20051608 Ver 2_Application_20060707

`' ~ `;
e,x STAtF o
o=ten
,+...
.4 a,..~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART'1VIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 30, 2006
Division of Coastal Management
N.C. Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Sollod
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
~~~~oec~
JUL 0 y pp06
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STQRMWATER BRANCH
Subject: CAMA Major Development Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge
No. 60 (Alfred Cunningham Bridge) over the Trent River on US 70 Business
(East Front Street); Craven County; TIP Project B-2532; Federal Aid Project No.
BRSTP-070B(4); State Project No.8.1172401;
Debit $400 from WBS Element 32649.1.1.
Please find enclosed the CAMA Major Development Permit Application, permit drawings, half-
size plans, and the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the above-mentioned project. The North
Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace existing Bridge No. 60 over the Trent
River on US 70 Business in Craven County. The project involves replacement of the existing
swingspan bridge, related approaches, and traffic control devices with a bascule bridge, new
approach structures, and new traffic control devices. The new bridge will feature two 11-foot
lanes with a 4-foot shoulder along the northbound lane and atwo-foot gutter along the
southbound lane. A sidewalk (5.5 feet in width on the bridge and 5 feet in width on the roadway
approaches) will be provided adjacent to the southbound lane for the entire project length. Total
project length is 2,480 feet with the bridge comprising 1,762 feet. The project schedule calls for a
January 16, 2007 let with a review date of December 12, 2006. Proposed permanent impacts
include 6,049 sq. feet of surface water impacts for drilled piers and Bascule footings. Proposed
temporary impacts to surface water will be 630 sq. feet for cofferdams to construct the piers and
3500 sq. feet for the work bridge piers.
Impacts to Water of the United States
General Description: The Trent River is located in the 03020204 CU of the Neuse River Basin.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned the Trent River a Stream Index Number of
27-101-(39). DWQ has assigned a best usage classification of SB Sw NSW.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC'DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND tNVIRONMEIJTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH W ILMINGTON'STREET
1545 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG P.AL£IGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-T548

~ ~
The Trent River is not designated as a North Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a national
Wild and Scenic River, nor is it listed as a 303(d) stream. No designated Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-I), or Water Supply II (WS-
II) waters occur within 3.0 miles of the project study area.
Permanent Impacts: As stated above, permanent impacts consist of drilled shaft piers and
Bascule bridge footings. The total amount of surface water impacts is 0.139 acre.
Temporary Impacts: Temporary impacts to surface waters for this project is 0:014 acre for coffer
dams needed to construct the footings for the bridge. There will be temporary impacts for the
workbridge in the amount of 3500 sq. feet. The size and shape of the workbridge is generally left
to the contractor.
Utility impacts: There will be no impacts to jurisdictional waters due to utilities. The only
utilities associated with this project will serve the Bascule bridge and the Bridge Tender's house.
Neuse Buffer Rules: This project lies within the Neuse River Basin; therefore, the regulations
pertaining to the Neuse River Buffer Rules will apply. Because the bridge is located within an
urban azea, most of the buffer zones have pre-existing bulkheads and/or riprap. To comply with
the Neuse River Riparian Buffer requirements, all improvements associated with B-2532 will
remain inside the limits of the existing transportation facility and, therefore, this project is
considered exempt from the buffer rules.
Bridge Demolition
The superstructure for Bridge No. 60 will allow removal without dropping components into the
water. Likewise, it should be possible to remove the timber piles without dropping them into the
water. The concrete piers may result in as much as 10 cubic yazds of fill depending on the
method of removal to be determined after a contractor is selected. Best Management Practices
for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented. Any component of the bridge dropped
into the water shall be immediately removed.
Avoidance and Minimization
To avoid impacts, NCDOT is replacing Bridge No. 60 in place and utilizing an off: site detour.
NCDOT is also minimizing impacts to surface waters by utilizing longer spans with less bents
than the existing bridge.
NCDOT will observe an in-stream construction moratorium from February 15 to June 30 and
utilize Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage.
To avoid temporary impacts due to a workbridge, NCDOT will utilize a barge for demolition and
bridge construction where feasible.

s ~
To minimize impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAVs), efforts will be made to avoid
barge contact with the substrate and minimize shading during the growing season (May -
September). Logistics associated with minimizing shading include maintaining an elevation of at
least three feet above normal high tide (+0.7 feet) for work bridges and avoiding or minimizing
long term mooring of construction barges during the growing season. Reasonable efforts will also
be made to avoid bottom disturbances in areas of SAV beds during the growing season.
Mitigation
Mitigation is not proposed for the permanent impacts due to piers or the temporary impacts due
to the workbridge and coffer dams. There are no impacts to the Neuse River Riparian Buffers
since the project is staying within the existing transportation facility.
Federally Protected Species
As of March 8, 2006, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists six federally protected
