20070682 Ver 1_Application_20070419

e µ STATE
n ~„,
+~.. n
'~ a.~. ~'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 16, 2007
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Attention: Mr. William Wescott
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
'vl'~E~`j~. < O
S,qN~ s v.r ~h ~a~
D
br ~~'~i~
~Ryr~',9T~~~~N
cy
/~~~~~~ ~~.
~'r
/~~/~j~ % C %~
~~~
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
0'~~~~
Subject: General Permit 31 Application and Neuse River Buffer Authorization
Request for the Replacement of Bridge No. 151 on SR 1722 over Little River
in Johnston County. Federal Project No. BRZ- 1722[2], State Project No.
8.2312801, TIP No. B-3863, Debit $ 200.00 from WBS Element 33309.1.1
Please find enclosed the Pre-Construction Notification form (PCN), permit drawings,
Categorical Exclusion (CE), Natural Resource Technical Report (NRTR), and half-size plan
sheets for the above referenced project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) proposes to replace existing Bridge No. 151 on SR 1722 over the Little River
(DWQ Index # 27-57-(8.5) in Johnston County. The project involves replacement of the
existing 106-foot structure with a 195-foot bridge at approximately the same location using
top-down construction. The approach roadway will consist of two 11-foot travel lanes with
one 3-foot minimum offset on the north side of the bridge and one 7-foot minimum offset on
the south side of the bridge. Permanent impacts will consist of <0.01 acre of to wetlands
adjacent to Little River, and 4,795 ft2 of riparian buffer. Traffic will be detoured off-site,
along surrounding roads, during construction.
Impacts To Waters of the United States
General Description: The project is located in sub-basin 03-04-06 of the Tar-Pamlico River
Basin. A best usage classification of "WS-V NSW ' has been assigned to Little River.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or
WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds), listed Section 303(d) impairments, nor
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of project study area.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
154$ MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

Little River is not designated 'as a North Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a National
Wild and Scenic River.
Permanent Impacts: Little River and adjacent wetlands will be impacted by the proposed
project. Construction of the proposed project will result in a permanent impact of < 0.01
acre from fill, excavation, and mechanized clearing in wetlands (see permit drawings).
Temporary Impacts: Two temporary work bridges will be constructed in the same location as
the existing Bridge No. 151. These bridges will be required to minimize impacts to
jurisdictional waters during construction. Temporary work bridge pile types and driving
methods will be determined during construction by the contractor. The work bridges will be
constructed at the elevation and location shown on the permit drawings. It is assumed that
the contractor will begin construction of the proposed work bridges shortly after the date of
availability for the project.
Utility Impacts: There will be no impacts to jurisdictional resources due to utility relocation.
Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules
This project is located in the Neuse River Basin; therefore, the regulations pertaining to the
buffer rules apply. There will be a total of 4,795 ft'` of impacts to riparian buffers. This
includes (3,547 ft` in Zone 1 and 1,248 ft' in Zone 2) due to the bridge crossing. According
to the buffer rules, bridges are allowable. Uses designated as allowable may proceed within
the riparian buffer provided that there are no practical alternatives to the requested use
pursuant to Item (8) of this Rule. All practicable measures to minimize impacts within
buffer zones were followed. These uses require written authorization from the N.C. Division
of Water Quality (NCDWQ).
Bridge Demolition
The existing bridge consists of timber piles with steel girders and a concrete superstructure
with an asphalt-wearing surface. The bridge can be removed without dropping components
into Waters of the United States during construction. Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal will be followed to avoid any temporary fill from entering Waters
of the United States
Avoidance and Minimization
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
"Waters of the United States". Due to the presence of surface waters and wetlands within the
project study area, avoidance of all impacts is not possible. The NCDOT is committed to
incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize
jurisdictional impacts. Minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project
design these included:
• NCDOT is replacing Bridge No. 151 in place with a longer bridge and utilizing an
off-site detour.
• The bridge will be built using top-down construction.
• NCDOT is utilizing longer spans with fewer bents than the existing bridge.
• NCDOT will follow stream-crossing guidelines for anadromous fish passage,
including in-water work moratorium from February 15 to.June I5.
NCDOT T1P B-3863 Page 2 n/ 4

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was consulted concerning the effect of
project construction on the dwarf wedgemussel and Tar spinymussel. The USFWS
concurred in the biological conclusion that project construction is "Not Likely to
Adversely Affect" the dwarf wedgemussel or the Tar spinymussel and the NCDOT
will implement the conservation measures below:
1. Use a bridge that will yield the longest spans practicable to reduce impacts to
aquatic live.
2. If bridge bents are necessary, NCDOT will place the bents at the edge of the
water (not in the center) to minimize permanent and temporary impacts.
3. This project is located in an Environmentally Sensitive Area. All special
procedures for clearing, grubbing, seeding, and mulching will apply.
4. If heavy equipment is used along the stream bank, a clean rock or timber
workpad will be utilized to support the equipment.
5. Bents from the existing structure should be cut at the mudline.
6. Special sediment control fence is not practicable, clearing and grubbing should
not occur during the non-growing season (November through March,
UDSA/SCS, Johnston County Soil Survey, 1983).
7. Due to the proximity of a federally protected species, all unstabilized areas of the
project within the fifty foot riparian buffer area will be temporarily stabilized
during active grading utilizing erosion control blankets, fabric, plastic, or other
material(s), approved by the Roadside Environmental Unit, prior to any rain
event, as directed by the Engineer on site. The temporary stabilization should
adequately anchored and utilized to prevent the loss of adequately designed
sediment basin or until the area is stabilized with vegetation.
8. If construction has not started before June 2006, additional mussel surveys should
be completed.
9. An off-site detour will be used.
Mitigation
Due to the low amount of proposed impacts, NCDOT is not proposing mitigation for this
site. The new bridge will be 89 feet longer and therefore improving hydraulic flow.
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for riparian buffer impacts because impacts due to
bridges do not require mitigation.
Federal Protected Species
As of March 23, 2007, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists one federally
protected species for Johnston County. The following table lists this species. A copy of the
USFWS concurrence letter for the Tar spinnymussel and dwarf wedgemussel is included in
the CE in this application.
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Conclusion
Red-cockaded Wood ecker Picoides borealis E No No Effect
Bald ea le Haliaeetus leucoce halus E No No Effect
Tars in ussel Elli do steinstansana E Yes MANLAA
Dwarf wed emussel Alasmidonta heterodon E Yes MANLAA
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E Yes No Effect
Note: E -endangered MANLAA -May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect
NCDOT T!P B-3863 Page 3 0/ 4

Project Schedule
The project has a scheduled let of July 17, 2007 with a review date of May 29, 2007.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: All aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion". The NCDOT requests that these activities be
authorized by a General Permit 31.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3627 and will apply to
this project. All general conditions of the Water Quality Certifications will be met.
Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and 15A NCAC 2B.0200 we
are providing 5 copies of this application to the NCDWQ, for their review and approval.
Neuse River Basin Buffer Authorization: NCDOT requests that the NCDWQ review this
application and issue a written approval for a Neuse River Riparian Buffer Authorization.
A copy of this permit will be posted on the NCDOT web site
http://www.doh.dot. state.nc.us/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.html
Thank you for your time and assistance with this project. Please contact John Merritt at
[e-mail] or [phone] if you have any questions or need any additional
information.
Sincerely,
IQ -~~<~
~'~' Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Cc: W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (5 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Richard E. Greene, P.E., Division 4 Engineer
Mr. Jamie Guerrero, Division 4 Environmental Officer
W/o attachment
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. John Williams ,PDEA
NCDOT T/P B-3863 Page 4 of 4

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: GP 31
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe PhD Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Ralei>;h NC
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 8

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
Name of project:
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3863
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Johnston Nearest Town: Wendell
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.):
Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.7717 °N -78.3120 °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Little River
8. River Basin: Neuse
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/adminlmapsi.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Rural with forested areas and scattered residential and
farms.
Page 2 of 8

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Replacement of the existing bridge structure with a 195-foot bridge at approximately the
same location and roadway elevation of the existing structure using top-down construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The bridge is considered to be structurally
deficient and functionally obsolete and the replacement will result in safer traffic operations.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USAGE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.LP. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Construction of the Rroposed project
will result in a permanent impact of < 0.01 acre from fill excavation, and mechanized clearing in
wetlands.
Page 3 of 8

2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year Nearest Impact
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) Floodplain Stream (acres)
(yes/no) (linear feet)
Site No. I Mechanized Clearing Successional wetland Yes 50 <0.01
Site No. I Permanent fill Successional wetland Yes 50 <0.01
Site No. I Excavation Successional wetland Yes 50 <0.01
Total Wetland Impact (acres) <0.01
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.5 acre
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number

(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width

Before Im act Impact
Length

(linear feet) Area of
Impact

(acres)
N/A

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 0 0
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
(indicate on map) ocean, etc.) (acres)
N/A
Total Open Water Impact (acres)
Stream Impact (acres): 0.0
Wetland Impact (acres): <0.01
Open Water Impact (acres): 0.0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) <0.01
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Page 4 of 8

7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Use of an off-site detour
during construction, construction of a 89-foot lon eg r bridge, Best Management Practices will
also be utilized during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the new bridge.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in .determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
Page 5 of 8

and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http:!/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stm~~ide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Due to the limited impacts, NCDOT is not proposing compensato mitigation.
Hydraulic flow will be improved by len hening the bridge by 89 feet.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into tie North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.statc.nc.us/wip/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether aNEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
Page 6 of 8

X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), I SA NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ® No ^
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
* Impact Required
Zone ,.,~„~_, r ~,~ Multiplier n,r.,~,,.,.~,,.,
1 3,547 3 (2 for Catawba) 0
2 1,248 1.5 0
Total I 4,795 I 0
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zonc 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stotmwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. Lateral base ditch with permanent soil
reinforcement mat.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 7 of 8

XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
N/A
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Nli~/o7
Applica~ht/Agent's Signature t Daie
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

13-SEP-200~i 09:55
r.\N..Arn~d nn\nwrmi4\A~AC.'R MvA nrm r.rAf_AAn
9/ /
beGr~Cerson ~Af~~HY2'~1~44 -~~'--~~ ------- --~
WBS: 33309.1.1 TIP PROJECT: B-3863
w w
0 0 0
~ ~ ~~
T Z
~ ~ ~ ~ O
T
r~ O n m i ~P~~ •• ` cn
'~ '_ y ~ N ° ~' B ~
o Q o o O ~ ,i0• cn ~
z ~ ~ ~ ~~ y'~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ti 1' c~ D
o Gk` ~
0 o v n 1 '~. c~d:~.
~ G,~•. ~
!~ \ , ~ k
-i p c c ~ 70 "C j °
n ~<-iv<tNi~c°n ~ ~ ~~r„ ~
- ~
~, u n u n n° x ~~ ~.~ ~ m -°oa~., gy
II C~ w c ~ N~ a ~
o
p N~~~Xg a r ~'" N ~~~~•
o,~o~,~ p
r ~ ~ yq'E, ,~ ^ ''O; ~O
~~~ _
SR X22 \`\\ \\\ ~o
m
Z ~~ ~ a
~ O Z ~\~~ ~ ~ - ~
Q ~~ ~~
~ C v ~ \~ \~
~ C
O O O y ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - _ ~ ~ ~ ~j ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ 0 -' ~ ~
o ~ ~®
w t~.s w ~ ao 5 ~ ~ ~ ~
\__ ~~~
U U II -- ~
000 ~ ~ ~ ~ c y ~ y ~~
Nam _ ~ ~~ o ®®
w V O. m
a ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~
H
n ~a
~ ~ ~ ~ rn ~ \~. ~~ ~
V r~ ~ ( '
` /\y\J q `
~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ b
~~~ n ~ ~ ~
~o
N~ ~ ~~ rn y~ ~ C ~
$~ ~J ;,tea I I ~ ~~ ~, ~ ~
~x$ > iii ~ n~ O
~ II
~~~ ~ ~ ~~
II rn
y
O n ~ ~ I I ~ ~ Vj
y m ~~ ° N
II
ao~ aornn
~ ~ O= ~~r Z
v,~ ~~z
~~ ~ ~~ Ova C!1 ~
N ~ ~ +aqA:' ~ ~w . .,~+ "`~` ~f ~ v'~~ ,~ ~ ~~' 14,.E ~ t ~'. ~' ~' a
t • ~ ~ ~'.~. 1r $ 0
~ f w Vv
yyb •~.. Z m~ h`am' ~ iKrv~ ~'-1k°~i~ r~ r~s ~' :' '~.~ ~ 7~0
t~l~ 'L7 Ny ~ ~~~.' J.~' L (~~~r-. r~r4a ~~v ~ w
Al
• ~' ~ "" `L ~ r r ~* ~ ~, ~ ,•;~ ice; s ~ +t"a j ~'' '''
~x c ~ ~ 2 Tyr ,~ ,1" ti ~. - ~~ ,a. ,~ r~~ ' ~ E .. r' q If
i }ZT f
~ ~ corn E ' _ , y~ 1( t ~ ..
~~ .-
;o C 3 - ~ ~---3
O~ `~ C" W ....'.-~~ ~ s +' ~ tv~ W 5 w'~i'+r•.~» ~v'4 ~~ m h'+ a~
vs r 4 r ' 7.Y, ~ j e
x 7i s

