will be minimized
through implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of best
management practices. The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to
erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13
entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads
and Structures). These measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other
containment measures to control runoff; elimination of construction staging areas in
floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed
sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with
potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into
steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project hydrologic
functions in the Neuse River Overflow, thereby protecting the integrity of these
waterways. Long-term impacts to adjacent reaches resulting from construction are
expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly
enforced during the entire life of the project.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the project corridor: cypress-gum
swamp forest, mesic mixed hardwood forest, and roadside/disturbed land. These plant
communities are described below.
a) Cypress-Gum Swamp Forest (Brownwater Subtype)
A Cypress-Gum Swamp forest occurs throughout depressions within the Neuse
River floodplain, such as the Neuse River Overflow, and makes up the majority of the
project corridor. This type of community is commonly associated with streams and
regularly flooded areas within the Coastal Plain and approximates a Cypress-Gum
Swamp based on the classification system used by NHP (Schafale and Weakley
1990). This community has a well developed canopy and a sparsely developed
understory due to frequent flooding. Regular flooding by the Neuse River deposits
sediment and limited nutrients throughout this community. Denser undergrowth is
found farther away from the stream channel where elevations slowly rise above flood
levels. The canopy is dominated by swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), black gum (Nyssa
sylvatica), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). The understory contains sub-
canopy/shrub species such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), wax myrtle
(Myrica cerifera), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and
sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana). In areas where disturbance has cleared the canopy
(i.e. windblown areas), herb and vine species such as bushy seedbox (Ludwigia
altemifolia), rose mallow (Hibiscus moscheutos), dock (Rumex conglomeratus),
greenbriar (Smilax laurifolia), various sedges (Carex sp.), netted chain-fern
(Woodwardia areolata), and rush (Juncus sp.) dominate.
8

b) Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
As elevations rise away from the cypress-gum swamp, characteristics of a mesic
mixed hardwood forest become more prevalent. This community exhibits similar
features as characterized for the cypress-gum swamp, with additional, more upland
species. This community has a well-developed canopy, but, because flooding
occurs more infrequently, the understory is much more developed than in the
cypress-gum swamp. Canopy species include tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
sweetgum (Ligiudambar styraciflua), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
cherrybark oak (Quercus pagota), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Understory
species include saplings of canopy species as well as various species of greenbrier
(Smilax spp.), blackberries (Rubus spp.), giant cane, Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), and American holly (ilex opace).
c) Roadside/disturbed Land
Roadside/disturbed land is defined as the margins associated with roadside
shoulders and surrounding development. This community is located throughout the
project corridor and includes roadside margins, residential yards, and agriculture
fields. Existing roadside margins throughout the project corridor average
approximately 20 feet (six meters) in width. Most of the roadside/disturbed land and
residential yards are regularly maintained and dominated by herbs. Common herbs
found within these communities include English plantain (Plantago lanceolata),
broom panic grass (Dicanthelium scoparium), dayflower (Commelina sp.), clover
(Trifolium sp.), and various grasses. Currently, agricultual fields have been cleared
and plowed for the winter although tobacco or cotton are possibly the most recent
crops produced in adjacent fields. Field margins and areas adjacent to ditches are
dominated by grasses and invasive herbs such as Johnson grass (Sorghum
halepense), vasey grass (Paspalum urvillei), and goldenrods (Solidago spp.).
d) Plant Communities within the Project Corridor
Plant community areas are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the 100 foot (30 meters) projected right-of way width. A summary of
potential plant community impacts is presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1
PROJECTED PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Alternative Impacts
Acre (Hectare)
PLANT COMMUNITY Alternate A
Alternate B
(Preferred)
Cypress Swamp Forest 0.60 0.24) 0.08 (0.03
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.77 0.31 0.45 (0.18)
Roadside/ Disturbed Land 1.64 0.66 0.01 0.004)
TOTAL: 3.01 (1.22 0.54 (0.22)
Impacts are based on a 100 foot (30.0 m) right-of-way width.
9
From an ecological perspective, impacts of upgrading existing road facilities are
minimal. Permanent impacts to natural plant communities resulting from both
Alternate A and Alternate B are generally restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the
existing facility. However, the construction of a temporary detour and an expanded
temporary easement are expected to result in larger impacts for Alternate A (3.01
acre [1.22 hectare]) than Alternate B (0.54 acre [0.22 hectare]). For both Alternates
A and B, no permanent fragmentation of plant communities will be created as the
project will result only in alteration of community boundaries. The majority of impacts
to natural plant communities for both alternatives will be avoided in the long term if
temporarily impacted areas are restored to natural contours and planted with natural
vegetation.
2. Wildlife
a) Terrestrial
Mammal signs (tracks, scat, etc.) observed within the project corridor include the
eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floddanus) and tracks of a raccoon (Procyon lotor) and
white-tailed deer (Odocodeus virginianus). Opportunistic and characteristic species
which are expected to frequent woodlands and fringe areas include the gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris), beaver (Castor
canadensis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus),
cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), mink (Mustela vison), and golden mouse
(Ochrotomys nuttalll).
Several bird species may be expected to frequent the project vicinity due to the
diversity of local habitats. Birds identified during the field investigation include belted
kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), red-bellied
woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), eastern
phoebe (Sayomis phoebe), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), northern flicker (Colaptes
auratus), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), American robin (Turdus migratorius),
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura),
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum).
Other species which may frequent the project corridor may include the yellow-
rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens),
eastern screech owl (Otus asio), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis).
No terrestrial reptile species were identified within the project corridor. Common
terrestrial reptiles and amphibians which may occur within the project corridor include
eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), Carolina anole (Anolis carofinensis), rough
green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps), five-lined
skink (Eumeces fasciatus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern kingsnake
(Lampropeltis getulus), and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis).
b) Aquatic
Limited surveys resulted in no documentation of aquatic reptiles or amphibians in the
project corridor. The Neuse River Overflow provides suitable habitat for aquatic and
semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians. Local aquatic or semi-aquatic reptiles and
amphibians may include snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), yellowbelly slider
(Trachemys scripts), river cooter (Pseudemys concinna), brown water snake
10
(Nerodia taxispilota), redbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster), cottonmouth
(Agkistrodon piscivorus), eastern newt (Notophthalmus viddescens), southern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), mud salamander (Pseudotriton montanus),
green frog (Rana clamitans), southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus), and pickerel frog
(Rana palustris).
Although no streams were identified within the project corridor, regular flooding by
the Neuse River may introduce several species of freshwater fishes in the project
corridor during extended high water. No sampling or surveys were undertaken to
determine fisherypotential. Species characteristic of this region that may utilize the
project corridor include bowfin (Amia calva), American eel (Anguila rostrata), pirate
perch - (Aphredoderus sayanus), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus), eastern
mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), sawcheek darter (Etheostoma serrifer), and
swamp darter (Etheostoma fusiforme) as well as others.
For Coastal Plain streams, both anadromous and catadromous fish passage should
be considered in the timing of any proposed in-stream activities associated with
bridge replacement. During regular flooding events in the Neuse River, the Neuse
River Overflow may provide passage for several anadromous and catadromous fish.
According to Menhinick (1991), six species of anadromous fish and one species of
catadromous fish may migrate up the Neuse River and potentially into the Neuse
River Overflow during scheduled bridge activities. While these species have not
been identified within the Neuse River Overflow, they have been identified within the
Neuse River. The anadromous species include sea lamprey (Petromyzon maims),
striped bass (Moron saxatilis), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), American shad
(Alosa sapidissima), hickory shad (Alosa mediocds), and white perch (Morone
americana); while the single catadromous fish species is the American eel (Anguilla
rostrata). Design and scheduling of bridge replacement should avoid the necessity
of in-stream activities during the spring migration period for these fish species within
the Neuse River and tributaries including the Neuse River Overflow. The North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) requests an in-water
construction moratorium from February 15 to June 15.
c) Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed
bridge replacement will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known
terrestrial animal populations. No habitat fragmentation is expected since most
improvements will be restricted to existing roadside margins. Construction noise and
associated disturbances will have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory
wildlife movement. However, long-term impacts are expected to be minimal.
Potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging the
system to maintain hydrologic conditions. Short-term impacts associated with
turbidity and suspended sediments will affect benthic populations. Temporary
impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will be
minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
11
E. Special Topics
1. Waters of the United States
Wetlands identified within the project corridor are subject, to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States (33 CFR
section 328.3). These areas are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a
portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). NWI mapping indicates that
the floodplain of the Neuse River Overflow exhibits characteristics of a palustrine, broad-
leaved, deciduous forest system that is semipermanently flooded (PFO1A) (Cowardin et
a/. 1979). Field investigations indicate that floodplain wetlands do occur in the project
corridor and do meet this general classification. Field investigations indicate that the
Neuse River Overflow does not contain geomorphological features (sinuosity, defined
stream channel, and continuous bed and bank) characteristic of jurisdictional streams.
The areas of impacted wetlands within the 100-foot (30 meters) right-of-way are shown
in Table 2.
TABLE 2
PROJECTED WETLAND IMPACTS
Jurisdictional Type Alternate A (Preferred) Alternate B
Wetland 0.36 (0.15) 0.18 (0.07)
Areas are depicted in acre ( hectare).
Permanent impacts to vegetated wetlands for both alternatives will consist of. narrow
strips adjacent to the existing bridge for both alternatives. However, a larger amount of
impacts are associated with Alternate A (0.36 acre [0.15 hectare]) than with Alternate B
(0.18 acre [0.07 hectare]). Upon completion of construction, temporary impacts
associated with construction activities and the temporary alignment are expected to be
restored to pre-project conditions.
There is potential that components of the existing bridge may be dropped into waters of
the United States during construction. The resulting potential temporary fill associated
with the construction activities is not expected to exceed eight cubic yards (six cubic
meters). This project can be classified as Case 3 where construction limitations are
restricted to those outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters. No threatened or endangered species or protected water resources are
expected to be impacted by construction activities. NCDOT will coordinate with the
various resource agencies during project planning to ensure that all concerns regarding
bridge demolition are resolved.
2. Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The COE has made available Nationwide Permit
(NWP) No. 23 (61 FR 65874, 65916; December 13, 1996) for CEs due to minimal
impacts expected with bridge construction. DWQ has made available a General 401
Water Quality Certification for NWP No. 23. However, authorization for jurisdictional
area impacts through use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. Also,
12
- tbib'jecanr
according to = 3
un er a o? i Hill .
for Ideif©r av?atieciv 1 In the event that NWP
No. 23 will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach
improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the
Wilmington COE District. Notification to the Wilmington COE office is required if this
general permit is utilized.
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1982 exempts bridge projects from Coast Guard
bridge permits when the bridge project.crosses nontidal waters which are not used,
susceptible to use in their natural condition, or susceptible to use by reasonable
improvement as a means to transport interstate commerce. Due to this, this bridge
project is exempt, and will not require a Coast Guard Bridge Permit (Appendix).
3. Riparian Buffer Protection Rules for the Neuse River Basin
Since this project is within the Neuse River Basin, it is subject to NCDENR riparian
buffer rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). These rules were developed to protect and preserve
existing riparian buffers and are part of larger nutrient reduction strategies for the basin.
The'buffer rules require that up to 50 feet (15 meters) in width of riparian area be
protected and maintained on the banks of waterways in the basin. The rules do not
apply to portions of the riparian buffer where a use is existing and ongoing as of July 22,
1997. Existing uses include transportation facilities. It should be noted that only the
portion of the buffer that contains the footprint of the existing use is exempt.
Activities in the buffer area beyond the footprint of the existing use are classified as
either "exempt", "allowable", "allowable with mitigation", or "prohibited". The following
lists of activities that may be subject to buffer rules within the study area are provided
along with their classifications. Depending upon project alternatives, not all of the uses
listed may apply, and other uses not listed here, such as utility crossings and roadside
drainage ditches, among others, may be regulated under the buffer rules. Guidelines
should be consulted in entirety to review all project related uses subject to the buffer
rules.
Activities deemed "exempt" should be designed, constructed, and maintained to
minimize soil disturbance and to provide the maximum water quality protection
practicable. "Allowable" activities may proceed within the riparian buffer provided that
there are no practical alternatives to the requested use. Written authorization from the
DWQ or delegated local authority is required. Activities deemed "allowable with
mitigation" may proceed within the riparian buffer if there are no practical alternatives to
the requested use and an appropriate mitigation strategy has been approved. Written
authorization from the DWQ or delegated local authority is required. "Prohibited"
activities, none of which are listed above, may not proceed within the riparian buffer
unless a variance is granted from the DWQ or delegated local authority.
13
RIPRAR/AN BUFF ER PROTECTION RULES
Allowable
Use Exempt Allowable With Prohibited
Mitigation
Bridges X
Road crossings that impact less than or equal to
150 linear ft. (45 linear meters) or 0.33 acre X
(0.13 hectare) of riparian buffer
Road crossings that impact greater than 150
linear ft. (45 linear meters) or greater than 0.33 X
acre (0.13 hectare) of riparian buffer
Temporary roads that disturb less than or equal
to 2, 500 square feet (225 square meters)
provided that vegetation is restored within six X
months
Temporary roads that disturb greater than 2, 500
square feet (225 square meters) provided that X
vegetation is restored within six months
4. Mitigation
Section 404 compensatory mitigation for unavoidable losses has been requested by the
COE. Utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts. Fill or
alteration of streams may require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15 NCAC
2H .0506(h). A final determination regarding mitigation rests with the COE.
F. Protected Species
1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), officially
proposed (P) for such listing, or Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T[S/A]) are
protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range", and the term
"Threatened Species" is defined as "any species that is likely to become an Endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range"
(16 U.S.C. 1532). The term "Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance" is defined as
a species which is not "Endangered" or "Threatened", but "closely resembles and
Endangered or Threatened species" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
Only one federally protected species is currently listed for Wayne County (February 26,
2001 FWS list). The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) is listed as
endangered for Wayne County and is -described below.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker - This small woodpecker (seven to 8.5 inches [17 to 22
centimeters]) long) has a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-white
barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the
14
cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et al. 1980). Primary habitat consists
of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda), long-
leaf (P. palustris), slash (P. ellioth), and pond (P. serotina) pines (Thompson and Baker
1971). Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally older
than 70 years, which have been infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees tend
to occur in clusters, which are referred to as colonies (FWS 1985). The woodpecker
drills holes into the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup
around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees. Pine flatwoods
or pine-dominated savannas that have been maintained by frequent natural fires serve
as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development of a thick
understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Plant communities within the project corridor are
described as either roadside/disturbed or bottomland swamp forest dominated by
hardwoods. Neither of • these plant communities support red-cockaded
woodpecker nesting or foraging habitat. There is no nesting habitat within 0.5
mile (0.8 km) of the project corridor, and NHP records have no documentation of
red-cockaded woodpeckers in the vicinity of the project corridor. Based on a
NHP record search and habitat surveys conducted during field investigations, this
project will not affect the red-cockaded woodpecker. NO EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern - The March 22, 2001 FWS list also includes a category of
species designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). A species with this
designation is one that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate
species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing). A list of FSC species for Wayne county with habitat
survey results are listed in Table 3.
TABLE 3
Federal Species of Concern for Wayne County
Potential State
Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Status"
Rafinesque's biq-eared bat" Cormorhinus rafinesquii Yes SC (PT)
Southern hognose snake" Heterodon simus No SR (PSC)
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus No SR
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Yes T (PE)
Ponds ice Litsea aestivalis No C
' E = Endangered; T = threatened; SC = Special concern; SR = Significantly Rare;
C = Candidate; P = Proposed
" Historic record - The species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species
listed. However, NHP files have no documentation of FSC species within the project
corridor or within one mile (1.6 km) of the project corridor.
15
2. State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Special Concern (SC), Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), or
Proposed (P) (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand and Hall 1999) receive limited protection under
the North Carolina Endangered Species Act.(G.S. 113-331 et seq.). and the North
Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.). NHP records indicate that
the heartleaf sandmat (Chamaesyce cordifolia) has been documented approximately 0.8
mile (1.6 km) southeast of the project corridor. This plant is listed as a candidate
species for the state list that receives no protection. However, it is not under federal
protection and has not been identified within Wayne County since 1979.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation
Act of •1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on
properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on July 2, 1999. All
structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by the North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). In a concurrence form dated November 19, 2000,
the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred that there are no
historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing on the National Register
of Historic Places within the APE. A copy of the concurrence form is included in the
Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated July 28, 2000, stated they "have no comment on the
project as currently proposed." Because there is little likelihood of any National Register
archaeological sites occurring in the project area because of the disturbed landforms, the
SHPO recommends no further action. A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the
Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
16
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
substantial change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No North Carolina Geodetic Survey control monuments will be impacted during construction of
this project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). Since there are no prime or important farmlands in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge the Farmland Protection Policy does not apply.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required. This project is
located in Wayne County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable, because the proposed project
is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on
the air quality of this attainment area.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air quality
will not be substantial.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This araluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department
of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no hazardous waste sites, no
regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites with in the project area. No facility with
underground storage tanks (UST), regulated or unregulated landfills, or dumpsites occur in the
project vicinity.
Wayne County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. This site on
the Neuse River Overflow is included in a detailed F.E.M.A. flood study. The proposed
replacement will not adversely affect the existing flood plain. The proposed alternatives will not
modify flow characteristics and will have minimal impact on floodplains due to roadway
encroachment. The existing drainage patterns and groundwater will not be affected. Attached
17
is a copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map, on which are shown the approximate limits of the
100-year flood plain in the vicinity of the project (Figure 5).
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
Vlll. AGENCY COMMENTS
The following are comments received during the scoping process:
1. North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC)
Comment: "Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT should
closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish * Passage" This
includes an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to June 15."
Response: Construction work will be restricted as noted in the Project Commitments.
2. North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC)
Comment: "Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream."
Response: No deck drainage will be allowed to discharge directly into the water, main
channel or Zone 1 (30 feet (nine meters) from the channel banks).
18
K
.S
0
MILES
KILOMETERS
SCALE
NORTTI CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 6
ENMONMOVTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
WAYNE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 42 ON NC 111
OVER AMUSE RIVER OVERFLOW
nP NO. 5-37H
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1
r. ?
i I d1+?;. fit,
1 ,? J pI??YF4' J??
5 ? if 4 . x y, 1. fy?i
r I r„ r ?JI.^
1 I 44
tl {?
., ? e"3•??1'?•: FYI!- ? { - , _ r .' ?..',:},Y,. ? .
i Tr r `y? >F 'Ny?t "t+ d f {?,?? ? ... ?„ • t, ? a I ? N? . ? ? y * '^'
v ? I
r +!
V x)70 • ?i
4
I yy
RP T t
3 _
1 .?
? , ??1, ?• e ? [?, ? ?N?C? ??+1t!>?k? ? 7UtYL ??„t?i 3? s }I
44 10
? ? l'0.. r;? ? ?::' t ? "? Y?, ?''?` 1q ? .i.ri'?, T Y" (/6T? y ?: , I 1t •p?
?? 9 ?: f A t:. 'y!ry 1 t i YY F'(+:1 ?,`y a ?1?
r t . T I ? ? ? `?` ?? -r ? .? r , ^.,yt`r'Cs .??i 1 t 1 •
^*,'i? .r{? ; •R+r,' { ?? ? 1^td.?'??? ?.. dA?""? R. iI ill ,
47r
a• i??%? ? ?i???.. ?;? ?,? ,111 {I I
aa r
Y
°