species for Craven County. The following table lists these species. The biological conclusions
listed below remain valid.
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Conclusion
Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochel s coriacea E Y No Effect
American Alli ator Alli ator mississi iensis T(S/A Y N/A
Bald Ea a Haliaeetus leucoce halos T Y MANLTAA
Red-cockaded Wood ecker Picoides borealis E N No Effect
West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus E Y MANLTAA
Sensitive Joint-vetch Aesch nomene vir inica T Y No Effect
Notes: E Endangered
T Threatened
T(S/A) Threatened (Similarity of Appearance)
Regulatory Approvals
CAMA Permit: NCDOT requests that the proposed work be authorized under a Coastal Area
Management Act Major Development Permit. The landowner receipts are attached.
Section 404 Permit: The Section 404 permit has been submitted under separate cover to the
United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Section 401 Permit: The Section 401 permit has been submitted under separate cover to the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
Neuse River Riparian Buffer Authorization: This project lies within the Neuse River Basin;
therefore, the regulations pertaining to the Neuse River Buffer Rules will apply. However, all
improvements associated with B-232 will remain inside the limits of the existing transportation
facility and, therefore, this project is considered exempt from the buffer rules.
3

~ f
United States Coast Guard Permit: A USCG permit application has been submitted under
separate cover to the U.S. Coast Guard.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.or~/doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.html.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Chris Underwood at
[phone].
Sincerely,
~ (dam ~
I .~~- Gregory J. orpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
;,~,
w/attachment:
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
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. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E., Division 2 Engineer
Mr. Jay Johnson, Division 2 Environmental Officer
w/o attachment
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. William Wescott, USACE, Washington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and. TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Vince Rhea, P.E., Planning Engineer
4

~ 1
DCM-MP-1
TI
I
L
PP
(To be completed by ali applicants)
b. City, town, community or landmark
NevJ 8cr ~
PPLICANT
andowner: -
ame 11~CJe~ar+me~~ a~ Trahspor~'a-h'or~
ddress J ~~18 m4~ ( StrO,`Ce C~n..~e-t
ity l~.a~ei~h State /Id'
ip a7~~Q'~~yFDay Phone6Q~9) 733-3~~~
ax~gl4~ 733-R~a~f
uthorized Agent:
ame Gr~eg~a ~.~ 3. Yh~rP~t.: P ~1 ~ .
ddress s4~e
ity
State
ip Day Phone

:ojaerc2t nam{e~ (if any) I~aoT i'ro;ec~ 312r]~~9.~•I
3-253z~ .~r~d~G hl)•lOD O~tr I~C.nTC.U~/
~7E: Penrot wilt be issued in Want oJlandowner(sJ, and/or
project name.
OCATION OF PROPOSED
ROJECT
aunty C (a J~-n
c. ~ Street address or secondary road number
GI 5 70 ~us .
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? X Yes No
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g. river,
creels, .sound, bay) 7rc~-I- ~; u c r'- /Nck s c ~: ucr
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/o>; filling activities.
~en~oJa I o~ e~';s~.~ br.d~e ,
Gw~ ~r~G~, ~o ~ p~~ re~aCCvb, ~~~` br;~
it-~~ ~D Xi~ ~-;r.4 ~4~wa ~~~ro 1~e5 .
4_ S ~ Ewa (~[ , Cu~hct ~a k~Ca' Or+ S.w . a?D~Oxln•,
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
project, new work, or both? bo~-~.
c. Will the project be for public, private or commercial
use? ~ubl~ ~ -~-ir~5' ~or~~;oh
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed
project. If more space is needed, please attach
additional pages. Tl~e ~roi ec~- i s n~ec~
~aa ~ ~ nnEin'I• w ; I I ~ UStc} '~o f~nno ~C -~c
oars

Form DCM-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract 3.~2 a~ Iand r'r~a
b. Size of individual lot(s) N ~A
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or
NWL io' Nit dD
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
I~uy~ u~ Scr~, orccr~ ~G s; ~f
' J
e. Vegeta ion on tract ~~tdS iL~e ci r~S5e5
~~ Shru~S ' S~~ec,'.,.,c~, ~-~ree5 alo~,G ~er~G
Gv~ af~ ~ctr~;
f. Man-made features now o tract ~oa:~c~a~, -~:l f
br~clce bUlkhPa~s
J
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification Of the site? (Contttlt the local lmd ust plan.)
Conservation Transitional
~_ Developed Community
Rural Other
h. How is the tract zzpprr~~ed b Ioca1 government?
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable
zoning? ~_ Yes No
(Anach zoning cbmplianee certificate, if applicYtbleJ
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment been
done for the tract? X Yes No
If yes, by whom? 5~ ~ ~ S~or -- G tSreS . l~'~~t
k. Is the pmject located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
~_ Yes No
Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes No
Coastal (marsh) X Other
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? -~ o
(Anal, doutmentarian, if available)
,~~-e GE ; w~-~IG~s o~~s;dc co~s~-~NLTIO~
~^~~~5.
m. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
~~~
n. Describe location and type of discharges to waters
of the state. (For example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial/commercial effluent, "wash
down" and residential dischar es.) Sur~ace
rG ~a~'~ D~ aaarnad• r~~ D c
rG, ~.~ o,.. vv~~ r ~., sxi ~s (ar ~ a e
o. Describ ~~s~ting drinking water supply source.
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
• A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.
• An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1 /2" by 11 " white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resourcesc Commission Rule 7).0203 for a
detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
adequate number of quality copies aze provided by
applicant. {Contact the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
drawings.) A site or location map is a part of plat
requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed ~ to
guide agency personnel unfamiliaz with the area to the
D....S..-J Al/Oi