Iltvlslorrs
0l -07 extended the proposed cpnstructlon eosemeM pt tM Geq/nn/ny pf tM profed on d>9 rlgH side of the ollgnmeM to tle
wt h the puler /lmlts of the proposed r1pH of woy of slolion 15+00.
_• a
N t~
n
r
u
~•
0
0
in z
r
~~ H
m ~
a
~`
~~~~
WpppS
V ~~ H
3~
O h
am
~~
T~
0
yy
~ ~` QQ~
I
S
r b i
i
o
C1~
~ l
~~
O I
Y
8 ~
~

~k~ ~ f4
\\ ~\ ~' .
\\\ `\ \k\
\~ \~
.. .. ~
\\ \\~ ~~ ~S,gCp
\\~\ ~~ !
t" ~ o \
0
a~~ ~
~' ~
~~~ R~ D
o ~ ~
I g ug Z
Fc ~ v
~o ~ ~ F 1
_~ ~ a
r-
O -A
K
-1
m
V 4
Q`~ .V
?~ i
~~~opv
r r r Y r
W O
A
v-vi ~~'•^~Q3
~~
yN`"
Inj Iii .~..
vltn rn~~~oD~ >,-I~oD~
luurrrv„~ rrrrry
~~ ~lai~'~rl~'iR~ ~ ~~~~y~
IV *~y. tit
1 I ~~~1(N~~p1 I ~~ f~~Vt
~r ~~w ~~°
1 ~ }~
~$ ~ ~($
~~
~ c~ i
~~tj rn xo
(it 2 ~ Z o ~ ~o
A ~ L~ sa° ~ O
~ y ~ ~
n0 nl ~ m
z~~ ~ 14
Z
D (7
O
~-
OJ ~
_
~O
T ~
~+~ 1 }
°m D ~ M
Q N
L ~ r
}
~

ti
N
i ,~ ~'
D ~
O ~ yi
~i~ T ~ s
os• uln.

~
a
cc D
~
LO' Max. } K ~ n
~ cn o o g = _
:O
~~^`
e
~ ~ ~~
o0
~
~

~~ ~Im
,, ~ ° H }
} ~,
*.~ a °° * ~i~~
. +"
1

O ~~
R'

v
e o n
/ P n 'n Z
\ ~ ~~ frrl R<-1 ~ N
S o+ < f -1
I ga = ~o
~ tom
~ ~ o'ooD
v ~r
eQm
F ; ~
~~ T ~ S
g; ~ rEmo
a~ ggI~~ ~ ~~ ~~_
fly n o u+ o 0
{ ~ T T
1
~~
q~r T
to 2 I
•°' A ~
~~~~p
~$~= d
11
3
' ~,_ ~
Y
M K
gg
Al
k ~

~

~ :
S
T
} ~ ~
o
~
}
8 ~
~n-a °

o v ~ u D

T
G'
..~
6
r
I I
i ~
~ /h
2
~
~ ~
o ~ ~ ~

Y lo' lo'

~ ~
~

r; ~ 1
Z
~
a I
~ CD
~p
~
~
~~
~ i ~;
~ rn r
I
~
~Zr2
(•-r• 10' 10' 2'-II' 1 1
~ ~
~ P p

33'-
0'
V ~D
~

UT T
OU _

°
x ~ ~

b 20
O =~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~
rn
~ rn
N ~ r ~
rn
~ o~- o y 8 ~ €>~ I
> _ 7D
"~ T ~ rn N
a° ~ rn N
:,~ ~° 3 ~
~ ~ 5 m
Z $
--~
• ~
1 •
s
N~
~s ~
r~- ~ r •
O
O Z ~ Z
~ o z o
o -+
~~ ~~ ~m ~~
r~ mm
~m z~ ~~
~•~ G7 = ~ f Z D
D ~D
Z ..,~
IV ~
m z
0

~~
~w
«~
ol~ ~~ r 2
I D
Ln to n ~'^y
_$ A i ~~
m
N ~ ~~
N ^ N
C r
y ~
2
.~ ~ ~ ,
Q o I ~ N
m s • ~ ~
m
II IB91~
L
~; ` ~ ~
n. ~ g~
~ ~
a ~~
p I4 ~ ~ ~
~ ~" s
~u i x ~~
~ I i
g~
m
~~
M
~~_~= µ ~
} y ~ H.

-• g
~ ~ ~ ~ v.
T ~ s
4 ~' ~
o ~~ D
~ o
'~' ~ q ~ 4
n
V K O 4 =
+ f
g i u°
z~~
~
~
i r
^
~

3 ~
~~
a
3 v
"~
~~ ~}pn
s

~w~~ .i
~ obn°
ww.
..oo
~' f~a
p
N
A
~~
V
20
01 ~_~ ~ ~ k 1t ~ ~
~ W µ W Q
~~ ~ k k k ~ 3X
~~
~ ~ z
~~
~Y '•$
~~ _~ ~
~~ 4
I
'1
,oe~eoz ~
1 • ~-~M AZ,ILW N
M
S~
~r
~z
:.~
z -C
~r
z
A
4
4

~nsloNs
0/ 6-07 exleMed the propgsed conslrudion easement of the beq/nnirg of the proJed on the r9ghl side of the ollgnmenl to t/e
w! h the puler /!mils of fhe proposed rlyH of way of sfollon l5 F00.
-t
w~

i
~~~
~
~
~ °
8 ~
O

®~ I s
2 Z ~ Z
~ F m
•°~ ~ ~ D
$
n p ~
K ~i
D r-
'TI

„ ~ ~ zz
* D (7
I ~g m°
b I o _~ ~
~~ 1 ~
a I Nm P ~ o
•1i
r N
0
o I~ Q ~ o

y
~~ d ~ ~ _
o I g :
N O .y y
-
.~ 8 C m~ t c ~~
s

' ~ ~ o ~` 0.5'Min. p
~ ~` l0' Maz. ~
~

+ a
N
i ~ `~ NO
~ k ~ ~ V1 a oo = _
~ \ k 'a~
~
~
~ ~ cr° ..
yy
\
\
~

O ~~
' ~ A ~ •''
II
'
~ G
f
~ I
~ r N
rn x

V1
Z N o
2
~ F o
0
~w ~
N
~ o ~
i
.
c
2 ~
l
8''~'^'
o ~ ao N
8 00 * '
x A ~
~ ~.
I ~ A
S
IdbB ,,, ~
f 1/ o~
r yeX 7'----r_
$$ Sa -
Q ~ .e1tr~ I
N ~ 1. .. ..
~
om
W p !n
r
o ~'" H
O ~'ai i ~ ~~
8~ $ ~~
rt
R.1
y
~~_ _ ~~x,~ . 1
o ~
wOpas
8~
y ~
ti
a ~~
O
m
~° v
~O
0
O N
O N
N
v 4
p`~%.v
?~
>,~~oD~
rrrrr4
0
H~ ~~~~~~
~m ~N~
rnimi y~`"
y y ~
vlu, rn~~rOD~ ~~tl`ODa
~~ Iluilrrry rrrrr~
,A u1 vo w ~~~o
~~ ~~~~~tjv?~ ~ ~~~~~~
~~ ~ ~~
..
a

s~ o - x
"' ~ >~
m
~ ~ u ~~
+ ~s-1 ~ ~~
~ ~ ° D m
T ~- r m t, ~/~'~
~+ ~ _= I p 1 0 iC
0
'fib P~ Pro

lo' lo'
Y
~
MM
~'V
o
~
I
~]
a i Z ~' ~
p
j~
~
~~~~

~
r
~~~ I
~
1
ply
6'-II'
10'
10' r2r2
2'-II' I 1
P ~ ~
QI p
33'- 0•
UT T OU

~a

y

' 8~ ~ "' `~ ~ ''
Q =~ $ ~ ~
rn ~~ ~ ~
~• ~ rn
r ~ rn
N
T
~ o ~.- ~~n 8 ~€>~ Z 1 0
aD ~ N
+ ° N b ' ~ L, ~ Rl
rn
~ ~ ~y
y N >
~~ " ~ rn ~
~~ Z ~ a
~ y
M y (~
i
+i ~
.. ~''
f0 O ~
m m z
O oz z o
UJ w ~ g° Zm
~. ~~ ~~ F~
Cw~p n3 ~ mm
~m z~ ~-cX-,
n o r- D
GZ7 D r ~ ~
D
ti, ~, z .-I
m Z
0

:~
\ ~
1
A
i
9 p
1
~~ C / _
u
~ r 2
<
~
m
N
' ~ m ~
'

~ °
So ~ z
v~
tom
1

~r ~ ~ ass
iiNr
m
cam
~~ E
s
~
x
a
~; ~ r = m O e
*
S Flo .Q
z ~i I~ C
o u~ c o ]G
~ Y rt
m
,oe'eoz ~
AZ.17~01 N
~g
l Ny ~QJ~
5 y ^ G y
t ~ -+ s
'u 4 ~s~
+ ni D
ro ~~ ~ -
a
~ ~ ~ ~~
T ~
V O~
~~ _
8 ~ G~
N ' .I
ti y. $~Q~
ti ~7+y
s~
L j
a~
r
~
~F
n
3
~ p '~
Eo

_
"
V Om~?
r
.
~ ~ibc° i
~ y ~ 0
rt
H.
N
a

r
t 2
o
~~
~"'i o
Z ~~
N ~ as
~

~~
~
y
2 I _11- II
I H
- - - - - -
.IO•of
IY91~
I ~ o
1 . = -
V I Tj A I~.I ::::i::~~(' Z
r /v :: ' :/
8 hq ::#:~. ~'
~ ~ z r„ ...
s~ N~ ~.
., .::
;a ~ z `~"
~ ~ ~?-
~ 8~'.
~ ~ ~ ~r ~~'
- xz ~~.
I r!
`O` 1
X41
1
CBI
v~ 2 I
o p
P ~~ ~ ?
a$~? a
$" ~~
r
0
SI
~~ ~
i
2Fyj <
7 i~ A
k
~ k
k k
:~ k k
k k k
k k
k
p
9 0'~
y A
C'1
I V
k k k
k k

0
I
k k A
k k
k
k k k
~~

~
~
~~ Q
Q
R
n C4i

~~ ~~
~ ~5

~i

4
0
0
a
0
Q
~~
Orn
~~
~O
m~
N~
A
~~
-rn
Z~
~~

'~
'~

~c
m o m
z r~ z
o z o

~ o
~ ~' -~
z

n m
~~ --~
~ m
~ m
~ ~
m
D~ ~
D~ mm
.~X

~ D
C~= r D
z
D
z
H ~~
H z
N
m '-'
°
o z
v
~ ~.
~~
r
c~
~~
~~~
z