B•3711
Replacement of Bridge
No. 42 on NC 11'1 Over
Neuse River Overflown
. Wayne County
F1t3l1FtE 3
B-3711
BRIDGE NO. 42
WAYNE COUNTY
LEGEND
ZONE AE ® rtrur nooo0.,,ao ,ua w o.no
11000
x :z:
ZONE
iw •w r ?.......
ooon•.•.ww:a..f
?< - -- y ZONE
s: ZONE?C ?. n
?? -. i? r ?r-°T^ • _ ?--:? ? ? ? oral nooo ,aus r ...r ??.
- '._s _ 4. '?y.s.r,-.,C' w-... ?pi'f?''•Tf ? t ? ??- :we a "?'.?..?.?.?..?
VEX,,.
ZONE X .s T v <. .,,? . i?lo ......
- i ?i rl?r7 ?-'?4t .irk+? r ? - u.wntoreo co.nru uuNn.
r..-
o' C
w /' i..7• ??' 6 Ill Mrr r.waruw rrw.<

Bridge No. 42
ff
X. Z.,'

?, ;..
ZONE X
A
~ZON 77

ZONEX ' "` ZONE`AE N

FEMA FLOOD STUDY 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
Panel No. 370254 0100 D
Date: March 16. 1998 1000 ft. 0 1000 ft
Street Name: NC 111
Wayne County. North Carolina
305 m Approximate Scale 305 m
FIGURE 5
. i r
RECORD OF CONTACT
DATE: 7/11/01
CONTACT WITH: Mike Bell, Corps of Engineers - Washington Office
SUBJECT: Bridge Group 27 Scoping comments(B-3612, B-3626, B-3640, B-3684, B-3685, B-
3711, B-3712, B-3809, B-3810, and B-3871)
VIA: Telephone 1:00 pm
DISCUSSED: He said he agreed with the specific comments for each bridge from David
Cox's(from the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission) letter dated 6/08/2001(included
in appendix) and the general comments from David Franklin's (of the Corps of Engineers) letter
dated 8/2/2000 (included in appendix). He will not be sending out a letter.
Signed: 6ian? Greg Purvis, Wang Engineering
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. Box 189o
TO ORTH 1890
.