Form DCM-MP-1
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
• A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary
• A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified malt. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
Name Sec 1~'~}ac~ed 1-~S~S
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
• A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permittee, and issuing dates.
• A check for $250 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
• A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
• A statement of compliance with the N.C.
Fitvironmental Polic, Ad (N.C.G.S. 113A - 1 to
10) If the project involves the expenditure of public
funds or use of public land's, attach a statement
documenting compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act.
Revised 03/95
6. CERTIFICATION AND PERNIISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
I understand that any permit issued in response to this
application will allow only the development described in
the application. 'The project will be subje~ to conditions
and restrictions contained ~~ the permit.
I certify that to the best of my lmowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
grant permission to representatives of state and federal
review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.
I further certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
-too L.
This is the ~ ~ day of ~`~'''~ , 19'
~--
Print Name ~ i ~ ~ S ~~ ~'
~~.
Signature ~ ~ '
landow~ter or AYthoriied Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
Proj~•
DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
DCM MP-3 Upland Development
DCM MP-d Structures Information
X DCM MP-S Bridges and Culverts
DCM MP-6 Marina Development
NOTE: Please sign and date each attachment in the
space provided at the bortorn of each form.

' Farm ~DCM-MP=~
BRIDGES AND
CULVERTS
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete a1I
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
1. BRIDGES
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain}
g. Length of proposed bridge 17 ~ 2 ~
,~
h. Width of proposed bridge 3~0 ~
a. .Public ~._., Private
b. Type of bridge (constriction material)
O~c ~e-I•e G ; r~ Q f 5
- J -
c. Water body to be crossed by bridge
I r evrl 2 : ye r
d. WNWL depth at tie proposed crossing at MLW or
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge?
`~ Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge 17Go
(2} Width of existing bridge 3~~ ~F''
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge 13,5' ~Clasecl Sw~~ stxr~)
(4) Will all, or a part of, the axis ' +~ be dge be
removefl? (Explain) AI I
• ~ rcr~o~e J
f. Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert(s)?
Yes ~_ No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
N /~
j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
Yes X No
1f yes, explain
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
lG` ~c~oscc~ basca l ~ s~a~, l
1. Will the proposed bridge affecx navigation by
reducing or increasing the existing navigable
opening? ~_ Yes No
If yes, explain Na y . I.~~', l.~ c{ca ra ~~- .
~.c'rPn SPCA 2~~' .~-ro•~-~ (3,5~--fo ~fo'~i ~.
ID ~ {'~tjS,~'~7JV~~ ~v~~ h~~~L'lP-~l'rQt,. c ~~v~crPaStS
a..,. 7~' -I-a f3D'i
m. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
. no navigable waters? Yes ~_ No
If yes, explain
n. Have you contacted the U.S. Coast Guard
concerning their approval?
,.,~_ Yes No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
Revised 03/95

Form ]uCM-MP-S
2. CULVERTS
j. Will the proposed culvert affect existing navigation
poteatial? Yes No
If yes, explain
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
b. Number of culverts proposed
c. Type of culvert (construction material, style)
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL
a.
d. Will proposed culvert replace_ an existing bridge?
Yes No
If yes,
(I) Length of existing bridge
(2) Width of existing bridge
(3) Navigation cleazance underneath existing
bridge
(4) WiII all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) - b.
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing ailvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
~(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
f. Length of proposed culvert
g. Width of proposed ailvert ,
h.' Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the
IVII3W or NWL
i. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow?
Yes No
If yes, explain
Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation below the MHW or NWL?
Yes _~ No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of azea to be excavated
(3) Depth of area to be excavates!
(4) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation within: .~
_ Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs _ Other Wetlands
If yes, . .
(1) Length of area w be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require eery highground excavation?
Yes , X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(~ Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
- d. If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves
. any excavation, please complete the following:
(I) Location of the spoil disposal area
(2) DiInQ ions of spoil disposal area
(3) D~/o~//you claim title to the disposal area?
Yes ~_ No
If no, attach a letter greeting permission from
the owner.
Rena osr4s

~ Form DCM-IVII'-5
(4) Will the disposal area be available for future b. Will the proposed project require the relocation of
maintenance? Yes __~ No any existing utility lines? ~ Yes No
(~ Does the disposal area include any coastal If yes, explain in detail
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands? _ _
Yes `~ _ No far gr.~~-t ~o+~.Sf oti~~ .
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2)
above. c. WiII the proposed project require the construction of
(6) Does the disposal area include any area below any temporary detour structures?
the MHW or NWL? Yes ~, No ' . Yes ~_ No
If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2 If yes, explain in detail
above.
e. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material d. Will the proposed project require any work
described in Item d. above) to be placed below channels? Yes X No
IvtIiW or NWL? Yes ~_ No If yes, complete Forni DCM-MP-2
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled e. How wilt excavated or fill material be kept on site
(2) Width of area to be filled and erosion controlled? ~; l ( c,..- .'I - l~ e ~k~
(3) Purpose of fill G w~pGCf ~~ -s ~f o(-~ ,roa~~..r~u ~~;tf.
Fro Torn w:I( be GDh~ o~~ IJCDoT~ 6~r~
r"t~~c~tn~c...{- ~cf;~5 tot S~-d; ~'ros, co +o(.
- f. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert f. What type of construction equipment will be usod
result in any fill (other than excavated materi~ (for example, dragline, backhoe or -hydraulic
described in Item d. above) to be placed within: a dredge)? C ra v, G a ass.' l r ~ -rr~ f
_ Coastal Wetlands _, SAVs _ Other Wetlands n wafP cress a ~' ~~;~.a
If yes, 2 ~ ~ ~ ~n ~~.~- ~
(1) Length of area to be filled
(2) Width of area to be filled g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
(3) Purpose of fill to project site? Yes ~_ No
. If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
g. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed on
highground? ~_ Yes No h. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
If yes, ~ require any shoreline stabilization?
(1) Length of area to be fiI}ed ~o05ouF(~ 3oo~„r€t, Yes _~, No
(2) Width of area to be filled Jo0 so~k~. 5o"norN~- If yes, explain in detail
(3) Purpose of fill ~a~wa ~ ea,•,t2'1 r~„hru ~-