~~
Q < (.~
~~~
~ ~
O
£~
A~

ESSS45S3SS$$

i _
o~alrsOns`pAT HY2215443_hy0_prm_buf.dpn
WBS: 33309.1.1
TIP PROJECT.• 8-3863
O? -<R+~
cv~ 3~~
~~ ~~z
_~
~~ ~m~
m^'
N~ pD
Z
'
_O .~
~
Z
~ =?
~^ ,
!
m
r~
_ 0

? ~ _
Z y
-'~ [rn~
f1
m
$m
~ ~ ~• Z ~~
'
,,
~ ~ 0 -~ N r ~'.

~K
O
tQ
Z m m
~ ~y
> il!
~ _
n ~~.~.R
S~ N ~
y i
i
xz

y
r .
'~.
~_
f•
:'t
.~
~p~ ,~,~,
N ~
C 0~
~ ~0~ ~
N , `
W y.
~ ~~0 1~
s ~~
n ~ '~. ~~~oG~
Rd ''
__ ~ ~
I ~ - oa
m
a to N ~'~
i-- 3~. ~o
O ~ a
- - a
_, ~ a
~~
i
N
~ ~
a
o
0 c
' ~~
~~ ~~
~~ ~
~~
~a ~~
v
v
/^~~
VJ
y ~
~~ o
~~
~~ z
r~
~b
0
c
N
N
E ~"~3 "fir
~,~ ~~ ~
~~~
b e J
.t rn
~',•s -1
r - r~
C
D
`_
~Z
41/
to
0
z
of
z
~ ~
~~
;~
o~
J ~
O l'
3~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
I~
`F~~'9
r
V/
iii
v
m
Z
O
m
y
m
v
O
C
`-f~ __

rtensloNs
~~ ~~ _
Cam' ~ " h ;
~~ a ~
-•
0
\ \
I w~ b~ \\
\\` \
0
~~~~5
O
o ~~ /
N
°o, "
.o a
~qO~
O
S°r~+
~~
'"~~ ;F _ _
- I i~
~ i .g NAD 83
~ io
~~n t 8
t I O NN r 1
° I~ G~ r ~ y
Y = ~ ~ n
i ~
c U ~ D r
O C
b ~~ r yg. `•
\ \ ~C o ~ LO'4ax. ~L } O C n to
\\\ \ k ~ L6scn ro n° x o
\ \ ~X I/ s2 ~ oo n
\ ~ \ ~ p^~`
-. .. \ ~ ~5v T1
\ 111 VI
\~ \~ ~ 3gcp ~~_ ` ~ VI
\ ~ ~~
\\ \~.~
~
u a
o n

r
h "
~ °
~
g
Z
~
m
s < $
m
N
<
~m
/ a
~ ~ y

~ 8° o
~~°m
'oy

~ ams
'^
r
v r
o
~ N
4!
F
xx 0~
yy x
G~ , ~ r F m O
aF ~Ig ~ o in o b
~ T T T
~\ \~
r! m ~ \ \ ~
I
ads
~~>
~~ ~
e ~
~~ gz
®~ ~F m
r
n q ~ T
K ~1 Z
-~ < p
F~
(~ l ~ g ~ y ~ ~4~•
~I ~ c ~ a o H +>

w
°
,
*
a~
a ~
~~-,

G.I ~
V O}
`~ y
O 4l
~•
d * oT
~6 N I oV
f ~
~ . ~~•~
~YYYf
~ ~ ~ s

~ N
N N +
~
O
~
I O
. ~ O ~\ ~

' I
S
~
'o
68+U
,~
10
m
Q~
I
O
C ~°~~SaA
a U 1
~ A
~ I
r
1
~~ {

w ~~ L~
p ~

~ ~

1

3W
O ~~
t
r
O ~'
I
~ ~ O
1 ~tI ~
A I
N\I = r
~ ~V ~ ~
Q~~~p
00 $~a
~$II ~~
t z
`'
it as
7
/~
a ~
H
~y~
q0' O
~+ ~~~oDv
4 Y Y Y Y ~
O
Z ~~~0
R1Rt ~~~
mm== y~v`"
y ~ ~
tnul ~~~~rOD~ ~-I~OD~
11 ~1 Y II nI~I, 11 Y Y YN,. M Y Y Y Y
~~ ~n,cS~~~lq° ~ ~~~~~o
V # V
l..r t
~~ ~ ~~
C
.. I. L, k k k
Z -.. ~F !r k
k ~I(
m ~ ~ k
k k
O~ k
' O k ~~-a kZ k' k
t! ;~ Q ~ k k k k
, TIL~ pp~ a ~ k
1 A ~~ k• k k
I
I
~r ~
y 2 I R1 x o
0 y = ~€' ~ O
~~A~ L~~~r O ~
~~n
y ~ ~ •~ l
2 ~ ~-.` ~ 1
~ }
I
g ~ >~s~
v ~ u D
G'' ~ I ~x-
g c
~ b
S
5 Qy~
6y } Q
t ~ a4
v.
$ ~n-~ b' v
v ° D 8 v ~ ~s-7
T ~__ ~ ~ D
y _
+ ~ ~ x r !9 Ls
8 + ~ F
-i in u° O 9
° ~ ;. b
4 ~ ~~
~ -~~t
r-
v
~a
~~
p.tp
~~
To a pI 0 x-
ia r
~ F~
u ~
s
az~~
~ p ~~~
~ ~ ~
A ~ s
~
o

$~ 3
v ~
~ LO ~m
O ~m $ ~ ~ n~ x +.
RB
N ~ ° ~ .
y
y
N= x /
r rn
I ~
y ~
An
N

D D
r r-
r r-
O p
~ ~
D D
~ W
r r-
m m
~ 3
D ~
n n
-~ --I
~ ~
N N
O
m
N "-
r~
W
a~i
~+J
$ O1 x m
~ ~C~~
~£^ ,oe•eoz ~
~~ ~ ~ .OtA2.0{ N
8~
ti
e ~:^
0o0
I ~ Z
=4n k k k k
k~ k k k k k pn O
k k C Jtc
k k k o
~ H
~$
a~ ~ _
R ~g
~ -I ~~ ~ N
° ".~~'~ L~ g '' g
ly " ~ r 2
I1~ I O
I I ~~
~
N

` •~ C
y
~
2

ot. I y N
g n{I
N N a

I~ _
' ~ 1 {
II af
10
IB'9~• .
.IOAS.00 N
0
a I ~~ 9
_ PoT lo. 2 +000/
A
~i
iri ~.
I
i $~
~~ I a
~ R
~
~u
~
m
~ - ~
1 I
~
~Q O
#
I

~ ^
=
f
~
~m a
^
s ~n,
g
N
~ g~
t r s
u ~p 6s~
+ D
~~ ~ -
T ~ *~ r Q
~` _
+ ~
g 7~ p o
r ~ ~
~~
H
Z
xsti
O d r
w s
H
A
~~a
p ~~-
Q
°~~~ .i
Obo~
!ly~r
~yGG
^
tl
m
~~
pp
O
~ti
~~
a~
S'

~ i
REVI510NS
-.
N p
A
pr
u~ S
0
0
0
Ivcmu6~gdgn
$~
~^ tc
~ ~~~~ ~°
~~ ~~ ~ i .g NAD 83
w ~ N -i $
i 4~ryy\Ym.z _ ~~ _
X~ m D
..
\ _ o ~_ ~
pp0
`+a)y,~ Ai '4\ \ ~ ~~ .. _ ~ 0.5' Yin. --1 b
a \ ~^~;
~ Y
\ \ k ~ ~. r~N a V s o
T y
tip .." .. - .:.:.: \ \ ~ ~ ~.
\~ ~ ~-. g
S~
gR
3
h
a
qO~
0
Oti \ \ ~.\ .. :.. O
v ~
~ O
T
O p~
~~ q ~ m D

Z
<

N
>I a'+ <
o ~ tL

~ g° 0
~~°m
v1

r ~ O
~ ass
in> r
1
~~ E >
~
~

; J ml
~GI*1
y
]
7
E! g*
~
~ >< m v y
x
~

3Iq a
~ y
° N o b L
T ~I T
a
a

t`
(~
R1
2 \ \
~\,~~~~ ~
0 ~
y. ~
L
~''
rn x ~
8 F 4

~~
~ I , r
,
+ ~
~,
~
~ z
3

y ~ rn ~ •~ l ~~~~ 8
i.
~ ~ no
I 2 ~ ~_ ~
\ ~Z~~ of r' ~ k ~~
Z

a~~ ~
~~
~
~~
n ° D
~ '_'I

®
R Z
~ O H 0
g
~~ ~ F m
D
$
O r

o ~ o ° N +
Q m * S ~ av'
* ~ c~ 00 t m r b..
cn
~ i 7F a ~ I l
~'
~I of ~ ~
r:.
10'68+U'~,~SI ,,,
i Ar QoX Q~.>~
gT'"~a ~
.A 1
N ~'
~ >~~~
.,.
~ N=.
1
m~;, ~ ~~ W
~..Ip f~ y 1
~Ir N ~ 2 1
:`` 1 ~ ,. r
y p p 1
...a~ + P ~~ ~ A
~ O~ O O k O+ ~ ~ $ ~ .1,
'~ I ~
....:, ~ r
1~ I Z7 ~ Y
a
tiw
q~ O
~ti~oD~
r Y ~ 11 Y~
w~o
~~~'wa
Q
~~ ~
~~ ~~~
ii ~~~
y
~~ ~rn~tirOD~ ~til`Op~,
1111 Y II II N Y Y Y` M Y Y Y Y In
~~ ra ~~y4~ w~v o
O ~>t~~` ~l+ff t; ~~~~y~
'r ~~~~~ O'I ~~ A~~
~~ y~w $~o
~~ ~ §~
\ ~ ti
.._ ... ~ -. 1. y :~.....:_. K.: k
I - ..:.
a • ~ N'
1- k
~- Ir
m
. o "' ~~ ~ti k k
I X $ .... ~ k k k.
'r• ~ m k k
1 A 1 It ~y k k
~ ~,

rn
1 }
T ~

8 ¢ ~> ~
U v F-
1 3 D
~
_
g o
•'a o

y y~p~
S+~
S

~
~ ~
+
}
N ~
T
1n
I ~s
v L-
I D g ~ ~s~
v a D
T -
7 ~~ qq~
Y ~ -
N
+
g ~
°
N = r
"
Y
E
O g
~ _
,y
T
pt~o_
i1j~
gg O

;a

o
~~
wv
d
~ ~.

m~
O ~~
a~
N
~_

D D
r I-
r r-
0 O
D D
~ ~
r r-
m m
3 3
~ ~
D D
f"l t-7
--i
~ (n
N N
O p
Z
m m
N ~--
g~
B ~m
R°~
I iigss
.~ 10 j • ~ k
k>• k N
~ k Y-
f
n
m

u,
N ' _...-Jt k
F6'
N^ k
[ ~ k k k k ~ O

k k
X
S OO
o . ,
~„ r ~~

i
~p
~

~~~
t ` ~ ~
~ ~~ ;, 8

~Oyy_s ~/.~j
~ ~7~ > uo
~2 2 i°• g
m
~~~i~ ma
IT
~ ~ ~~~~
- fl
4
I ~
r 2 I
~
I
r 2 ~£n i , ; ~ ~
I p
~ I Or' '
~
S
~
e a
~n
b pp
rn ~ a~
i^
O' ~
n" ~. ~ I
D ~
, n .08'8021 N
Y .oz,lz.o
V ~
X .
~ ~ a
a I `
4~Y nS ~ O

~ rn !I z~ y 2
r 2 !i I ~ ~ N
O S x N ~
yN II I' m '~C
~ ~ '
~
r_ ~ y
N111 I o
}
,I 1 ,' ~ ~Z

Q
L ` o: (` M
~
8
y
m ....... ' ~ ~-
' II
~ ~ ~_ ~
._...
. _.....,..
;- !, I I
1 .10
~ .05.00 N
, n.....
II ~ ,.._ _ ~ _.