WIUNING N, N CAROLINA 28402- .41
IN REPLY REFER TO August 2, 2000
Regulatory Division • `
Action ID No. 200001525, 200001526, 200001527, 200001528, 200001529, 200001530,
200001531.
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Reference your letters dated June 7, 2000, June 28, 2000, and July 3, 2000
regarding the following proposed bridge replacement projects, including those of Group
XXVH:
1. TIP Project B-3449, Duplin County, Bridge No. 204 on SR 1827 over Northeast
Cape Fear River, Action ID 200001525.
2. TIP Project B-3626, Carteret County, Bridge No. 26 on SR 1154 over a branch
of the Newport River, Action ID 200001526.
3. TIP Project B-3884, Onslow County, Bridge No. 40 on SR 1308 over Squires
Run, Action ID 200001527.
4. TIP Project B-3887, Pender County, Bridge No. 116 on SR 1520 over Shaken
Creek, Action ID 200001528.
5. TIP Project B-3516, Scotland County, Bridge No. 59 on SR 1614 over Gum
Swamp Creek, Action ID 200001529.
6. TIP Project B-3515, Scotland County, Bridge No. 46 on SR 1612 over Big Shoe
Heel Creek, Action ID 200001530.
7. TIP Project B-3613, Bladen/Sampson County, Bridge No. 44 on NC 41 over
South River, Action ID 200001531.
Based on the information provided in the referenced letters; it appears that each
proposed bridge replacement project may impact jurisdictional wetlands. Department of
the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of
1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters
of the United States or any adjacent wetlands in conjunction with these projects, including
r
i?
disposal of construction debris. Specific permit requirements will depend on design of the
projects, extent of fill work within the waters of the United States, including wetlands,
construction methods, and other factors.
Although these projects may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion, to qualify for
nationwide permit authorization under Nationwide Permit #23, the project planning
report should contain sufficient information to document that the proposed activity does
not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the aquatic
environment. Our experience has shown that replacing bridges with culverts often results
in sufficient adverse impacts to consider the work as having more than minimal impacts
on the aquatic environment. Accordingly, the following items need to be addressed in the
project planning report:
. a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected. ?..
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in wetlands.
If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be provided. On-site
detours can cause permanent wetland impacts due to sediment consolidation resulting
from the on-site detour itself and associated heavy equipment. Substantial sediment
consolidation in wetland systems may in turn cause fragmentation of the wetland and
impair the ecological and hydrologic functions of the wetland. Thus, on-site detours
constructed in wetlands can result in more than minimal wetland impacts. These types of
wetland impacts will be considered as permanent wetland impacts.
For proposed projects and associated on-site detours that cause minimal losses of
wetlands, an approved wetland restoration plan will be required prior to issuance of a DA
nationwide or general permit. For proposed projects and associated on-site detours that
cause significant wetland losses, an individual DA permit and a mitigation proposal for
the unavoidable wetland impacts may be required.
In view of our concerns related to onsite detours constructed in wetlands, recent
field inspections were conducted at each of the proposed project sites and a cursory
determination was made on the potential for sediment consolidation due to an onsite
detour. Based on these inspections, potential for sediment consolidation in wetlands
exists at several of the proposed projects. Therefore, it is recommended that geotechnical
evaluations be conducted at each project site to estimate the magnitude of sediment
consolidation that can occur due to an on-site detour and the results be provided in the
project planning report.
2
Based on our field inspections, we strongly recommend that geotechnicaI evaluations be
conducted at the following proposed project sites:
1) TIP Project B-3626, Carteret County, Bridge No. 226 on SR 1154 over a
branch of the Newport River, Action M 200001526.
2) TIP Project B-3884, Onslow County, Bridge No. 40 on SR 1308 over,
Squires Run, Action ID 200001527.
3) TIP Project B-3887, Pender County, Bridge No. 116 on SR 1520 over
Shaken Creek, Action ID 200001528.
4) TIP Project B-3516, Scotland County, Bridge No. 59 on SR 1614 over Gum
Swamp Creek, Action ID 200001529.
5) TIP Project B-3515, Scotland County, Bridge No. 46 on SR 1612 over Big
Shoe Heel Creek, Action ID 200001530.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands and "time-of-year" restrictions on in-stream work if recommended
by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for
temporary detours, the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to restore the
site.
d. All restored areas should be planted with endemic vegetation including trees, if
appropriate.
e. The report should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams resulting from construction of the project.
. E If a bridge is proposed to be replaced with a culvert, NCDOT must demonstrate
that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment,
specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life including anadromous fish. In addition,
the report should address the impacts that the culvert would have on recreational
navigation.
g. The report should discuss and recommend bridge demolition methods and shall
include the impacts of bridge demolition and debris removal in addition to the impacts of
constructing the bridge. The report should also incorporate the bridge demolition policy
recommendations pursuant to the NCDOT policy entitled "Bridge Demolition and
Removal in Waters of the United States" dated September 20, 1999.
Should you have any questions, please call Mr. David L. Timpy at the Wilmington
Field office at 910-251-4634.
Sincerely,

E. David Franklin
NCDOT Team Leader
U.S. Department
of Transportation
United States
Coast Guard
Commander
United States Coast Guard
Atlantic Area
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Manager, Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004
Staff Symbol: (Aowb)
Phone: [phone]
16590
15 FEB 01
Our Bridge Staff has reviewed your plans and specifications dated July 3, 2000, for the
replacement of 14 bridges in 10 different counties of North Carolina.
All of the waterways involved in this project are considered navigable waterways of the United
States for Bridge Administration purposes. Must also meet the criteria for advance approval
waterway set forth in Title 33, Code of Federal RegWations, Section 115.70, at all of the bridge
sites. Advance approval waterways are those that are navigable in law, but not actually
navigated by other than small boats. In such cases, the Commandant of the Coast Guard has
given his advance approval to the construction of bridges across such waterways. The North
Carolina State projects include bridge #143 over Northeast Cape Fear River, bridge #26 over a
branch of the Newport River, bridge #16 over Merchants Mill Pond, bridge #30 over Green Mill
Run, bridge 42 over Neuse River, bridge #88 over Falling Creek, bridge #64 over Pungo Creek,
bridge #272 over Big Swamp, bridge #64 over Dog Branch, bridge #40 over Squires Run and
bridge # 116 over Shaken Creek which all qualify for the Advance Approval category.
Accordingly, individual Coast Guard bridge permits will not be required for the new bridges
across these waterways.
The fact that a Coast Guard permit will not be required for these advance approval bridges, does
not relieve you of the responsibility for compliance with the requirements of any other Federal,
State, or local agency who may have jurisdiction over any aspect of these projects.
Sincerely,
- - ??.. ??•?? ? Fes`
ANN B. DEATON
Chief, Bridge Administration Office
By direction of the. Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
k
i
•?= UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
i f
t'• .'r NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
ONTIS of
Southeast Regional Office
9721 Executive Center Drive N
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
July 25, 2000
Colonel James W. DeLony,
District Engineer, Wilmington District
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention Dave TimRy/Mike Bell
Dear Colonel DeLony:
Please reference the July 3, 2000, letter (copy enclosed) from the North Carolina Department of
Transportation requesting National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) comments on the proposed
replacement of eleven highway bridges in eastern North Carolina under the Federal Categorical
Exclusion (CE). The letter specifically addresses the potential 'impacts of demolition and removal
of the existing structure and other environmental concerns in the project areas. We have reviewed
the information provided with the letter and offer the following comments for consideration.
A. Anadromous Fishery Resources/Wetlands
Project No. 1 B-3449, Duplin County, Replace Bridge No. 204 on SR 1827 over the
Northeast Cape Fear River
Project No. 2 B-3612, Bertie County, Replace Bridge No. 143 on SR 1123 over Branch of
Indian Creek
Project No. 4 B-3684, Pitt County, Replace Bridge No. 129 on SR 1565 over the Tar River
Project No. 5 B-3708, Washington/Martin Counties, Replace Bridge No. 66 on SR
1325/SR1583 over Welch Creek
Project No. 7 B-3712, Wayne County, Replace Bridge No. 88 on SR 1006 over Falling
Creek
Project No. 8 B-3809, Beaufort County,- Replace Bridge No. 64 on NC 99 over Pungo
Creek
Project No. 11 B-3887, Pender County, Replace Bridge No. 116 on SR 1520 over Shaken
Creek
The projects listed above span waters that support anadromous fishery resources for which the
NMFS is responsible. Anadromous fish species commonly found through the project area include
American shad (Alosa sapidissima), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), blueback herring (Alosas
Ji
}F
aestivalis), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), striped bass (Moronesazatilis), and Atlantic sturgeon
(Acipenser oxgn-h)>nchus). Each of the above project areas provide spawning and nursery habitat for
some subset of these anadromous species. Bridge demolition and construction can result in
sediment disturbing activities and discharges of highway construction materials and pollutants that
are detrimental to early life history stages of these species. In addition to habitat, wooded wetlands
within the project area provide water quality maintenance functions that are important for the
production of fishery resources in downstream waters. Any wetland losses associated with these
seven projects will add to the cumulative loss of wetlands that are detrimental to the continued
production of NMFS trust resources.
Therefore, in order to minimize adverse impacts to fisheries, we recommend that these projects not
be processed under the Federal CE unless the following conditions are incorporated:
"No construction or demolition activities shall be allowed in the water between February 15
and June 1 of any year."
"Mitigation shall be provided for any unavoidable wetland losses."
In addition to the above, Project Nos. 1, 2, and 5 are located in river basins that support the
endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenserbrevirostrum). Accordingly, we recommend coordination
with our Protected Resources Division at the letterhead address or at 727/570-5312.
B. Wetlands
Project No. 6 B-3711, Wayne County, Replace Bridge No. 42 on NC 111 over Neuse River
Overflow
Project No. 9 B-3810, Beaufort County, Replace Bridge No. 272 on SR 1514 over Big
Swamp
Project No. 10 B-3884, Onslow County, Replace Bridge No. 40 on SR 1308 over Squires
Run
Wooded wetlands within these project areas provide water quality maintenance functions that are
important for the continued production of fishery. resources in downstream waters. Therefore, in
order to minimize adverse impacts to fishery resources, we recommend that this work not be
processed under the Federal CE unless the following condition is incorporated:
"Mitigation shall be provided for any unavoidable wetland losses."
C. Estuarine Fishery Resources/Wetlands
Project No. 3 B-3626 Carteret County, Replace Bridge No.26 on SR 1154 over Branch of
Newport River
Wooded wetlands within the project area provide water quality maintenance functions that are
important for the continued production of estuarine dependent fishery resources. Therefore, in order
to minimize adverse impacts to estuarine resources, we recommend that this work not be processed
under the Federal CE unless the following condition is incorporated:
"Mitigation shall be provided for any unavoidable wetland losses."
Thank you for the opporturtity to provide these comments. If we can be of further assistance, please
advise.
Sincerely,
4V)1? /JZWM?
Andreas Mager, Jr.
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division
Enclosure
cc: FWS, ATLA, GA
FWS, Raleigh, NC
EPA, ATLA, GA
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC
NCDENR, Morehead City, NC
NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
F/SER4