I~ C Dam
4. GENERAL
a. WiII the proposed project involve any mitigation?
Yes _~ No
If yes, explain in detail
t Project Name
i
S~atwe
ro~z~ >Io~
~~
Revised 03/95

a
118 .:::. ;:::;::<'`~:::;.;. B ~ t~ n is
:::>
<>;.
~ ::: ;:>.... Cv;rl~rd
for. - = r~~~ell
J~3. C r 't I >?~>:: t
it;~ 43 :..;
I.ia.~ror~: tiv+ ~~
~ ".:>
~{f _ _ I :~ripia Grail15~,4
:.::.
r r
~ I[!
~~

~~

N~l.~~~~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CRAVEN COUNTY
PROJECT:326~19.1.1 (B-2532)
BRIDGE N0.60 OVER
TRENT RIVER. ON US 70 BUS.
SHEET ~ OF 8 0~/ 08 / 06

R ~
y
~ ~\
A
17
R ~
~ '~~
-`
END
m
N~ r n
s
~~J~ ~
S
~~ /
DETOUR •~-}~
~~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CRAVEN COUNTY
PROJECT:32W9.1.1 (8-253Y)
BRIDGE N0.60 OVER
TRENT RIVER ON US 70 BUS.
SHEET a OF 8 0~/OS/0

r ' - ~

N
O
a
N
~
~
M
a N
~
z ~
z
~
x O

O O w ~ Q7
z
o ~
w
~
~ 5
., o
a A a
a ~
w
n
z
w
w
x

0
d
.Q

y
l0
m
y L
c 2
w N
d V
'n
d
U ~
y ~
N ~
m y
~ C
C y
l0 E
l0
d ~
'a
m ~
v w

`
m
ca
y
~
l0
E ~
~
c
2.
m
~
c
~ a
`m ~
a. ~

~i
o ~
Z
~
Y

c
~ ~ rn
.., ~? y ~
zoo

~ y
C C ~j d
c m ~ ~
t
U x
E F-
a WU-

~
Lr y c
c c ti c
w w.cmm~
E
X L
Q
~ ~
wv a

w

~ ~~ nm
0
0
~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0

~
c y
N
~
~

~

M

N 3
~
a
EN
0

H ~
~ •- 0
U ~
a ~ ~
C ~ N U
f0 ~ ~ + N
~ U
W
a
° ~~
.
~ N N +' V
Z
g
N L~u~m
;~~
~ U ~ c
3 a y
~ -~
~
o >_~~
'-
z
g ~
~
W

w ~,
c
a
~
E-_ w, m
~ ~
3
c y
f0 ~ ld ~
LL d
N

~a U
O
\ ~
j m
~ ~ j cNo

.~. °o
C ~
of O

c
~o 0 ~
0
~
~ ~
~ ~
+
`-~ N

J
~,
°
~ a
iii z o
`
r

s > .~
z
0
d
(
,
'Q: (n N
M
~"' N
~ .']
U
O ~ ~ N
.
~"
~ M
U ~ .
~
~

A
W
A ~
U
z w
x

J
LL ~
Z E ~ ~
E ~ N Z
Z
m m
3 ~ z ~
m E
m
m i
a
z m
m m
•~ m ~
3 ~
°
~z
z
z
N ~
~ Vyy) Y 'p
~ ~
~
~ ~ N
3 ' ~
~.~ m
~
m U N m =

d
~ O
N ~
d ~ r
~
L
d
C
3
O
U
C
0' N d
a` ~ ~ ~ ~ c
c ~ 3 'o ~'
m ~ a`
V m
\ d
Z ~ V l0 W
~
; ° > ~ a a
Q U U O cL v~