4 PoT ~a.2 +0001
D
i... I~~ ~ ~
v
~ ,
$

; I I'
a ~ a- ...- ~~
Y~
4r • ~
z. J I
j ~1 l a X m T- $

~
. ,--~ -~
:: ..... . .
s iri
~
g3
S r
s
m
g A
~~D
~. v o~_
~~
s
vm~~ I x
r
~~.
Oboe
°° 5
• ~b*
~ ~~
a
8aaaa
Ny
;n
R~
M "1

Y
15-SEP-dd2006y~~I~~I:OS
~ti~U~ERNAMEl~3~b3863_rdy_tsh.dgn 09
WBS: 33309.1.1 TIP PROJECT: 8-3863
v
rn
Z
O
-~
m
N
N
v
0
c
~~ ~~
1
lp 4ap
~y?F 'qQ
-~ ~
~ ~
R/ 2~ ~\ ~
\ \
~ \
\ ~ ~ \
~ ~i~
~ ~
\ ~
> \\
r
.
ti
L
_~ ,
~ ~~-- -
m ~ _` ~
___ ~
~,
n~
s
~~
,~
~ ;~
,~
o ~ ,~
~ ~ ~t
~I
~ , ~=
~ ~ ~,
z
a ~,
sr
~~
~z
~~
~k
~r
z
~_ -<rnr
z~ ~o~
z
mm ~v~
N~ °~o
N - ~ Z
Z -i =
Q rnH
~ ~
~O
yrn
Z rnni
N N
D~
~ m
O m
n
-l o „
O
n ~ Gb,
~ ~.
la
~-
A
..
N
o_, ,
~~ ~'
.~
.~
`~ ~
~~
~~
$ o
~~
~~
~ °'
~~
ap ~
O y
~'Py ~o
m \
O
.~_-~--\
-~
2 ~ ~ _ - ~ _ _ - / - i
o ` ~
~ o ~~
~ ~~
O ~ ~ ~
~ ~ C~ ® ~
~ ~ ~ ~ '~
~~ ~ ®©
o
~~ x ~ ~~
~~ y ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ n ~ ~
bb ~ o ~~
~s ~ ~ ~®
~~ x ~~
o ~
~ ~ ~
~~ o
y~
~b ~
o ~'
N
E~
~ a
~ n
~ y
o
O :~ ~
~ ~ ~
a

~
~" °°
~ O~
W
. ~

~
~_ N

N
~
P

T ~ F~

w
w
rn
w
~~ Y
a
I~
c
a
co
0
~_
_'
N ~ g 3
~ ~ _
~• g m
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~g
. ~,~~. b ~
. ~ .~i.
~~~~~~ ~ X III
t ,~ iii ~ I ~ i l I
,o ~ o I I
E I I
I LJ I I I I i
~ I~ ~~ n
gpp++ ~ gpp++ ~
S ~ m
C~ o s o ~ m ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ; A a ; "~. ~ ~ p ~ N a
C
a Tay a,H~ ~~ ~ ~ m ~~ ~°°~; ~~.ma Z
yy ~~~ o o a• o s s ~
a m m o
• ~ m O
• ~
~ 3 ~ M"~
.. ............ ...~....... Dcr~
Q ~ n ~+~ k~ en m
~~ O~ r P I I I 0
o~
-~ Z ~ ~ a ~ ; ~ ~• °~ p a c o ~° 7° fib ~ ^^
o° ~ z~ ~ C 9 ~
^' ~.
C C rn •.'! ~
I 1 I I i I:I _
I I I I
I I I I I I I u
I I
_ a x - ®}' B B® I
~ I i ~~ i I®m®e~}o-• a to I I i ~~
!~I~I I I
I ~~~ O
~~€~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~77~~ ~ ~~~~> Cr
D o c .-~ ~~ y 1D < m ^~
~~ ~ y ~a~ ~ ~' ~ ~~ v ~a
~ N ~ ~ ;
• C ~ N ~
..S
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
I Id ~ ~ ~ I
m~ i I I >c l I l i l I
e ~ 0 0 ~• I + ~ I I I I
I ~ I~ i t i~ i R I
I ~ ~ ~ I i

W

~ ~
O ~ o
~ -a `D
R' Vj M W N

a 3 z °? o
m
z

r x ~ N
0 0
~
~
H~ ~
;a
.

r.. ~
o ~
~
~ O
O
O z
.~ z z ~ ~ o
W O Z r~ ,.,
l~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F
a ~ O W
G]
A
C7
~,
~' ~
w a o
`

L'. ~ n.
a
o ~
a can Z W
nom.
W

U
f0
O
O
0

a
d
U
l0
a
E
m
¢`

a
N

c
0
N
C
m
~jj O
W ~
O c d
2 c~ ~
z
`a
C
f`O c0 ~"
p

~ ~ ~ O

Z (q O O
~ •c c ~ o_ o
-- ~ ca E~~ o
U x L
Q W U -
a
~
~ ~ c
o
~ c ~
0
c
o
_
L
~ v O
Q x
~
wU
~ a

w
U
a ,n
U
L
L d O
~ ~-
Q ~
C
O
~ ~ ~ ~ (j p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
F- N ._
U
Q ~
a
~ ~,
.
~
~
~ c
~ o
~ U 3
d'
W
a -o ,~
~ m~

Z
N O C
'~ (0 U
.
_
O _

O

J
~ ~
L _N N N
•y U~ v O
~ O
v
H ~
U ~
a c ~
o -
O
~ N U
~ _
O
0 (~0 •C ~
j `~ O
V O
V
Z
Q X
>
J W

~ C N U
- l9 O
~ ~ y .~ O

C N
~ ~ ~ ~ O O
E ~
„ 0 0
~
a~
a
a~ n
~ ~ C7
U
~ ~
N
(~ ~ Q'
m
O
O J
O C J
O
w ~ N ~
~ ~ N
~

~ J
_ O
(~ Z ~
0
H

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
W.B.S. No.
Federal Project No.
B-3863
8.2312801
33309.1.1
BR~1722(2)
A. Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Johnston County Bridge No. 151 on
SR 1722 over the Little River. The replacement structure will be a bridge
approximately 130 feet long with 33 feet clear deck width. The proposed bridge
will be approximately at the same location and roadway grade. The cross section
will include two 11-foot lanes with one 3-foot minimum offset on the north side
of the bridge and one 7-foot minimum offset on the south side of the bridge.
The approach roadway, extending approximately 200 feet from either end of the
bridge, will include two 11-foot lanes and 6-foot shoulders. The roadway will be
designed as a Rural Local Route with a 35 mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1). SR 1754, part
of the off-site detour, should be resurfaced before construction begins. The
current let schedule does not allow a yeaz from letting of B-3481 to B-3863. The
off-site detour for B-3481 will utilize SR 1722, NC 39, and NC 231. It maybe
necessary to change the let date of B-3863 to allow for completion of B-3481.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 151 includes athree-span superstructure composed of a timber deck
on steel girders. The substructure includes timber caps and timber piles.
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of
15.4 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered
structurally deficient and functionally obsolete due to a structural appraisal of 2
out of 9 and a deck geometry appraisal of 2 out of 9. According to the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) standazds, Bridge No. 151 is therefore eligible
for FHWA's Highway Bndge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program.
Timber sub-structures typically do not last beyond 30 to 40 yeazs of age due to the
natural deterioration rates of wood. Rehabilitation of timber structure is generally
practical only when a few members aze damaged or prematurely deteriorated.
However, past a certain degree of deterioration, timber structures become
impractical to maintain and upon eligibility aze programmed for replacement.
Bridge No. 151 is approaching the end of its useful life.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).

a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bndge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guazdrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing~traffic
j. Performing cleaz zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hazdwaze including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe pazking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest azeas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of--way or for joint or limited use of
right-of--way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zomng and located on or neaz
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.

9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillazy facilities where only minor amounts of additional land aze
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open azea consisting of
passenger shelters, boazding azeas, kiosks and related street
unprovements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in azeas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hazdship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particulaz pazcel or a limited
number of pazcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned-construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil
or groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation
guidelines.
D. Special Proiect Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction ' $ 750,000
Right of Way $ 33,000
Detour Improvements $ 50,000
Total $ 833,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 500 vpd Yeaz 2025 -1200 vpd
TTST - 1 % Dual - 2%
Design Exceptions: "R-R-R Guidelines" will be used.
Division Four: Division Four will post the speed limit at 35 mph in the azea of
the bridge to ensure safety of the traveling public.
Bridge Demolition: Most timber and steel structures (as is Bridge No. 151) can be
removed without any resulting fill in the stream.
Offsite Detour: NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for Brid e
Replacement Projects considers multiple project variables beginning with the
additional time traveled by the average road user resulting from the offsite detour.

The offsite detour for this project would include NC 231, SR 1754, NC 96, SR
1723, and back to SR 1722. The detour for the average road user would result in
3.0 minutes additional travel time (2.4 miles additional travel) which falls within
the range of acceptable delay for the nine-month duration of construction
expected on this project. Johnston County Emergency Services and Johnston
County School Transportation have indicated that an offsite detour is acceptable
and that services can be adequately re-routed during construction. The Division
concurs in this recommendation. -
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any

unique or important natural resource? ^
X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur?
. (3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ^
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of _
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1 /10) of an acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? ^ X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water

Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ^
X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? ~ X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? ^ X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? ~ X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Bamer Resources Act

resources? ^
X

(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
^
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing

regulatory floodway? ^
X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel

changes? ^
X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
_ (15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the

amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? ^
X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
^
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
and/or land use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ~ X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, ^
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing

roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? ^
X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the ^
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
Environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ^
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
5

(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? ^ X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are ^
Important to history orpre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? ~ X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
Recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act ^
of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? ~ X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Response to Question 2: Habitat exists for the Dwarf Wedgemussel and Tar Spinymussel.
A survey taken in June 2004 indicates no species found. However, the. species has been
present upstream and downstream. US Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred in the
biological conclusion of "Not Likely to Adversely Effect" for the Dwarf Wedgemussel
and Taz Spinymussel. If construction has not started before June 2006, additional mussel
surveys should be completed. The concurrence letter is located in the appendix.
Response to Question 3: The North Cazolina Wildlife Resources Commission indicated
in their letter dated September 15, 2003 that anadramous species aze found in this portion
of Little River. NCDOT should follow all stream-crossing guidelines for anadramous
fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15~' to June 15~'.

G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
W.B.S. No.
Federal Project No.
Project Description:
B-3863
8.2312801
33309.1.1
BR~1722(2)
The purpose of this project is to replace Johnston County Bridge No. 151 on
SR 1722 over the Little River. The replacement structure will be a bridge
approximately 130 feet long with 33 feet clear deck width. The proposed bridge
will be approximately at the same location and roadway grade. The cross section
will include two 11-foot lanes with one 3-foot minimum offset on the north side
of the bridge and one 7-foot minimum offset on the south side of the bridge.
The approach roadway, extending approximately 200 feet from either end of the
bridge, will include two 11-foot lanes and 6-foot shoulders. The roadway will be
designed as a Rural Local Route with a 35 mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1). SR 1754, part
of the off-site detour, should be resurfaced before construction begins. The
current let schedule does not allow a yeaz from letting of B-3481 to B-3863. The
ofd=site detour for B-3481 will utilize SR 1722, NC 39, and NC 231. It may be
necessary to change the let date of B-3863 to allow for completion of B-3481.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
8 9 ar
a
~~9~oS~
Date
$ q OS
Da e
Prc(~ect Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
~~~
Project Development E~
ject Development &
For Type II(B) projects only:
B/q S
Date