United States Department of the Interior .
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Feld Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
L7. '.
July 25, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your July 3, 2000 request for information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of fourteen proposed bridge replacements in
various counties in eastern North Carolina. This report provides scoping information and is
provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16
U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state
resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the following
bridge structures:
1. B-3449, Bridge No. 204 on SR 1827 over the Northeast Cape Fear River, Duplin County;
2. B-3612, Bridge No. 143 on SR 1123 over Branch of Indian Creek, Bertie County;
3. B-3626, Bridge No. 26 on SR 1154 over Branch of Newport River, Carteret County;
4. B-3640, Bridge No. 16 on SR 1400 over Merchants Mill Pond, Gates County;
5. B-3684, Bridge No. 129 on SR 1565 over the Tar River, Pitt County;
6. B-3685, Bridge No. 30 on SR 1703 over Green Mill Run, Greenville, Pitt County;
7. B-3708, Bridge No. 66 on SR 1325/SR 1583 over Welch Creek, Washington/Martin
Counties;
8. B-3711, Bridge No. 42 on NC 111 over the Neuse River Outflow, Wayne County;
9. B-3712, Bridge No. 88 over SR 1006, Falling Creek, Wayne County;
10. B-3809, Bridge No. 64 on NC 99 over Pungo Creek; Beaufort County;
11. B-3810, Bridge No. 272 on SR 1514 over Big Swamp, Beaufort County;
12. B-3871, Bridge No. 64 on SR 1001 over Dog Branch, Martin County;
13. B-3884, Bridge No. 40 on SR 1308 over Squires Run, Onslow County; and,
14. B-3887, Bridge No. 116 on SR 1520 over Shaken Creek, Pender County.
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and
wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced
through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Chinquapin, Grantham,Greenville SW,
Grimesland, Merchants Mill Pond, Newport, Old Ford, Ransomville, Richlands, SE Goldsboro,
Stag Park, Washington, Williamston, and Woodville 7.5 Minute Quadrangles show wetland
resources in the specific work areas. However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an
overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation
by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland classification methodology. Therefore, in
addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action.
1. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 Corps of
Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset.
The enclosed lists identify the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Beaufort, Bertie, Carteret, Duplin, Gates,
Martin, Onslow, Pender, Pitt, Washington, and Wayne Counties. The Service recommends that.
habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the available habitats at the
respective project sites. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project,
biological surveys for the listed species should be performed. Environmental documentation that
includes survey methodologies, results, and NCDOT's recommendations based on those results,
should be provided to this office for review and comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT
to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort -to conserve them if
found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on
species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
??? c
Dr. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
cc: .
COE, Washington, NC (Michael Bell)
COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
NCDNR, Northside, NC (David Cox)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas Graf)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:07/24/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\14brdgs.var