v
r
~I~ ~I~ ..
r~
~~~ ~I ~ `~I~ ~~~ ~~~
~ ~u ~
~I~~ ~~l= ~~~
N
OZ
~o
..
0
m
N
m
m
N
m
G
Z
O
V
~J \
i I~ ~ ~ 118--1ii---~--L~----5 I I
I I I I !~ ~ .
. "11 Ilr~li ~I~ x ~ ~
s ~ ~I ~ 11~~11~.111 ~ I I~ ~ . ~ ~
I I I
~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ I ~ 1 ~ II ~ ~ I II 4 ~ I ~'~ . ~
~ ~~ .~ - ~ ~ II 'III 1 ~ ~,~
a ~ ~~ I ,` , I ~ ,
\` ._ ~ ~~ _ .11 I a II 1 ~ I ~ ~ ~ to
r ~~ ', I ~ 1~ I ~;Ijl I ~ I ~ ~~ ~ a ~ ~~
- ~.I ~~yl ¢ I a ~ k ro ~ ~ I
4 7 ~' I '~ i iii i x i I ~ ~ y, ~ ~I ~ .
~ ! - ~ I I III ~ I Ila ~
Il ~ 411
~ ~~ I ' II ~ o\ ~ I g
i ~ ~, r ~
~ ~~ a~d~ ~~ ~ ~ ,i r 'Q E ~ I ~ R
- ~ I °
___ ~ ~~ ~
~, •~ ~ ~
I I /ST. EtYST. ~ I ~ ~ ~
_ ~ ~ W
~ I
~~ ~ ~
I ' b ~ /5f00 II~N,~
91 _ I
I I, 4
~ I I ~ ; I, I I ~~
1 11 a i Q I ~ 3,~ ~ r I /-1
R ~ I ~ ~ ~ . ~! I ~ ~ ~~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~
x ~ ~I~ ~ i ~ ~ $ ~ ~ `' a ~~
~ I~ i :'~i ~ Q ~ I J ~ ~~ 1~
I
I ~ a ' e ~ I ~ ~~_
I
II* ,~ 4 0~
I : ~ ~ b o~ rA~,,., ~o
~ ~ ,~. I ~ ~~ d z
A
~ ~ ~+~
~ ~ ~~ ~
~ N ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~~ ~~~
~~~~
~~~~ ~~~ ~
~ ~~~~
~ ~_
~ ~~
~~ r ~ \~ 1
r I
m~ ~ ~ ~~~
' `^~ I _
R ~ ~ _~O
P d^ o
MATCHUNE -L- STA. 20f00A0 SEE SHEET N0.5
~~ ~
N
8•"
i
~ u
I C
Q ~ u ~
II _.~ ~ n
1 N H
za~~> ~~
~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~
~~ _:~ ~
~~ ~
z y
y A ~

0 MAV-2006 10:28
Hydrau tes\ 32,_rdy_psh_05.dgn
MATCHUNE -L- STA 20tP0A0 SEE SHEET N0.4 _
I ~ ~ 0 1~ o Jo
o
- ~ ¢ - f ~-=
!i .Q~¢_ o 0 o~q o 0
_~
~i ~-,
~i~_° oo~~oo
~P ~-~ ~- J ~--
~ _~° m o~~( oJo
I~ o L ,~
P ~_~ o a ~ o 0
¢ o ~ - r-~
A7fo ~--
~ ~ .~
I ~ O L-
' ~--_~ O O ~ C O
- d -~ ` -~
o o ==-~
~ ~--
~-_-~ o o ~~ o 0
o a ~~ o 0
- o m
o
-J o--~
f ~ . -~ -- i ~--
~ ~4 0 0
o ~ ~ o
l_-
~_ __°~ ~~ --a._.--~
~~ ~ ~
~O ~ F
Z°
m~ f00
l -
~ 5~~'
S/ ALK
W
~.
~ ~~
~ s
~~ 7~'b
N_2
~X~
p.~
'~~ AQ~
~ 'x~
~ Z o00 ~ ~~ ~ 11 0~
O Zpm ~m~ v
~ m ~7p~ `~ $S ~- rr3.va Lv3eu ~`- 0. 2
O Zm og ~~
m ~ ~ °+
H ~ .~~
1mff : ~ ~
y ~
m ~
Q ~ 1W111 A113~ ~ __
~~r. ~ n
Z ~ ~ - ~ ' ~...~-- H
O ~ ~ - ~ N N3~-•= y
_~~5
3 ~- .lB
~-_
MATCHUNE -L- STA. 32100.00 SEE SHEET N0.6 ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
x ~~ ~ ~
7Oc ' ca ~
,~ r
~>
x ~ ~~

i i

~I~ ~i~
~„.
sla ~I~J ~~I~ &Ip *~s
s Fw~vr sr. ~+ ~
~1~1 ~ala ~~~
1
(1 (I
-~l____JI-- e„~.
r Y7IM YY.iI _ .
x/71 yyl'/M WJW N~ ~ lltl'3dOtie r r~y~„' ~ ~ ~ ~~
~~
~ ` ~
o
- ~
~ ~
~~
~~ ~
~~ Q
~~hOp~ o ~ c
M N p M ~
\~~~;~~ r
~V ' ~
~~O
rr ~ -.--m-- _
_=s
~~
j =__ ___ ---_
VY 9M/701----- -~--~-~ ~ ~
o
~ o
Q
~ ~ ~ ~ Q l y~
+~ p a
O sra~asaa
~.. .. .. .. -~ Lr..
,9Z~Z A1,YY.ZLZ9NA~YY.ZLZpI '
..
0
Q~
~ ~'~
O
~~
0.
~ '
--~ ~ C
_~ ~

.: ~.,,~
rocs r~
~~
(~ -x.09'01 9
~v
\O
T
~~ ~ o ~
~~~o
~r~ ~~~
~~~~
~~~~
~~
~~z
'~~' n ~
~~ ~
o rn
o ~~ Z i~
~ o .10.Z9S
1
.69'
III
~aeaauedr
~~
z
O Z
~
70
1.'ff