John F. Sullivan, III, Division Ac
Federal Highway Administration
7
Analysis Branch
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
~~~ \~~

PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Johnston County
Bridge No. 151 on SR 1722
Over Little River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZr1722 (2)
State Project No. 8.2312801
W.B.S. No. 33309.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3863
Division 4 Construction /Roadway Design/Program Development/ -Overlapping Detours
The detour routes for B-3481 and B-3863 shaze NC 231 as one leg of the detow. The detour
route for B-3863 also includes NC 96, where B-3863 is located. The current let schedule does not
allow a yeaz from letting of B-3481 to B-3863. It may be necessary to change the let date of
B-3863 to allow for completion of B-3481.
Office of Natural Environment/Hydraulic Design Unit -Buffer Rules
T>,~~ project is subject to Riparian Buffer Rules.
Division 4 Construction -Resurfacing SR 1754
NCDOT will resurface SR 1754 before construction begins.
Division 4 Construction -Posting speed limit
Division 4 will post the speed limit at 35 mph in the azea of the bridge to ensure safety of the
traveling public.
Division 4 Construction -Coordination with local officials
In order to allow Emergency Management Services (EMS) time to prepare for road closure, the
NCDOT Resident Engineer will notify Dewayne West with Johnston County EMS at
[phone] of the bridge remova130 days prior to road closwe.
Office of Natural Environment -Moratorium
NCDOT will follow stream-crossing guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an in-
water.work moratorium from February 15 to June 15.
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 2
Green Sheet
August 2005

Roadway Design Unit/Structure Design Unit/Roadside Environmental UnitlHydraulic
Design Unit/Division 4 Construction/Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch -Dwarf Wedgemussel and Tar Spinymussel
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was consulted in regard to the effect of
project construction on the Dwarf Wedgemussel and Tar Spinymussel. The USFWS concurred
in the biological conclusion that project construction is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the
Dwarf Wedgemussel Tar Spinymussel and the and NCDOT will implement the conservation
measures listed below:
1. Use a bridge that will yield the longest spans practicable to reduce impacts to aquatic life.
2. If bridge bents are necessary, NCDOT will place the bents at the edge of the water (not in the
center) to minimize permanent and temporary impacts.
3. This project area is located in an Environmentally Sensitive Area. All special procedures for
clearing, grubbing, grading, seeding, and mulching will apply.
4. If heavy equipment is used along the stream bank, a clean rock or timber workpad will be
utilized to support the equipment.
5. Bents from the existing structure should be cut at the mudline.
6. Special sediment control fence is not practicable, clearing and grubbing should not occur
during the non-growing season (November through March, USDA/SCS, Johnston County
Soil Survey, 1983).
7. Due to the proximity of a federally protected species, all unstabilized areas of the project
within the fifty foot riparian buffer area will be temporarily stabilized during active grading
utilizing erosion control blankets, fabric, plastic, or other material(s), approved by the
'Roadside Environmental Unit, prior to any rain event, as directed by the Engineer on site.
The temporary stabilization should be adequately anchored and utilized to prevent the loss of
sediment into the water course unless runoff from these areas can be diverted to an
adequately designed sediment basin or until the area is stabilized with vegetation.
8. If construction has not started before June 2006, additional mussel surveys should be
completed.
9. An off-site detour will be used.
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 2 of 2
Green Sheet
August 2005

° T
\ ~ / ~ •~ {
J~ , ~ ... ~ ~ tb M
y ~ ' cf ~ s ,~,~~~, r ~waor
\ ~ ~ • J a \ ~ 'i3'~ • a
i ~~._ ~
~ J••l ~ r 1
~r r Z ~ ~ F
1. ~ 1
/ ~ \ ` L • .
p :ti.; \ .
_ ~~ o
° '~ '~~ ': , ~ e _ Bridge No. 151 .° \ -\~ ~~
e / o ~ --
~ \ N 8
~/
i • - -- `'
\ a ~
'
~ ;=, ~ ~ .

y
~ N _ ~~ ~ ~ \ O !n
9
\o
°

~.0 s
7
~
~ S y `
i
_
`c ~' ' \~i .y _
~ H \ . ~ ~ A rn
y a ~ ~
O ~ t . 1 ~ . 6 g, V ! o~ ',) a~
~ D ~ \,l OI 0 ~~~ 9 ~I
1 ~~.~ z J ,.a . -
i . a 4. ti `~
i ~~' ' ~ ~
Detour Route
- -~'-~
~~ 1...
North Carolina Department of
~ Transportation
Division of Highways
~ Project Development f~'
Environmental Analysis
a
Johnston County
Replace Bridge No. 151 on SR 1722
Over Little River
B-3863
SCai,~: 1 .n = 2 mi Figure 1

Y .> ~ b .~
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Fieid Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
June 28, 2005
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Awleibh, ?~Iort~, Cr*olir; 27600__1598
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
~~~EI`~+``~
JUN ~ 2005
n:icr„~ ~~ 1,,., „,
a,.~.,,,y ~, ~~~un~IAYS
PDEA-0FfICfG I~~;t"1 f;lYiA~VME!VT
This letter is in response to your letter of June 24, 2005 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Cazolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 151 on SR 1722 over Little River
in Johnston County (TIP No. B-3863) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the
federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Taz spinymussel
(Elliptio steinstansana). In addition, NFDOT has determined that the project will have no effect
on the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and Michaux's sumac (Rhos michauxii).
These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to information provided, a mussel survey was conducted at the project site on June
25, 2004. The survey extended 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of SR 1722.
Neither of the federally listed mussel species was found. However, several individuals
representing at least two other unlisted species were found. The dwarf wedgemussel vas
previously observed immediately upstream of the project area in 1997 and approximately two
miles downstream in 1998.
As the result of an October 5, 2004 field meeting and several email communications over the last
several months between your staff and Mr. Gary Jordan of my staff, several conservation
measures have been agreed to. These conservation measures are listed below:
• Use a bridge that will yield the longest spans practicable to reduce impacts to aquatic life.
• If bridge bents are necessary, NCDOT will place the bents at the edge of the water (not in the
center) to minimize permanent and temporary impacts.
• This project area is located in an Environmentally Sensitive Area. All special procedures for
clearing, grubbing, grading, seeding, and mulching will apply.
• If heavy equipment is used along the stream bank, a clean rock or timber workpad
will be utilized to support the equipment.

Bents from the existing structure should be cut at the mudIine.
• special sediment control fence should be used as practicable. In areas where special
sediment control fence is not practicable, clearing and grubbing should not occur during the
non-growing season (November through Mazch, USDA/ SCS, Johnston County Soil Survey,
1983).
Due to the proximity of a federally protected species, all unstabilized azeas of the project
within the a fifty foot riparian buffer azea will be temporarily stabilized during active grading
utilizing erosion control blankets, fabric, plastic, or other material(s), approved by the
Roadside Environmental Unit, prior to any rain event, as directed by the Engineer on site.
The temporary`~tabilization should be adequately anchored and utilized to prevent the. loss of
sediment into the water course unless runoff from these areas can be diverted to an
adequately designed sediment basin~or until the area is stabilized with vegetation.
• If construction has not started before June 2006, additional mussel surveys should be
completed.
• An off=site detour will be used.
Based on the mussel survey results and the commitment to the conservation measures listed
above, the Service concurs with your determination that the proposed bridge replacement may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the. dwarf wedgemussel and Tar spinymussel. In
addition, the Service concurs with your determination that the project will have no effect on the
red-cockaded woodpecker and Michaux's sumac.
We believe that the requirements of section ?;aj(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind
you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regazding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
~~.
John Ellis
Acting Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Bill Biddlecome, USACE, Washington, NC
Christina Breen, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

® North Carolina~ildlife Resources Commission
Charles R Fullwood, Executive Director
;VfE~1CRANDUM
TO: Robin Y. Hancock
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator ~
Habitat Conservation Program ~~ ~ i~
DATE: September 15, 2003
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Warren, Nash,•and Johnston counties. TIP Nos.
B-3863, B-3876, B-3877, B-3921, and B-4312.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge repiacemeni projects cf this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Censer • Raleigh, NC 2 7699-1 72 1
Telephone: [phone] ext.?~1 • Fax: [phone]-+3

Bridge Memo 2 September 1 S, 2003
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded. or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than.10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the azea should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the azea with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the azea to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) azea of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge..
7. In trout waters,. the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
• requesting- additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Hal
Bain 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 aze used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In ~azeas 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 regulazly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all baze soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work azea.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pities, or concrete box culverts aze
used:

Bridge Memo
3 September 15, 2003
I. TTie culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similaz to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
• culverts aze longer than 40-50 lineaz feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern.. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically ~~creases
water velocity causing. sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we preferthe 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
locaXed 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 reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
B 3863, Johnston County, Bridge No. 151 over Little River on SR 1722. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Our records indicate a known population of Dwarf
wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) in close
proximity to the project. NCDOT should conduct a mussel survey to determine the
presence or absence of these species. Anadromous species are found in this portion of
the Little River. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous
fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to June 15.
Standazd recommendations apply.

Bridge Memo 4 September 15, 2003
2. B-3876; Nash County, Bridge No. 34 over Pig Basket Creek on SR 1004. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
3. B-3877, Nash County, Bridge No. 52 over Turkey Creek on SR 1101. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Our records indicate a known population of Dwarf
wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) in close
proximity to the project. NCDOT should conduct a mussel survey to detemune the
presence or absence of these species. Standard recommendations apply.
4. B-392.1, Warren County, Bridge No. 45 over Fishing Creek on SR 1600. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Our records indicate a known population of Yellow
Lance (Elliptio lanceolata) in close proximity to the project. NCDOT should conduct a
rrtlissel survey to determine-the presence or absence of this species. Standard
recommendations apply.
5. B-4312, Warren County, Bridge No. 42 over Shocco Creek on SR 1613. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Our records indicate a known population of Dwarf
wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) in close proximity to the project. NCDOT
should conduct a mussel survey to determine the presence or absence of this species.
Standard recommendations apply.
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shallowed during initial bridge installation.
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
Cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

K ~
i ~~~
~vrr~~
Michael F. Easley, Governor
January 16, 2001
MEMORA1v,DUM.
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook ~L~, ~
Deputy State Hilt Preservation Officer
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 151 on SR 1722 over Little River,
TIP No. B-3863, Johnston County, ER 01-7931
Division ofArchives and History
Jeffrey J. Craw, Director
,. ~ ~ .
~,,~ ,,, ., ' ,' r.
.~~~~~~
~~
r'
r
On December 5, 2000, April Montgomery of our staff met with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above project. She reported
our available information on historic architectural and azchaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project azea photographs and~aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we offer our
preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources we are awaze of no historic structures located within the area of
potential effect. We recommend that no historic azchitectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the project azea. Based on our present knowledge of the
azea, it is unlikely that any azchaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places, will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, reconunend that
no azchaeologicaLinvestigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to the receipt of either a Categorical Exclusion or
Environmental Assessment, which indicates how NCDOT addressed our comments.
The above comments aze made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have any questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Eazley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919 733-4763: `~
%~ ~ 0
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
location Mailing Address TelepFwrtdFax
Administration 507 N. Dlount St. Raleigh 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 (919) 733763 •715-8653
Restoration 515 N. E3lount St. Raleigh 4613 Mail Servicx Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 (919) 733547.715-4801
Survey .~ Planning 515 N. 131ount St. Raleigh 461 R Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone].715-4801

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
for the
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 151 ON SR 1722
OVER LITTLE RIVER
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TII' No. B-3863
State Project No. 8.2312801
NCDOT Consulting Project No. 00-LM-07
LandMark Design Group Number 1960024-307.00
Prepared for the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Resources, Permits and Mitigation Unit
One South Wilmington Street, Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Attn: Elizabeth Lusk
Issued: August 2001
LgNDM,qRK
Environmental Consultants & Planners
6512 Six Forks Road, Suite 200, Raleigh, NC 27615, [phone] FAX (919) [e-mail]