North Caroling Wildlife Resources Commission 0
Charles R Fullwrood,l?ieetttiv?e Dircccor ..
TO: Stacy Harris, PE
Proicct Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project for
Habitat Conservation Pro
DATE: June 8, 2001
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Duplin, Bertie, Carteret, Gates, Pitt, Wayne,
Beaufort, Martin, Onslow, and Pender counties of North Carolina. Tip Nos.
B-3449, B-3612,11-3626, B-3640, B-3684, B-3685, B-3711, B-3712,13-3809, B-
3810, B-3871, B-3884, and 8-3887.
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. 661-6674).
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 clenrarrccs provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the stnrcture. does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the steam.
Uve 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.
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'x 10'. If possible, when using temporary
Mailing Address: Division of IniAnd Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Centcr • Raleigh, NC 2 7699-1 72 1
Tclephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]
Bridge Memo
June 8, 2001
strictures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized egtu* ment and leaving the stumps and
root rnat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimims disturbed soil.
6. A clCar 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 requim 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 Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soi t
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock bens, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated fi+om the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary rill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
i f corrugated metal pipe arches, reimforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means that the
culvert or pine invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream bed. If
multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be placed so that their
Bridge Memo
June 8, 2001
bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield design). This could be
accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that
will divert low flows to another cell. This will allow sufficient water depth in the
culvert or pipe during normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are
ions. notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15 foot
intervals to allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert, to reduce flow
velocities, and to provide resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms moving
through the structure.
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 ol'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 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.
Projcc:l specific comments:
1. B-3449 - Dupiin County - Bridge No. 204 over Northeast Cape Fear River. Due to the
potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes an in-water work
moratorium from February 1 to June 15 for areas whom there is the potential for Shortnose
sturgeon, an endangered species. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Measures be used due to the presence ofHQW waters.
2. B-3612 - Bcnie County - Bridge No. 143 over a branch of Indian Crcek. Due to the potential
for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage. This includes an in-water work moratorium from
February 15 to June 15. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered
project vicinity. NCDOT should be aware that NCWRC has designateNCWRecies in the
C gamelands
in the vicinity of this bridge. Impacts to gameland properties should be avoided.
3. B-3626 - Carteret County - Bridge No. 26 over a branch of the New Port River. Standard
comments apply. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project
vicinity.
4. 13-3640 - Gates County -Bridge No. 16 over Merchant's Mill Pond. Standard comments
aPPtY• We Ire not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
Bridge Mcmo 4 June R, 2001
5. B-3684 Pitt County - Bridge No. 129 over Tar River. Due to the potential for anadromous
fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadrornous Fish Passage". This includes an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to
Junc 15. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
Standard comments apply.
6. B-3685 - Pitt County - Bridge No. 30 over Green Mill Run. Due to the potential for
anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes an in-water work moratorium from
February 15 to June 15. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the
project vicinity. Standard comments apply.
7. B-3711 - Wayne County - Bridge No. 42 over the Neuse River Overflow. Due to the
potential for anadromous fish at this location. NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream
Cmssiing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes an in-water work
moratorium from February 15 to lime 1 S. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered
species in the project vicinity. Standard comments apply.
8. B-3712- Wayne County - Bridge No 88 over Falling Creek. Standard comments apply. We
are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
9. B-3809 - Aeatifort County - Bridge No. 64 over Pmtgo Creek. Duc to the potential for
anadroinous fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes an in-water work moratorium from
February 15 to June 15. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the
project vicinity. Standard comments apply.
10. B-3810 - Beaufort County- Bridge No. 272 over Big Swamp. Standard comments apply.
We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
I 1. B-3871 - Maitin County - Bridge No. 64 over Dog Branch. Due to the potential for
anadronious fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes an in-water work moratorium from
rebruary 15 to June IS. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the
project vicinity. Standard comments apply.
12.B-3884 Onslow County- Bridge No. 40 over Squires Run. Due to the potential for
anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes an in-water work moratorium from
February 15 to June 15. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the
project vicinity. Standard comments apply.
13.13-3887 Pender County -Bridge No. 116 over Shaken Creek. Due to the potential for
anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes an in-water work moratorium from
February 15 to June IS. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the
project vicinity. Standard continents apply.
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 ofbndgeu with spanning
structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases.
`^^` I "" , V1 y-5ltt-y?s?y Jun 11 '01 13:00 No. 002 P-06
Bridge Memo s
June 8, 2001
Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along stro mbenks, reducing habitat fragmentation
and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on N
replacements, please contact me at (9I9) 528-9886. Thank yo for the p
comment on these projects. pon?ty o bn? cw and
a
y srwr^4
i?dY e W „• ..
?r ? 1r
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
July 28, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook
Deputy State Histo reservation Officer
Re: B-3711, Wayne County, Replace Bridge No. 42
on NC 111 Over Neuse River Overflow, ER 01-7091
Thank you for your memorandum of July 3, 2000, 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 questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
DB:kgc
cc: B. Church, NC DOT
T. Padgett, NC DOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 _ [phone] • 715-2671
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 27699-4618 [phone] - 715-4801
n
I
Federal Aid #BRSTP-111(5) TIP #13-3711 County. Wayne
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No 42 on NC 111 over Neuse River Overflow
On November 2, 2000, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
C3 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
XE? Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
photograph review session/consultation
other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
t`'~ there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as Fr C !C%.- c ?-t- ; ft I are considered not eligible for the National
Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Ua..?e?a...?r:.,e AT!'T1t1T Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
epr entative, SHP Date
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
if a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
.1
WAYNE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
FAX
BUS GARAGFJTIMS OFFICE
1603 SALEM CHURCH RD
GOLDSBORO, N.C. 27530
Date a- 13 - C)Number of pages including cover sheet I

To:
P rv-? e. 1!2 ? s no
Phone
Fax Phone
CC:
-37/l
From:
TIMS OFFICE
STEPHANIE OR
SHIRLENE
Phone [phone]
Fax Phone - 919-705-6006
? Urgent ? For your review ? Reply ASAP ? Please comment
e-? j??o. c buses on Fan C- C re- ek lveuse RIVe-r
by?d es. 9
Creek 3 buses A m* p m
/reuse ?ve.Y - 4 buses ,Ary, .-* Pm
(tims#13)

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Ove- 14 Date:
Applicant/Owner: W L 1?0 I L? County: IA14 ., n e
Investigator: /4r lc r ? ` 1 H1ti. F Slate: /!l ?-
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID:.
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes(& Transect ID: IM 1F
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes & Plot ID: I.IA 1-
(if needed. explain an reverse
v>`rt= r?Ttnnl
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plarrc Species Straturn Indicate
013 L
2. ej?s c. a Dt'I L 10.
3./;4_0=6?.?G? If`jrQ.c•???t ?L FAC t 11.
4. G.4t,-:can G _ T ??? 1? 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. C'G r E sf;P 15.
8. LJ?n_Awc:.-??:•, u.r?(c?:, ? L d Z 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or p
r
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-
-Stream. Lake or ride Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs Inundated
XSaturated in Upper 12 Inches
-Other Water Marks
)5No Recorded Data Available -Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
YDrainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
-
Depth of Surface Water. < 6n.) _
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -Local Sod Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
`
Depth to Saturated Soil: C (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
i
-1
SOILS
Map Unit Name.
i rrj fo.1
O? Drainage Class: P D
(Series and Phase). Reid Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): fl`' 4 c.? f. Confirm Mapped Type: <9 No
Profile Descriotion•
Depth Matrix Color Motile Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
finchesi Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Canttest Structure. etc.
0 4- A to yK 3/1 / o Y4 .3/ 51,a.- 1Ad,. «/? sG.? d7 /yo,ti
Hydric Sol Indicators:
osol Concmtions
c Epipedon
High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Sals
fdic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Sails
ic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
ucing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
yed or Low-Chroma Colors
L Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? a? No (Cards)
Wetland Hydrology Present? a No
Hydric Soils Present? `..?' No
Remarks:
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? 61 No
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
8/93
M
r
M
N
¦
a
N
- M
M
p
N
q
_ M
N
la
r
r '
A
d
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0987 COE Wetfands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 12 c) ?/?'•' Date: c(- U 1
Applicant/Owner: /YL 00 7 s C-) County: W:4w rig, Cc
Investigator: A dc•?, State: /!/•c,
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? e No Community ID:o
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes& Transact ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes & Plot ID: [.t?/J 1 c rr ?1
(If needed. explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum or

Z.l:co:cl?ir b6r ??yh ?: !/ . ! PtL r . 10.
3. il.d.tf?+??ti'1l7w? r F?? 11.
4. 12.
5. L(r°x o n4 c G S' AAc - 13.
6. 14. -

S. t !?'o odc as/: ?, 5;c)c;kc, 14 _FILL,- 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that
C
d
d
FAC are OIL. FACW or
?? r0
(ex
u
ng
-)
FA
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream. Lake or ride Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs -Inundated
_
Other r Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
- Water Marks
20o Recorded Data Available -Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
_Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary indicators (2 or more required):
T
Depth of Surface Water: ?L (in.) _Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: P'l Z. (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: -
i.
i
y

sobs

Map Unit Name- /? L
(Series and Phasel: /" '"'r VC?
Drainage Class:
_ Feld Observations
vt. te EL s I "S Confirm Mapped Type: Yes 4&
Taxonomy (Subgroup)' /?jw; C
Profile Deseriotion•
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Motels Texture. Concretions.
(inchent Horizon (Munsell Moist) ( MU sell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc,
L 6-?J -
cr-)
?? .
pfSLr+ic tJcfia
1-+ ,4 2 5 Y-' `/6 -- .s<< N C4
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosoi _ Concretions
_
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sulfidiic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Sells
_
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Sods List
_
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Sods List
_
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
No (Circle) (Circle)
Yes Cw
Yes to is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes (SP
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
HJL
8/93 -

Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project Name v2 «< ?,x Nearest Road Y-2
County ti/ t F C, , Name of Evaluator Date
Wetland Location Adjacent Land Use (within OS mile upstream)
on pond or lake forested/natural vegetation
on perennial stream agriculture, urban/suburban S.S
on intermittent stream impervious surface S
within interstream divide
1I__I_ other Dominant Vegetation/
1) C. I f. Ji
Soil Series '2)
predominantly organic humus, muck 3) p
C ?, c, • ? - C.r.->
or peat
predominantly mineral, non-sandy Flooding and Wetness
predominantly sandy semi-permanently to permanently
Hydraulic Factors
steep topography
ditched or channelized
wetland width >/= 50 feet
or inundated
? seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface
water
Wetland Type
bottomland hardwood forest
headwater forest
,swamp forest
wet flat
pocosin
Water storage _ j
Bank/Shoreline stabilization r•1
Pollutant removal
Wildlife habitat
Aquatic life value
Recreation/Education
pine savanna
freshwater marsh
bog/fen
ephemeral wetland
other
X' 4 =
X 4
X 5
X 2
X 4
X 1 =
i6
L?
2-V

Total Score
?/

NC 111
Wayne County
Replace Bridge No. 42 over Neuse River Overflow
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-111(5)
State Project No. 8.1331701
T.I.P. No. B-3711
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
o z? 0 2 ?DA Gregory J. orpe, Phd., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch, NCVO'T
Ib g z -Anfa 4z::? /'P-? -
DATE ?p,Pdicholas L. Graf, .E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
1 4

NC 111
Wayne County
Replace Bridge No. 42 over Neuse River Overflow
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-111(5)
State Project No. 8.1331701
T.I.P. No. B-3711
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
October 2002
Document Prepared by:
Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Greg . Purvis, P.E.
Project Manager
ang,-Ph.D., P.E.
?G S.
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
W
_'J?L John Wadsworth, P.E.
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
•`` N CARS ?•,
? ''?.'?
Q?9 F ?
X 'ON
.a a
? 01Z4/az.
NC 111
Wayne County
Replace Bridge No. 42 Over Neuse River Overflow
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-111(5)
State Project No. 8.1331701
T.I.P. No. B-3711
1. BACKGROUND
A Categorical Exclusion for the subject project was approved December 3, 2001. The recommended
alternate was to replace Bridge No. 42 in its existing location as shown by Alternate A in Figure 2.
During construction, traffic would be maintained by a temporary on-site detour. The original preliminary
hydraulics study recommended using a 60 in. (1500 mm) corrugated metal pipe. The temporary detour
structure was later revised to a temporary bridge approximately 305 feet (91.5 meters) in length, located
east of the existing bridge. Subsequent to that time more detailed studies have determined that the
temporary detour bridge should be approximately 110 feet (33 meters) in length. The revised
recommended alternate, Alternative A, is described below.
H. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Mitigation shall be provided for any unavoidable wetland losses.
III. DISCUSSION
Two build alternatives were studied for this project: Alternatives A and B. Both alternatives involved
replacement of the bridge at its existing location. Alternative A included a on-site detour to the east.
Alternative B included an off-site detour.
Alternate A (Preferred) replaces the bridge at the existing location. During construction, traffic would
be maintained by a temporary on-site detour. The temporary detour structure will be a temporary bridge
approximately 110 feet (33 meters) in length, located east of the existing bridge. The length of approach
work will be approximately 475 feet (142.5 meters) on the south side of the bridge and approximately 487
feet (146.1 meters) on the north. side of the bridge.
Alternate B replaces the bridge at the existing location. During construction, traffic would be maintained
by an off-site detour route along SR 1730, SR 1731, and NC 55 that is approximately ten miles (16
kilometers [km]) in length. The length of approach work will be approximately 399 feet (119.7 meters)
on the south side of the bridge and approximately 398 feet (119.4 meters) on the north side of the bridge.
The estimated cost for Alternative A was revised to reflect the changes since the. original Categorical
Exclusion.
Alternate A Alternate B
(Preferred)
Structure Removal (existing) $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Structure (proposed) 235,950 235,950
Detour Structure and Approaches 225,900 0
Roadway Approaches 340,450 330,350
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 372,700 266,700
Engineering and Contingencies 200,000 142,000
ROW/Cont. Easements/Utilities 49,300 26,300

TOTAL $1,449,300 $1,026,300
Plant community areas are estimated based on the amount of each plant community present within the
100 foot (30 meters) projected right-of way width. A summary of potential plant community impacts is
presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1
PROJECTED PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Alternative Impacts
COMMUNITY Acre (Hectare)
PLANT
Alternate A
(Preferred) Alternate B
Cypress Swam Forest 0.40 (0.16) 0.08 (0.03)
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.77 0.31 0.45 0.18
Roadside/ Disturbed Land 1.64 (0.66) 0.01 (0.004)
TOTAL: 2.81(l.13) 0.54 (0.22)
Impacts are based on a 100 foot (30.0 m) right-of-way width.
From an ecological perspective, impacts of upgrading existing road facilities are minimal. Permanent
impacts to natural plant communities resulting from both Alternate A and Alternate B are generally
restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing facility. However, the construction of a temporary
detour and an expanded temporary easement are expected to result in larger impacts for Alternate A (2.81
acre [1.13 hectare]) than Alternate B (0.54 acre [0.22 hectare]). For both Alternates A and B, no
permanent fragmentation of plant communities will be created as the project will result only in alteration
of community boundaries. The majority of impacts to natural plant communities for both alternatives will
be avoided in the long term if temporarily impacted areas are restored to natural contours and planted
with natural vegetation.
Wetlands identified within the project corridor are subject to jurisdictional ^^consideration under Section
404 of th°v Cl°vua?j lixi?ut°vr jivt as ??ut°J of the Vllrted StYteS (?3 fiFR Se:.tr./11 32V.3). These areas are
defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of
hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). NWI
mapping indicates that the floodplain of the Neuse River Overflow exhibits characteristics of a palustrine,
broad-leaved, deciduous forest system that is semipermanently flooded (PFOIA) (Cowardin et al. 1979).
Field investigations indicate that floodplain wetlands do occur in the project corridor and do meet this
general classification. Field investigations indicate that the Neuse River Overflow does not contain
geomorphological features (sinuosity, defined stream channel, and continuous bed and bank)
2
characteristic of jurisdictional streams. The areas of impacted wetlands within the 100-foot (30 meters)
right-of-way are shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2
PROJECTED WETLAND IMPACTS
Jurisdictional Type Alternate A (Preferred) Alternate B
Wetland 0.14 (0.06) 0.05 (0.02)
Areas are depicted in acre ( hectare).
Permanent impacts to vegetated wetlands for both alternatives will consist of narrow strips adjacent to the
existing bridge for both alternatives. However, a larger amount of impacts are associated with Alternate
A (0.14 acre [0.06 hectare]) than with Alternate B (0.05 acre [0.02 hectare]). Upon completion of
construction, temporary impacts associated with construction activities and the temporary alignment are
expected to be restored to pre-project conditions.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will
be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States."
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which may result
in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
3
-a ?.