r
N
8~ 8~
m ~~ ~~
~
m ~z ~
~ ~ ;~
~
o ~ ~r
~
~ z ~~
n~
s ~
ao
?N2
~XO
i~=
xA
A
~~O
0 2
~~
n
N
m
MATCHUNE -L- STA .32f0~0A0 SEE SHEET N4.5

t ~ ~s
ttttt5Y5TIMEttttt
tttttttttttttttDGNtttttttttttttttt
tttUSERNAMEtttt
C011tTRACT:
~-r-
O O O
~ ~ 0 N tNli
O T
T p m p p `-
2mm = ~ 1~~!
N H ~
n o y~ o o
r ~F, _ ~
p O p
• ~
z
v vb

a~
~o
<-+ v
v~ c ~
og~
C ~ II II II II II II x
v ~FFn OC"' ~,o ~6'o~a
,
~Np
T = r

r
p
~
C
C 0
'~ D
O
` ~
O
m ~
0 ~
~

~ `m
~ '^
'y
c
w,
N ~ ~
N
II ~
N w
N x~

II

II
"y
1
y

N J
W `~
3 ~

~ ~
a n',
b
a '~
,c~, yb
4?~ s~
Q ~ c~ _
o
m
,
~
00 '
? N Z ~
°° z ZX°~ a

~

~ O
nN~
-1
v
y y
n y~
0 ~
70 p p0

r
~r C ~
~ ~ ~ o
2
~, ~
~ c
m ~
a
ro~'•
m ~^ ~
rn m
m 9
$
p
oA
=
V
~
~
~ ~
~
~ ~
~
~
~
c~
x
a y
~b ~
~~ ti
~b
8~ $~
~Z ~~ ~O
~o x fib
~ to
~ ~
,~ : ~
~~ ~ ~~ ~r r
my ti ~~
'~a ~ e7'i H
ox
~ ~ Ij ,..•

1 ~
1, ~,
jlf , ~ ,; ~
,~ II A17f
'1 ~.~ ....~ ...._.. .._......
'

~ 1I

i
~ i ,....
.'
~~ I
~
I ~
.
~ 1i ~(~
I II II '
~~ U._
.~. ~ ..
I
ICI ~, ~

_

T /
_.:
.._.
..., '
....
,~
~.. ti ~
~
` ~
~ /~ ~ J l~ ~~'~._.
~
~~
\
~~ II.....i
y
~~t ~1 1
`~ ui I~ ~
~ ~J

t ....,,;
e r ~
~./ I
m
F
- ..
~

_. aa,+ra ~x3ai
... __ -
i
.._... ~NMI~~~ ~'~ ...............
._.
.~ . ..
~.
~
~.. ..
~
l ,~.
,,...
..._
~
...._ -- ~ ~~ I
I V q `~
i p e .
~ ~
~~
l
,

t ~
M ~
~
.l
s,
'(+,
c6 u
I li
,.
~~..
.._i
'
_~._ 1Si Llbad
.__
~r
i'
II

iwi

i
i -.l.

i _..._ .. ~
......_ ~
u.~ j
~
I
i~~l ill
~ ~r ~
~,
..~
~ II
,~

._. ~,.
.
ft _~..
..
-~- .
h-
_~--
, __
.._.__ fi

TIP PROJECT: B-2532
r ~
I
(n 2
~A~
,v
g~
N
W
N
w fZi
v
~ 2
~o
~~
$$
~m
~~
ro
ip
1
1 ~ •:.
:, ~ ......~ \, t
i.
_ ~
w' ~ ~ ~~~ .. - - Y I~ i
`,
\~ `'- - ,..~` ~.\ ~`~ ~{ ` ~ `,{ ~ ` ~ tai I /% ~ ,~ I
<, \ ~ `
\ .......
y3
Icy ~. ~ ~~` \~; r , i . ...N~~
., ~ ~ ~ ~.
_ r`
X Ic 1
,pv~, n
~` `~~~~ L \'Q ~ ~ ~ t ~~ ~ rte'
~, i
.. .'1V 1 _. ~..

O

~ ~
x
~
0

~ O
, O
~•

A.
~
c
o
~
'ti

~. ~
as
~

O
h

C

a
n
0
z

N O C = q
W ~ 3 ' ~ ~ o
i0
1 ~ T I ~ 1 ~ ; ~ ^^O
1 O I I ~ 1
~ ~ ~J
lD ~
1 D I I O I I ~ S~
1 ~ i 1 1 1 0
I ~ I I I I 1 I. W
1 0. I I I 1 I I 1
I 0 I 1 I I 1 1 1
:r
1 T I I I I I I 1
1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I
I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
1 I I 1 I I I I I
I 1 I 1 1 I I I I
~YT~;;~
V i ~
1/ I I