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION
........................................................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................................1
1.2 PURPOSE ...............................................................................................................................................................1
1.3 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................................1
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF INVESTIGATORS ................................................................................................................2
1.5 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................................................2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .....................................................................................................................................2
2.1 SOILS ....................................................................................................................................................................2
2.2 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................3
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics ..............................................................................................................3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ................................................................................................................................3
2.2.3 Water Qttality ...................................................................................................................................................4
2.2.4 Ecological Impacts ..........................................................................................................................................4
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ...........................................................................................................................................5
3.1 TERRESTRI.-1L COhIhIUNITIES .............................................................................................................................5
3.1.1 Pine Forest ........................................................................................................... ............................................~
3.1.2 Bottomland Hardtivood Forest ............................................................................. ............................................6
3.1.3 Strccessional ......................................................................................................... ............................................6
3.1.4 Maintained/Distttrbed Roadside .......................................................................... ............................................6
3.1.5 Grass Lot .............................................................................................................. ............................................6
3.1.6 Riparian ............................................................................................................... ............................................7
3.2 AQUATIC COMi•iUNITIES ......................................................................................... ............................................7
3.3 SUi•I~IARY OF ANTICIPATED I~IPACT$ .................................................................... ............................................7
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .................................................................................................................................9
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ........................................................................... ............................................9
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface tii~aters ................................................. ............................................9
4.1.2 Permits ................................................:................................................................ ..........................................10
4.1.3 Bridge Demolition ................................................................................................ ..........................................10
4.1.4 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. ..........................................11
4.1.4.1 Avoidance .............................................................................................................. ...............................................11
4.1.4.2 Minimization .......................................................................................................... .......:.......................................ll
4.1.4.3 Compensator}' Mi[igation ....................................................................................... ...............................................1 I
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ............................................................................ ...........................................12
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ................................................................................ ..........................................12
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species .......................................... .......................................... l S
5.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................17
6.0 APPENDICES
6.1 FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Potential Impacts to Bridge No. 1 ~ 1
Figure 3. Site Photographs
6.2 RESOURCE AGENCY LETTERS/MEMORANDUMS
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP B-3863 At~g:cst 2001
The Land,1~lark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 196002-30-.00 Page ii

List of Tables
TABLE 1. ANTICIPATED I`IPACTS.
TABLE 2. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR JOHNSTON COUNTY
TABLE 3. FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR JOHNSTON COUNTY
North Carolina Department oJTransportation TIP B-3863 ~lecgt~st 200/
The LandAfark Design Group, Inc. Project f~'o. 196002.1-30'.00 Page iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The project is located in northern Johnston County (Figure
1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 151 on SR 1722, over Little River, with a
new 130.00 ft (39.62 m) long bridge at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the
existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained off-site on existing roads.
The existing right-of--way is ditch line to ditch line. The proposed right-of--way width is 80.00 ft (24.38
m). Project length is approximately 550.00 ft (167.67) m. The existing bridge is 106.00 ft (32.32 m)
long.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog, and describe the various natural resources
likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attempts to identify and estimate the
probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources. Recommendations are made for
measures that will minimize resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only
in the context of existing preliminary design concepts. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this pre-field
investigation of the study area include: Zebulon (1968) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle,
Zebulon (1995) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland Inventory Map, Natural
Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) soil maps, and NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area.
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the
study area was gathered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species and
species of concern, and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats.
LandMark Design Group environmental scientists Wendee Smith and Ryan Smith conducted general
field surveys along the proposed alignment on 16 April 2001. Plant communities and their associated
wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the
following observation techniques: active search and capture, visual observations, and identification of
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland
determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Jurisdictional surface water
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP B-3863 June 200/
The Land:L/ark Design Group, lnc. Project No. 196002-1-30-.00 Page l

determinations were performed using guidance provided by N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Field Location of Streams, Ditches, and Ponding (Environmental Lab, 1997).
1.4 Qualifications of Investigators
1) Investigator: Ryan Smith, Environmental Scientist,
LandMark Design Group Inc., September 1999 to Present
Education: B.S. Natural Resources: Ecosystem Assessment,
Minor in Environmental Science, North Carolina State University, 1999
Experience: Project Coordinator, Environmental Impact, Inc. Aberdeen, NC, May 1999 to
August 1999
Forestry Technician, N:C. Forest Service, Summer 1998
2) Investigator: Wendee B. Smith, Environmental Scientist,
LandMark Design Group Inc., September 1999 to Present
Education: B.S. Natural Resources: Ecosystem Assessment,
Minor in Environmental Science, North Carolina State University, 1999
Experience: Natural Systems Specialist,
N.C. Department of Transportation/Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, May 1999 to August 1999
Forestry Technician, N.C. Forest Service, Summer 1998
1.~ Definitions
Definitions for area descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Study Area denotes the
area bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity describes an area extending 0.50 mi
(0.80 km) on all sides of the project study area; and Project Region is equivalent to an area represented
by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with the project occupying the central position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the study area are discussed below. Soils and availability of
water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
The project study area lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The topography in this
section of Johnston County is gently rolling. Topography in the project area is flat because it is located
within the floodplain of the Little River. Project elevation is approximately 210.00 ft (64.02 m) above
mean sea level (msl).
2.1 Soils
Two soil phases occur within the project study area: Wedowee sandy loam and Wehadkee loam. They
are as follows (Johnston County Soil Survey, 1994):
\"orth Carolina Department ojTransportation T/P 8-3863 attgttst 200!
The Land;L/ark Design Grottp, lnc. Project i~'o. 19600Z~-30%.00 Page

• Wedowee sandy loam with 8 to 15 percent slopes is awell-drained soil found on side slopes in the
uplands of the Piedmont. It is commonly found in areas dissected by numerous drainageways.
Permeability and available water capacity are moderate, with a rapid surface runoff. Slope and
moderate permeability are the primary limitations.
• Wehadkee loam, frequently flooded with 0 to 2 percent slopes is a nearly level, poorly drained soil
commonly found in floodplains along streams. Permeability is moderate, and available water
capacity is high. The seasonal high water table is at the surface or within a depth of 1.00 ft (0.30
m) The soil is frequently flooded for brief periods, and has a slow surface runoff. Flooding and
wetness are the primary limitations.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted by the
project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to
major water systems, Best Usage Standards, and water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to
surface water resources and minimization methods are also discussed.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The section of the Little River flowing through the project area will be the only surface water impacted.
Little River is located in sub-basin 03-04-06 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The average baseflow
width is approximately 60.00 ft (18.29 m). The average depth is approximately 4.00 ft (1.22 m). The
Little River is a brownwater creek. The substrate is sandy silt loam.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the NC Division of Water Quality. The
classification of Little River in the project area is WS-V NSW
(http://h2o.enr.state.nc.t-s/bims/Reports/reports.html, 2001). The classification WS-V is placed upon
waters protected as water supplies which are generally upstream and draining to Class WS-IV waters or
waters used by industry to supply their employees with drinking water or as waters formerly used as
water supply. WS-V has no categorical restrictions on watershed development or wastewater
discharges like other WS classifications and local governments are not required to adopt watershed
protection ordinances. Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) are waters needing additional nutrient
management because they are subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
In general, management strategies for point and nonpoint source pollution control require no increase in
nutrients over background levels.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project study area.
North Carolina Department of Transportation T/P B-3863 August 2001
The Land,~lark Design Group, /nc. Project :Vo. /96002.1-30-.00 Page 3

2.2.3 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated abasin-wide approach to water quality management for each of the 17 river
basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological, chemical, and physical
data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are reassessed every five years.
Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality management, the Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) assessed water quality by sampling for benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. There is a BMAN station
(DEM No. 27-57-(8.5)) located on the Little River at State Road 1722 in Johnston County within
1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project study area. The station received a bioclassification rating of
good-fair in August 1995.
Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can last from six months to a year;
therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be overcome until the next generation. Different
taxa of macroinvertebrates have different tolerances to pollution, thereby, long-term changes in water
quality conditions can be identified by population shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant
organisms (and vice versa). Overall, the species present, the population diversity and the biomass are
reflections of long-term water quality conditions.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger is required to register for
a permit. There is no point source discharge located on the Little River within 1.00 mi (1.61 km)
upstream of the project study area.
2.2.4 EcologicalImpacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a road closure during construction is almost
always preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and other natural resources. Bridge
replacement on a new location usually results in more severe impacts. Usually, project construction
does not require the entire right-of--way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from demolition debris and/or erosion resulting from
vegetation and land disturbance during construction,
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal,
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground
water flow from construction,
4. Changes in water temperature due to the increase of sun and wind exposure resulting from
streamside vegetation removal,
\'orth Carolina Department of Transportation TIP B-3863
The Land;L/ark Design Group, lnc. Project :\"o: 1960024-30'.00
August 2001
Pnge 4

r
~. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas, and/or
6. Increased input of toxic compounds from demolition, construction, toxic spills, and highway
runoff.
Precautions must be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area. The
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters must be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. Guidelines for these BMPs include,
but are not limited to minimizing built upon area and diverting stormwater away from surface
waters as much as possible. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances during the
construction interval must also be strictly enforced.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems
encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships between flora and fauna within these
ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are
reflective of topography, hydrologic influences, and past and present land uses in the study area.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications
and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora
and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each plant and animal
species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows
Martof et al. (1980), Potter et al. (1980), and Webster et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same
organism will include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visits are denoted with
an asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected
to be present within the project area.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Six distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area: Pine Forest, Bottomland
Hardwood Forest, successional, maintained/disturbed roadside, grass lot, and riparian. Community
boundaries within the study area are well defined without a significant transition zone between them.
Faunal species likely to occur within the study area will exploit all communities for shelter, foraging
opportunities, and/or as movement corridors.
3.1.1 Pine Forest
The pine forest is present west of Little River, on the north and south sides of State Road 1722 adjacent
to the maintained/disturbed roadside. The canopy is dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), but is
also comprised of white oak (Quercus alba) and sweet-gum (Liquidambar styraciflua). The understory
consists of saplings of the canopy trees.
.~~orth Carolina Department ojTransportation TIP B-3863 .August ZOIII
The Land:Lfark Design Groap, Inc. Project :~`o. 196001-30'.00 Page ~

Wildlife associated with this community includes fox (Urocyon sp.), rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.), white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and deer mice (Peromyscus manicztlatus).
Avian species utilizing this community likely include: turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos),
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), bobwhite quail (Colinas virginianats), and red tail hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis).
3.1.2 Bottomland Hardwood Forest
The Bottomland hardwood forest is present on the east and west sides of the Little River. The
Bottomland hardwood forest on the east side of the Little River is south of State Road 1722 adjacent to
the maintained/disturbed roadside and at the boundary of the riparian community. The canopy here is
dominated by river birch (Betula nigra) and sweet-gum. The Bottomland hardwood forest on the west
side of the River is present north of State Road 1722, and between the successional and pine forest
communities. The canopy is dominated by red mulberry (Morns rubra), swamp chestnut oak (Q.
michauxii), sweet-gum, and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima). The understory for each location of
the Bottomland hardwood forest is comprised of saplings of the canopy trees ironwood (Carpinrrs
caroliniana), loblolly pine, winged elm (Ulmus alata), dogwood (Corpus Florida), water oak (Q.
nigra), and beech (Fagus grandifolia). Faunal species frequenting this community will be largely those
species inhabiting the pine forest.
3.1.3 Successional
The successional community is present on the north and south sides of State Road 1722. On the north
side of State Road 1722, the community is adjacent to both sides of the Little River. On the south side
of the road, the community is west of the River between the riparian community and the gravel road
leading to a private residence. The community is composed of blackberry (Rztbus argutus), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), and black willow (Salix nigra).
Faunal species frequenting this community will be largely those species inhabiting the pine forest.
3.1.4 Maintained/Disturbed Roadside
The maintained/disturbed roadside community is present through out the entire corridor bordering State
Road 1722. This community is comprised of grass (Festuca sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), Japanese honeysuckle, and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans). Faunal species frequenting
this community will be largely those species inhabiting the pine forest.
3.1.5 Grass Lot
The grass lot is located west of the Little River and north of State Road 1722, adjacent to the wet
successional community. Grass that is regularly maintained dominates this community. Faunal species
frequenting this community will be largely those species inhabiting the pine forest.
.North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP B-3863 Aug:~st 2001
The Land:Ulark Design Group, /nc. Project No. 196002-t-30-.00 Page 6

r y
3.1.6 Riparian
The riparian community is located south of State Road 1722 on both sides of the Little River. The
canopy is comprised of American elm (Ulmus Americana), sweet-gum, red maple (Ater rztbrztm), river
birch, and swamp chestnut oak. The under story is comprised of saplings from the canopy, ironwood,
Chinese privet (Ligustrztm sinense), black willow, winged elm, and green brier (Smilax rotztndifolia).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community, the Little River will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical
characteristics of a water body and the condition of the water resource influence faunal composition of
aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence
aquatic communities. No submersed or emergent aquatic vegetation was observed within this section
of the Little River. Vegetation found along the bank of the Little River includes American elm, sweet-
gum, red maple, river birch, and swamp chestnut oak.
Fauna associated with these aquatic communities includes various invertebrate and vertebrate species.
Fish species likely to occur in the Little River include swamp darter (Etheostoma fitsiforme), bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and channel catfish (Ictalurzts pztnctatzts).
Invertebrates that would be present include various species of caddisflies (Trichoptera), mayfly
(Ephemeroptera), crayfish (Decapoda), dragonflies (Odonata), and damselflies (Odonata). Grass
Shrimp (Palaemonetes pztgio)* and bullfrogs (Rana catasbeiana)* were observed during field surveys.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources described. Any
construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological
functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of area
impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each community present
within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 1 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting
from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the entire proposed right-of--way width
of 80.00 ft (24.38 m). Usually, project construction does not require the entire right-of--way; therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less.
North Carolina Department ojTransportation T!P B-3863 August ?001
The Land~L/ark Design Group, /nc. Project ,vo. 196002.1-30%.00 Page