? w
al-6 on- r St. John ?-+• 1,tj 1727 •;l%•
tnc. ; 9 Ch. 1 }?29 17 1 R 1756
32
915' BRID E N(?:'42 17-3 ' 1733
193©- i+:i (i j 2051
X912 °ah'.•`- :'`,: ? , ' .•,
11 ' 1824 ? '•.

._ _ '
1983 1731
1933 ?i 1741 1734 j
Piney
G-
70 1913 740
,-; 1735 i
?\.._.. - .., 1742
` 1914
1736

1932 1913 1731
,. ...` ,.
1737 i
19 191 d en
2 ,
174 f3 '
Sprinp .
•
- Tn. .........
? SEVE
O ..` t 1744
i N SPRINGS
:t: `
__•
Best \1742
: .

1744,
.. N 739
chp. 1948 1949 1744 .17
1
, 1 1 1
Wayne
Chcy-.1
' 1915
1 950 745 '
17 1
i9
- 746 '
S 1745 1$4 i
1 55 17 1748!
1745
L
' } 1948 17 i
V
wnunrs 1iS52
, 1 51 1746
.. ' ,• -
i
,
POrw ` 1953 17 2
-...
... i
-
745
1932
- Y 948 1954 1749 i
..:175
`SF^' ' -l % 55 1955' `l 1750
/ i
-
54
` I'1
?48
19
\ `•.'?
'
1746
t

17 957
1754
%
1739
,..
?
^,
?'icrE:?.i•
,`,' ?
?
• ? ?
•. '.1':
•?..
c

.,
,
y
17
•'•?
wt

o T ? A } 1.. ?.' ? $tsn loashu!
_ -,
1 s ;: 1 0
3 4
MILES
,
..
Belle :
1 0 1 2 4 6 KILOMETERS
E rub
PxM,M'r ? ?yexci
?
I
nr leve! [t mile ' SCALE
6
1 1 - PrMCelon lIT Pete III
i ? r ?' r +re S Is Ian
TM. 7d a ?};. 5 ,} `76
I oro •
LEGEND
Studied Detour
.g__..+ w Af$?AI '-' Route
?r. l3
am 17 Itl 'S 1 w
e?
1
cEanth
G
M
cud ?? - - '
it CrAVe ? 4 ..11.
"mrsvorse 7
81
7 ` 11, -
NORTH C4ROLM4
DEPARTMENT OF T IMNSPORTAT70N
r PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
WAYNE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 42 ON NC 111
OVER NEUSE RIVER OVERFLOW
TIP NO. B-3711
VICINITY MAP FIGURE I

`? 1 O / 3

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
September 27, 2004
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 24699-1652
Dear Sir:
Subject: The Replacement of Bridge No. 42
Wayne County, Fe e Aid Project
8.1331701,: ivision 4.
ct ?_( re
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Q?@ R onr,---l p
SEP 2 9 2004
DM - WATER Qt1AUrY ,
WEiMMAMSTQRNVit MOPMOI
over Neuse River Overflow on NC 111,
No. BRSTP-111(5), State Project No.
NCDOT requests that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) provide
confirmation that we are willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the above-mentioned
project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the
USACE, the NCDENR, and the NCDOT. Bridge No. 42 will be replaced in existing location
with a new bridge approximately 110 feet in length with a 32-foot, 10-inch clear roadway width.
The bridge will have two 12-foot travel lanes. The new approach roadway will match the bridge
width. The new bridge will have a design speed of 60 mph.
There are jurisdictional wetlands associated with this project with impacts totaling 0.12 acres and
mitigation is required. Surface waters will not be permanently impacted by the construction of
the bridge.
We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible as described in the permit application. A copy of the permit application can be found at
http://www.ncdot.org/plannino/pe/naturalunit/Applications.html. The remaining impacts to
jurisdictional resources will be compensated for by mitigation provided by the EEP program. We
estimate that 0.12 acres of riverine Cypress-Gum Swamp forest will be impacted.
The project is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic.Province in Wayne County in the Neuse
River basin in Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 03020202.
Please send the letter of confirmation to Mike Bell at U. S.. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office, P.O. Box 1000, Washington, NC 27889-1000. Mr. Bell's
FAX number is [phone]. The current let date for the project is December 21, 2004 for
which the let review date is November 22, 2004.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANsK)PTA rloN FAX: [phone] TPA r ISPOR rA rloN BUILDING
PPOJECT DEVi'LOPMENT AND Eiix oNMSNrr-I. At JALY'X, 1 SnurH WiuAiPjGror! SmEET
1548 MAIL SERVr.E CENTER WEB,IrE: WWW.NCDOr.ORC RALeIGH NC
RAID(m NC 27x;99-154%:

In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed, the NCDWQ
requires a formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the
mitigation work requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests such a letter of
confirmation be addressed to Mr. John Hennessy of NCDWQ with copies submitted to
NCDOT.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Underwood at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. orpe, PhD, Environmental Management Director
P
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ
Ms. Nicole Thompson, DWQ
Mr. Mike Bell, USACE
Bruce Ellis, NCDOT
1W
M 1TAit 4?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 24699-1652
Dear Sir:
September 27, 2004
Subject: The Replacement of Bridge No. 42
Wayne County, Federal Aid Project
8.1331701, TIP B-3711, Division 4.
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
212to?oec,p
SEP 2 9 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
VIETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
over Neuse River Overflow on NC 111,
No. BRSTP-111(5), State Project No.
NCDOT requests that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) provide
confirmation that we are willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the above-mentioned
project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the
USACE, the NCDENR, and the NCDOT. Bridge No. 42 will be replaced in existing location
with a new bridge approximately 110 feet in length with a 32-foot, 10-inch clear roadway width.
The bridge will have two 12-foot travel lanes. The new approach roadway will match the bridge
width. The new bridge will have a design speed of 60 mph.
There are jurisdictional wetlands associated with this project with impacts totaling 0.12 acres and
mitigation is required. Surface waters will not be permanently impacted by the construction of
the bridge.
We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible as described in the permit application. A copy of the permit application can be found at
http://www.ncdot.org_/plannino e/naturalunit/Apl)lications.htrnL The remaining impacts to
jurisdictional resources will be compensated for by mitigation provided by the EEP program. We
estimate that 0.12 acres of riverine Cypress-Gum Swamp forest will be impacted.
The project is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province in Wayne County in the Neuse
River basin in Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 03020202.
Please send the letter of confirmation to Mike Bell at U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office, P.O. Box 1000, Washington, NC 27889-1000. Mr. Bell's
FAX number is (252)'975-1335. The current let date for the project is December 21, 2004 for
which the let review date is November 22, 2004.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPr)RTA TIpN FAX: [phone] TRA.w;PriR r A rION BVII_DIIIr,
PROlEC r DE'/FLOP(AENT ANU ErmpowAEN (A I. ANAT. (%1` 1 S01 J (H W I(JAIN ; rr) S rRFET
15148 MAII SFRVICE CEHTFR WEBSITE: WWW.NCDorow, RALF I ,II NC
RALU m NC 27699-1548
-%? V
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed, the NCDWQ
requires a formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the
mitigation work requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests such a letter of
confirmation be addressed to Mr. John Hennessy of NCDWQ with copies submitted to
NCDOT.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Underwood at
[phone].
Sincerely,
r
Gregory J. orpe, PhD, Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ
Ms. Nicole Thompson, DWQ
Mr. Mike Bell, USACE
Bruce Ellis, NCDOT