0 = V1 N
@
` p ~ 10 to
~ O N O 4 O
aa ~1 T ~
~
I I W 1 ~

1 I
1 I T
I
I

1 t
I I
1 1
I I
I I
1 1
I I
1 I
1 1
1 1
I I
1 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I O
I I
1 1
I I
I 1
1 I
110 I I
I I
I I
1 I
I I 1
1
1
I
I 1
I
I
1
1
ICI ~
o ~
I~I
l~ ~
L~
vnN~n ~+~~~!~pd
c T g c o o W
3~ o a 3 a g=~ ~
~ ~ O ~ ~ 1 1 3
I 1 I I ~ ~ W I I <
I I I I I I I I I W t~~~"~"_III
"3' 7
I I I 1 I I I I I I O
I I I I I I I 1 I I C
1 1 I 1 I I I I I I 4$'
I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 ~ O
1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I O
'O
1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1
I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I 1
1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I
1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I
1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I
~ -~ ~,~~.
~~' i~i i i ~~ '~ `° ~o 0
L~ l~
C
O rt 'O O O O
C
3 ~' N ' u0i ° ~ a a IOn ~ '
~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~. a n m
70 y n ~ 3 Q N N~ m
3~ °~ o~~~~ o o c W
~ O T ~`
o ~,~ a ° ANN q
C ~ a. ~ O 70C' ~ 1 W
I 1 O ~ I 3 ~ 7 ~ ~ I
I I ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ n I ~
rt
I 1 1 1 I I ~ 'fl ~ 1 I
1 1 I I 1 I G I I I 1 I
=i
I 1 I 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 I
I I 1 1 I I 3 I I I I 1
I I I 1 I I ~ I 1 1 1 I
1 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 I
1 1 1 t 1 I I I I 1 I 1
l ~ ~~ii~
~ ~ ~T~I„~'li
r r ~~
p ~° p ~° p ~° o o n o o ~' ~
~, o ~, c~ a~ a n n o v~ -o
j ~ ~ {a~, ~ ~ -I ? S T S H O =
d W ~ O. ~ d ° 7 7 > > ~ ~ O
' 0 0 pope n ~ m
O ~ ~ a ~ W ~
T
A m n 0 p O
T 0 W ~ W ~ ~ ~ ° I W W ~
a 0 T o T o O~ I I I y O
~ ~ ; ~ ; ~ Q I I I I W W
n A W O W Q Q I I I I~. ..I I
fl ~ ? d ~ T Q I I I I I I
0
~' W C ~ 0 ~ 4 I I I I I 1
W I 3 N I I 1 1 I 1 1 I
N N
C I C I C I I I I I I I 1
m
T I m I ~ I I I I I I I I
r •
1 1 ~ I I I I I I I I I 1
1 I I I I l
a x a ~ © ~' B ~~¢ T
I
I
I. I ~ I i I
O ~ '+
~ ~ ya ya ~-~• A O A p ~ ~ ~ ~ O
7 7 7 O 7 O 10 N O y~~ O ~ ~ ~
o t^Q ~ ~ ~ ~ T o ^ a ~ 3 ' `° ~ ' e
7
0 Q ~ P° ' ~ W W I ' I W I 1 1 I
`G ~ a W 'T1 1 3~' 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I
r 3 Q ° '~ W p ? I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1
g _
C ~ ~ ~ ~ W 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I I `
d C W I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1
0 C 1 I I I I I I~ I I I I 1 I I I I O
7 '`~
3Q I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1
I ` 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1
1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1
1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I
1
II~I~ i I I!'
9 F ~ I: Z x ®~O 90
~~~1; ~ ~ ~I~~I
'Q ~ y ~ y 'O ~ 07 ~ 70 7~ ~ 70 N
'O ~ ~ ~ ~ 'OO ~ 'O ~ O ~ ~ O ~ 70 N 7
O O O O ~ O O' p 0 O O ~ O' 3 ~ ~ O-
~ ° a
~ -v -i -i ° [1 ° a Z° ' Z4 Z4 m is c 3 3 I ~ ~ ~
0 3 3 3~~ 01° °T s~ ~~~ a A o
0 0 ^~ ~.. rt o o~ ~" ~ n
0 7 0 ~ 4+~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 1 I ~
i ~ C C CC o
~. v v a, W A ~ O~ ~~ ~ C ~ rt ~ I I 1 1 1
p• 0 ~ ~~ ~- A A W A ' I I 1 I I
° W W ~ I I 1 ~~ ~ I I I 1
m m O ~ T I I 1 I 1
3 N ° ~ 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I
m ~ m
3 ~ ° 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I
O N
1 ~ ~ j I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1
.•
I 1 I ~ I 1 I I I I 1 1 1
rt 1 1 I 1 1
I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I
1 1 I I I
Ilf~i,', I ;}~~
~ m i .. D® I 1 g~~~~
I I
IIIII I
~. ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o
I 3
~ W W W N W O W