Table 1. Anticipated impacts.
Community Wetlands Uplands - Totals
Pine Forest -- 0.06 ac (0.02 ha) 0.06 ac (0.02 ha)
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.02 ac (0.01 ha) 0.04 ac (0.02 ha) 0.06 ac (0.03 ha)
Successional 0.05 ac (0.02 ha) 0.04 ac (0.02 ha) 0.09 ac (0.04 ha)
Maintained/Disturbed Roadside -- 0.36 ac (0.15 ha) 0.36 ac (0.15 ha)
Grass Lot
JP'~
lte?
Ri
i
~ --
004
0
0
002 h 0.04 ac (0.02 ha)
01
004 h
0
0 0.04 ac (0.02 ha)
0
014
a
~
par
an
. .
ac (
.
a) ac (
a)
.
. .
ac (0.006 ha)
Little River -- -- --
Total 0.074 ac (0.032 ha) 0.55 ac (0.234 ha) 0.624 ac (0.316 ha)
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and sheltering habitat for
various wildlife species. Replacing Bridge No. 151 and its associated improvements will reduce
habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the size and scope of
this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal.
Areas cleared by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early successional
habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other
wildlife by the creation of earlier successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by construction
activities will repopulate areas suitable for the species.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment. Stream channelization,
scouring, siltation, sedimentation, and erosion from construction- related work will affect water quality
and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary, environmental impacts from
these construction processes may result in long term effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased channelization and scouring of
the streamsed. In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and may remove streamside
vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will produce siltation, which in excessive amounts
can clog the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-
feeders), fish, and amphibian species. Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of
sediment. These organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction site alters the
terrain. Alterations of the streambank enhance the likelihood of erosion and sedimentation.
Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating these processes. Erosion and sedimentation
carry soils, toxic compounds, and other materials into aquatic communities at the construction site.
These processes magnify turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream,
thereby altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. streamside alterations also lead to more
direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures that may impact many species.
Based on the potential for increased sedimentation, it is recommended that silt curtains be used
during construction.
North Carolina Department ojTransportation T!P B-3863 At~gtrst 2001
The Land,Llark Design Group, lnc. Project No. 19ti002~1-30%.00 Page 8

4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analysis pertinent to two important issues-
"Waters of the United States" and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States," as defined
in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3,
are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manatal. The three-parameter approach is used where hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation,
and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an area to be considered a wetland.
Wetlands were identified within the project corridor. Potential permanent impacts to wetlands are as
follows:
• Permanent wetland impacts to the bottomland hardwood forest (successional species dominate
due to recent clear cut) located north of State Road 1722 and east of the Little River are
approximately 0.05 ac (0.02 ha).
• Permanent wetland impacts to the bottomland hardwood forest located south of State Road
1722 and east to the Little River are approximately 0.02 ac (0.01 ha).
• Permanent wetland impacts to the riparian community located south of State Road 1722 and
east of the Little River are approximately 0.004 ac (0:002 ha).
The Little River is a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC
1344). No surface water impacts to the Little River are anticipated.
Usually, project construction does not require the entire ROW; therefore, actual surface water impacts
may be considerably less.
North Carolina Department of Transportation T!P 8-3863 .-I ugust 2001
The Land.llark Design Group, Inc. Project ~\'o. 196002-1-307.00 Page 9

4.1.2 Permits
As described above, impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project.
As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory
agencies charged with protecting the water quality of public water resources
Nationwide Permit 23 (33 CFR 330.5(a) (23)) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to "Waters of
the United States" resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed in whole or part by another federal agency or
department where that agency or department has determined that pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act,
• the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental documentation
because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment, and
• that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
A Nationwide Permit 33 may be required , if the construction plans change such that a temporary
causeway is required.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to the issuance of
the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to "Waters of
the United States." Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the
duration of the construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is
a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
Projects located within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin are subject to the Tar-Pamlico River Buffer Rules,
administered by the DWQ. These rules address loss of stream channel buffers for field verified streams
appearing on the USGS Topographic Quad and/or the NRCS Soil Survey. Bridge construction is
allowable provided that there are "no practical alternatives." As this bridge replacement project is
currently proposed, it is allowable under the Tar-Pamlico River Buffer Rules. However, a written
authorization is required from the DWQ. A request to the DWQ for the authorization should be
included in the cover letter of the permit application package.
4.1.3 Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 151 is located on SR 1722 over the Little River in Johnston County. The bridge is
composed completely of timber and steel. Bridge No. 151 will be removed without dropping any
components into "Waters of the United States" during construction. As demolition and construction
activities may temporarily raise turbidity levels, a silt curtain is recommended during the
associated periods of disturbance within or adjacent to the Little River.
:North Carolina Department oJTransportation TIP B-3863 August 2001
The Land;Llark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 196002.1-30 i.00 Page 10

~ {
4.1.4 Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation
policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this
policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of "Waters of the
United States," specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to
include avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over
time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1 X08.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
"Waters of the United States." According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree
of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall
project purposes.
4.1:4.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to "Waters of the United States." Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes,
and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to "Waters of the
United States" crossed by the proposed project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control
BMP's for the protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and
grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity;
re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas; judicious pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization
of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to "Waters of the United
States" have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. It is recognized that "no
net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts
which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been performed. Compensatory
actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of "Waters of the United States." Such
actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site whenever
practicable Compensatory mitigation is not usually necessary with a Nationwide Permit No. 23.
Impact thresholds for mitigation are as follows:
North Caroline Department of Transportation T/P B-3863 Atigt~st 200/
The Land,Llark Design Group, lnc. Project No. 196002-30-.00 Page 11

• 0.10 ac to 1.00 ac (0.04 to 0.40 ha) of wetland impacts ma require mitigation;
• 1.00 ac (0.40 ha) or more of wetland impacts will require mitigation;
• 150.00 linear ft (4.73 m) or more of stream impacts will require mitigation.
Impacts from this project do not meet the minimum thresholds for mitigation; therefore no mitigation
requirement is anticipated. However, final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due to natural
forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally protected, be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 22 March 2001, the FWS lists
four federally protected species for Johnston County. A brief description of~the characteristics and
habitat requirements for these species along with a conclusion regarding potential project impacts
follows.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Johnston County.
Scientific'Name Common Namc, Status --
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedge mussel Endangered
~'lliptio steinstansana Tar spinymussel Endangered
Rhus michaurii Michaux's sumac Endangered
Endangered is defined as a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to southern Florida and west to
eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. The
RCW is now found only in coastal states of its historic range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and
southern Arkansas. In North Carolina, moderate populations occur in the sandhills and southern
coastal plain. The few populations found in the Piedmont and northern coastal plain are believed to be
relics of former populations.
North Carolina Department ojTransportation TIP B-3863 Azrg:zst 2001
The Land:Llark Design Gro:zp, Inc. Project No. 196002-I-30'.00 Page IZ

The adult RCW has a plumage that is entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the sides
of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast
and underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek
patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palztstris),
for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick
understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds
nest exclusively in trees that are greater than 60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least
30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 500.00 ac (202.34 ha). This acreage must be
contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are infected with the
fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 12.00 to 100.00 ft (3.66 to
30.48 ha) above the ground and average 30.00 to 50.00 ft (9.14 to 15.24 ha) high. They can be
identified by a large incnustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The incrustation of sap is
believed to be used as a defense by the RCW against possible predators. A colony of woodpeckers
usually consists of one breeding pair and the offspring from previous years. The RCW lays its eggs in
April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later. Clutch size ranges in number from
three to five eggs. All members of the colony share the raising of the young. Red-cockaded
woodpeckers feed mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal wild fruits.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The mature, open pine stands required by the RCW are not present iri the project area. The North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed on 29 March 2001, and no records of
existing RCW populations were found. No habitat for RCWs exist in the project area, therefore, no
impacts to RCWs will occur form project construction.
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 14 March 1990
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a distinguishable shell noted by two lateral teeth on
the right half and one on the left half. The periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in
color and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North Carolina are found in Middle Creek and the
Little River of the Neuse River Basin and in the upper Tar River and Cedar, Crooked, and Stoney
Creeks of the Tar River system. This mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial
pollutants and requires a stable silt free streambed with well-oxygenated water to survive.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
North Carolina Department ojTrnnsportntion TIP B-3863
The Land:6lark Design Group, Inc. Project ,~o. 196002-f-30".00
.-~t,g:,sr tool
Page 13

The NCDOT will conduct a biological assessment to determine any potential impacts to this species
due to construction of the proposed bridge approximately one year prior to the construction let date.
The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed on 29
March 2001 and revealed no records of this species within the project vicinity.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar River spiny mussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 29 July 1985
The Tar River spinymussel is endemic to the Tar River drainage basin, from Falkland in Pitt County to
Spring Hope in Nash County. Populations of the Tar River spinymussel can be found in streams of the
Tar River Drainage Basin and of the Swift Creek Drainage Sub-Basin.
This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well oxygenated, circumneutral pH water. The
bottom is composed of uncompacted gravel and coarse sand. The water needs to be relatively silt-free.
It is known to rely on a species of freshwater fish to act as an intermediate host for its larvae.
The Tar River spinymussel is a very small mussel. This mussel is named for its spines that project
perpendicularly from the surface and curve slightly ventrally. The shell has as many as 12 spines, and is
generally smooth in texture. The nacre is pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white (posterior).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
The NCDOT will conduct a biological assessment to determine any potential impacts to this species
due to construction of the proposed bridge approximately one year prior to construction Let. The NC
Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats vas reviewed on 29 March 2001
and revealed no records of this species within the project vicinity.
Rhcrs michaicxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: 28 September 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac was known historically from the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont of North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. This species is believed to be extirpated in South Carolina. It
is currently known from only 21 populations in North Carolina and Georgia. In North Carolina
populations of Michaux's sumac still exist in Hoke, Richmond, Scotland, Franklin, Davie, Robeson,
Moore, and Wake counties.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizorrratous shrub that grows 0.67 to 3.28 ft (0.20 to 1.00 m)
in height. The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile, oblong to oblong-
lanceolate leaflets that are each 1.58 to 3.54 in (4.00 to 9.00 cm) long, 6.79 to 1.97 in (2.00 to 5.00 cm)
wide, acute and acuminate. The bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly
senate. It bears small flowers in a terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers are greenish to white in
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP B-3863
The Land;~lark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 196002;1-307.00
August 2001
Page 1.1

color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on female plants, are a red densely
short-pubescent drupe, 0.20 to 0.24 in (5.00 to 6.00 mm) across.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent on some sort of disturbance to
maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in association with basic soils and occurs on sand
or sandy loams. It grows only in open habitat «-here it can get full sunlight and it does not compete
well with other species such as Japanese honeysuckle that it is often associated
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of disturbed roadside was present upon inspection of the project corridor,
but no specimens were identified during the field survey. The NC Natural Heritage Program database
of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed on 29 March 2001 and revealed no records of this
species within the project vicinity. Construction of the proposed project will have no effect on this
species.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are nine Federal Species of Concern listed by the FWS for Johnston County. Federal Species of
Concern are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to
any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. However, the status of these species is subject to change, and so should be included for
consideration. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are defined as a species that is under consideration
for listing but for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, organisms,
which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species, are afforded state protection under the
NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 3 lists Federal Species of Concern, the state status of these species (if afforded state protection),
and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for each species. This species list is provided
for information purposes as the protection status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these species
observed. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats on 22 March 2001
revealed no federal species of concern within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) project study area.
;North Carolina Department of Transportation T/P 8-3863 Augzzst 2001
The Landl4ark Design Group, lnc. Project ~Vo. 196002~l-30%.00 Pnge l.i

Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Johnston County.

''Scientific Name
Common Name -
NG -
Habitat ''
` ,

~ _ ___
~, .. a; ~
~.d Status
,
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance T Yes
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T Yes
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T Yes
Lasmigona subviridis Green floater E Yes
Solidago verna Spring-flowering goldenrod T Yes
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel C* Yes
TrilliLtm patsillum var. pusillum Carolina least trillium E Yes
Lythrurus mattrtinus Pinewooods shiner SR Yes
Procambarus medialis Tar River crayfish - Yes
"E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora is determined to be
in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally
substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare
throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state,
generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is
generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
* -- Historic record -the species was last observed in the county more than 20 years ago.
* *--Obscure record -the date the species was last observed in the county is uncertain.
\'orth Carolina Department ojTransportation T!P B-3863 Azzgzzst 2001
The Landtlark Design Grozzp, lnc. Project No. 19600Z~-30.00 Page l6

5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-List of North American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence,
Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Basinwide Information Management System, [Online]. Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/biros/Reports/reports.html [2001, April 19].
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
NCDEM. 1998. Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina Streams: Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality, 1983-1990.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. March 2000 Division of Parks and Recreation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
Biological Conservation Database.
NCWRC. 1990. Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
Palmer, Willliam M. and Alvin L. Braswell, 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrate of the United States, 3rd. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
:\'orth Carolina Department ojTransportation T/P 8-3863 August ZQU!
The Land;Lfark Design Group, lnc. Project ~~'o. 196002-f-30".00 Page 1-

Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University
of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina.
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, N.C.
USDA.1994. Soil Survey of Johnston County North Carolina. US Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 198. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
North Carolina Deportment oJTransportation T/P 8-3863 August 200/
The Land,Llark Design Group, loc. Project ~'~'o. 196002-307.00 Page 18

6'6 ~/ ~1,~ ~ ,2j.
6.1 Al ~ (~~~ ~ / - ~ '~
, .
_ , - .. ~ M
b. A~ \ ~y ~, ti~ ~'
~ f ~'QOt ~ ~ - e . _ ~ i
-t~, r ...
MA/CN ~ ~- - T a
_ ti
~ .` .j ~~~' ~• .6 e _ Bridge No.151 ~ '~°~ ~•
• - .~ •
• . : ~ N 8 th ; D~•~
( i
c ~ _~a v~
~. ~
~~ ~ .\i~ y ; ~ ~ \~~ \i ~ 6 ' 3\~6' . 5 s . 5 6
8
m .~ 1.1 '
:~ .W e . , r~+l . ~ a
~ ~ \ o .9 i
Q ti y ~ \v, ~ \°~
.w _ ~ a .3 1,1
' ~ •\ i
\~ al ' ,~ \~ 1 • `J m \ ai r ~
..,.•~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --cam ~t~ 'o ~ a t./. a
.. ~
1 ~~
i ~ ~ 0 1.1
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
,~ Project Development F~'
Environmental Analysis
o~
Johnston County
Replace Bridge No. 151 on SR 1722
Over Little River
B-3863
SCALC: 1 in = 2 mi Figure 1

lkj, _.
2 r + ,~ ,~ {. ,a
~< ,r x ' ~`
{q~ "' k..
K ",y •~
~y
'~y ~~ ~
y,-~ ~ ~ >}~ p.
~~ ~~.~
7 .~ ~ ;h. 1••.
O
~ t F f . ,~ rlf~ ;~ L
~~i~ ~
~~r ~~ ~~ y ~M f . 4~ ...
~.
d.z
* ~
. .F .t d "k
~~ I ~
1
a. r6t rvgie" ..,:W~.A -+~iPY$Dt` d .. ~ _,. .. ~-~ m-_c.uwuru v~..~..~ vu o-md--~.~...- _~
PFi~~,~:<'~~'s~ ;~~: L?tt}e Riv~;r i~ .~obnston ~'o:as: .
1'i{Ci'~:~rI~=1~'Iz ,'.` 3: 33rad~e I;tu~nber % 5 i on :sR i?2~ over ~~ie Liit1~ River.

srSWt
+` a~
~-
'~a.,.s'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART~~EN'I' OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
January 17, 2001
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
FROM: Robin C. Young
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: B-3863, Johnston County, Replacement of Bridge No. 151 on SR 1722
over Little River, State Project 8.2312801, FA Project BRZ-1722 (2)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Roadway Design Unit Conference
Room in the Century Center on December 5, 2000. The following people were in attendance:
Ben Brown Hydraulics
Jerome Nix Hydraulics
D. Andre Davenport Structure Design
Mack Bailey Structure Design
Cynthia Perry Roadway Design
Raymond Goodman, III Right of Way
Jessica Kuse Traffic Control
Derek Bradner Location & Surveys
April Montgomery State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Elizabeth Lusk
Robin Youn Project Development & Environmental Analysis-Natural Systems
P
g roject Development & Environmental Analysis
The following comments were either given at the meeting or received:
Hydraulics recommended the existing bridge be replaced with a new 130-foot (39.6-
meter) long bridge by realigning SR 1722 south (downstream) of the existing bridge. Construct
the replacement bridge at approximately the same roadway elevation as the existing bridge.
Traffic would be maintained using the existing alignment during construction. To facilitate deck
drainage, at least a 0.3% roadway gradient should be used on the new bridge. If an on-site detour
is considered, it would require a 130-foot (39.6-meter) bridge located south (downstream) of the
existing bridge. The elevation of the temporary detour bridge can be approximately 2 feet (0.6
meter) lower than the existing bridge.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone]
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DFVFLOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
~cna Finn C. ,.,,,,-~ rte,,.... ... 1 $OUTM WILMINGTON $TRf'F=i

State Historic Preservation Office, April Montgomery, commented there is no need for
either an Architectural or Archaeology survey.
Location & Surveys commented there are no overhead utilities visible at the site. A
driveway is located in the southwest quadrant and a vacant house is located in the northeast
quadrant. The horizontal alignment and vertical alignments are fair to good. It is recommended
to place a new structure on the existing location and utilize anoff--site detour.
Division 4 Construction Engineer, Wendy Oglesby, recommends anoff--site detour based
on the low traffic volume and fairly good condition of the proposed detour route. The proposed
detour route utilizes NC 96, SR 1754, and NC 231. Part of this proposed detour route is
currently being used for anoff-site detour on another project, however SR 1754 is in poor shape
and should be resurfaced prior to closing of the road. This paving is 0.7 miles and it is
recommended to be included in the project funding.
The Natural Systems Specialist of PDEA stated this project is located in the Neuse River
Basin and the Buffer Rules will apply. There are known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel
both upstream and downstream of the bridge. Therefore, a Section 7 Consultation is required.
Minimal in-stream work and anoff--site detour is recommended.
Comments from the Wildlife Resource Commission will be available in the near future.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Existing Bridge
Bridge No. 151, built in 1957 is 106 feet (32.3 meters) long with a clear deck width of
17.2 feet (5.2 meters). According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of
the bridge is 14.9 out of a possible 100 with an estimated 4 years of useful remaining life.
Presently the bridge is posted with weight restrictions of 18 tons for single vehicles and 21 tons
for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Traffic Information
SR 1722 is a Rural Local Route with a statutory speed limit of 55 mph (90 kmh) in the
vicinity of the bridge. The current ADT is 500 vph (vehicles per day) and the projected 2025
ADT is 1200 vph. Approximately 2% of the traffic aze dual trucks and 1 % of the traffic are
truck-tractor semi-trailers.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that one accident has been reported during a
recent 3-year period in the vicinity of the project.
This section of SR 1722 is not a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the TIP as
needing incidental bicycle accommodations.
B-3863 Page 2 of 3

Bus Information
According to the Johnston County Schools, this bridge has 6 school bus trips per day.
Re-routing would not create a problem for them.
EmerQencv Management Services (EMS)
Has not responded at this time.
New Cross Section
Due to some inconsistencies between the 1994 Green Book and the Roadway Design
Unit Design Manual, Roadway Design will be responsible for choosing the appropriate reference
and indicating their choice in their cost estimate.
Project Information
Categorical Exclusion document is due December 2001.
Right of Way is scheduled for October 2002.
Construction Let Date is scheduled for October 2003.
* * *Note: This project is scheduled to let 8 months after B-3481. B-3481 is a bridge
replacement project for Bridge No. 94 on NC 96 over the Little River. At this time, B-3481 will
be a replace in place with off-site detour. The off-site detour will utilize SR 1723, NC 39, and
NC 231. It may be necessary to change the let date of B-3863 to allow for the completion of B-
3481.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATES
We anticipate the completion of the preliminary design and cost estimates by May 2001.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 19 with a new 130 foot (39.6 meter) long bridge at
approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge.
Traffic will be maintained off-site, along surrounding roads during construction
I
i
i
B-3 863 i
Page 3 of 3 '

December 4, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robin Young
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, DOT
FROM: Stephen Hall
SUBJECT: .Review of Scoping Sheets -Replace Bridge No. 151 over Little River
REFERENCE: B-3863
The Natural Heritage Program database contains records for the following species from the
reach of the Little River in the vicinity of the proposed bridge replacement:
Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), federally and state listed as Endangered
Atlantic ypigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), state listed as Threatened (proposed as
Endangered) and a federal Species of Concern
Triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), state listed as Threatened
Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewist), state listed as Special Concern
During the construction phase of this project, these species may be adversely affected by both
siltation and toxicity resulting from wet concrete coming into contact with the water.
Following completion of the project, they will remain vulnerable to spills of hazardous
materials and to pollutant laden runoff for the lifetime of the crossing.
Due to the potential for impacts to a federally listed species, the US Fish and Wildlife Service
should be consulted. We also recommend that the NC Nongame and Endangered Wildlife
Program be consulted about the possibilities for avoidance or minimization of impacts to the
state listed species.
/sph

/L GFiwv~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
January 16, 2001 Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook ~~,~~ ,,c>{' C l__C~ ~~~
Deputy State Hist rc Preservation Officer
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 151 on SR 1722 over Little River,
TIP No. B-3863, Johnston County, ER 01-7931
On December 5, 2000, April Montgomery of our staff met with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above project. She reported
our available information on historic architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we offer our
preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources we are aware of no historic structures located within the area of
potential effect. We recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the project area. Based on our present knowledge of the
area, it is unlikely that any archaeological tesources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places, will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to the receipt of either a Categorical Exclusion or
Environmental Assessment, which indicates how NCDOT addressed our comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have any questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919 733-4763.
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fae
Administration 507 N. [3ount St, Raleigh 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone].715-8653
Restoration S 15 N. 131ount St. Raleigh 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 2769911613 [phone].715-1801
Survcy~.C Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh 4618 Mail Service Ccntcr, Raleigh 27699-461R [phone].715-4801

`
i
f.
f'
' ~ k ,,
,
~ ~
'i~
~ ~~
I }
~:: ;,
.. ~ .~

~~.
~'
,~,r~ " :~,:1
.;,~.
-~,` ~y
.~, y :'
,~3

~ *, ; ~.
~
.

.. ~
~:
:~ ~~~s
,,~e~`'
~a 1 ~ a» ?sar.

~ m.

~..
".«.p.
'»
~i;,

~ ®,*
6J ~ ~k
. ~~~ 11111 i c I
~ ~ ~ ~
_
,
~$ i~
t ~
e '
Ci
• -1- ~, s
~~yy

~
-°^,,.

~~
ppyypp
k.&d fib:
S~yss
k+h~
+ `,mss...
~ -^d
t,
._~
~
yy
L ~
~ ~.

~tb
~~~ E

^-d ~~,
~(}

. $}'~ ~
P
~ ~~,