O ~ I =, ~ 1 O O IC
~ ~ I ~ I I I Q (~ I I
C
W 1 = I 1 1 ~ I I I
(p 1 1 ° I I 1 1 1 I 1
H 1 I ~ I I I I I I 1
C I 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1
m
1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 I
I I 1 I I I I I I I I
I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1
1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I
1
I
®m ®o ~- ~- o- •-
i
I-I
II
I
0 0 4 a S 9 n z ~'
W W° O m le O
W ~ ~ n~ 7o A O 70 (~
W °-
v S ~ ° ' ~ '
~ C ~ X I ~ ~ O O ',
I Lq^s I I _]
1 T ~ 7 1 I °
L3. _ _ ~
I A I I I r
I 1 1 ~ 1 I I ~ C `J\`
I I 1 ~• I 1 1 Q
I I 1 ° I I' I Q I
I I I 1 1 I I O. 1
~..
I 1 I W I I I m I
7
I 1 1 I I I 1 n' 1
1 I I I I I 1 ~ I
I 1 I I 1 I 1 ~ rI~
I I I v n
©I ^ I I ~ ICI
I II ~ ~ II
I I I I r ~I
M rt rt
~ ~ > > -i r c e ~ ~ Wa 61 ~ N ~ -AC G1 ~ a ~ o ~ o. °~» ~ n o ° rt ~ ~ o- a ~ ~ c
mm rt 1 ~ ~ W
O. = 7t`' 7c~ Q~ ~ W R m °- fn ~ ~•p~ N a G. O. G W C O.' CS p O ~ T
> 0 ` ` 2 1'1 ~ ;~j I O N N 3 ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 C ~ C ~ ~ I ~ v a ~ {II ~
N ~ m `~ 3 S 1 H N C (/~1 N ' ~ .jmp /yQ~• 1 1 1]I', .~ ~]I'' I 1 T C I I 1
y^I ~ I O ~ 3 ~ (mm'n~ ~ ~ q 1 I ~ S ~ ° i 1 I ~ ` ~ I 1 1 1
? ~ m ~ S7 ~ O ~ ~ 1 a ~ O ~ O Q C ~ ~ I I 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 I 1 ~ Q 1 1 I I
NNN Qy> 7 O c ~ c
I 0 •~ O O ~ x I 1 I ~ VI W ~ W ~ ~ W I I O ~, T ~ 0 I 1 I O ? W I 1 1 1
__ _ 3
I ~ I 1 I 1 1 3 C ~ I 1 I I ~ I I 1 n ~ W I ~ 1 I 1 ~ W 1 I 1 I 1
I ~~t 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 3 p ~ 1 1 I 1 C 1 I 1 O 0' C 1 I I I 1 1 N I 1 1 I I
1 70 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 W 1 I I I I I V I I 1 ~ W ITI I I I I 1 1 rn I I I 1 1
_ •
1 p 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 N 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I I H I I I I I 1 1 1 .r 1 1 1 I 1
1 ~ 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 m I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 C 1 I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1
/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I .: I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 v I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I
I I 1 1 6 I 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I
I ~ I ' I I
I ~ I I I I I
m ra I I I ~ ( n I I I I I n I
~ i ~ II I(1I ;II
I I I I I '
n
0
z
m
Z
O
Z
D
r
z
rn
rn
N
DD
r
t/~
II
~• O
C ~o
~'
Q~
1Z.
~•
C
®~
~~
®~
~.~~.~yy
F~~1

I
~

C
-1 47
N (/7
..~. ~
N 7o
~
m
Q n
~
C7
m m o ~ u a > v ~~ S ->i °s ~ ->I a

~ S ! ! C p = a m 9 9= 9 9> 9
Z
c _ _ =
~ A m o

7
~
s
H
H
~ 2
0
9 9
O S
O
y> m 9
y> S
O
<
>
n M N m P K x AX e
if f
m o n m m• m• m•
m r o 0 0 ~' ~° ~ ~ ~~: >~
c
~
n n n 'm ms za m
> m

~ po
7
0 D
ml ml ~ ~ T 2 < * 1
1 W G
m m m > m~ ~ ~
m
y o -) ~ H -1 O

0 w ~ ~ W ~ ~
0 ~ m o m a o -~ Z

i
~
o a
amn~
in
wo
amio
-'I

~ ~ °
c mm om mm mm ~
r a ,t so 9m =

C
oo vm om o> I
"
a `°M ~ m m
T ~

O m 9 2 C O
Z
t S O 7 m ~
11
S~
m o~ i~ im
N T 0
m T <
01 <
O ~ p
1
1 I 9
~
0 ~
O •
N W
m
m

r
y
m
~_
Z
0
W
-- I~
~
O
Y
C
m w -+
~
C
-1
0
"00 T
~ I
n ~
~ ~
~
i ~nn
F
m
~ ~ Z
~
i ~
~ ~
~ .~ ;A ~
Q
~
~
~ t O

00 > •-
I
~ 2
~
~ 20 N N Q
~A I
~ ~ ~ ~
+ I
~o
N O
C _+
~ ~
~
Z/~
V.

r

c~ ~
~ 2
i
G7 ~
~~ ~
~ ~~
O N ti O

~
g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
O m ~
;
1
N
2 ~
m ~

g .~
°- ~
~~
~N ~ ~ rn
r p
N
m
-
-
- --- f~
0 ~
Z r^
~b

N ~ f
g
rn
~ A
o ~ `
' ~
? Io ~
g
Z `

m
w
1~
N

m ~
I
>s
~ ~H
~~, ~3
a, O
NN ~ NZ

1+1•F ~ N
i+

0~
Z _
m~

Z C1
°D Z
O ZO
GEC W WZ°N
mm .. ~O

1
O m

/, 47
2
O

C O
~~~

m
ym
m
~
>~~

z
~~
_ ~~Z Zy',
to p0~
I+Z ~
~Z~ ~~
m
~

Z
O~tn ,
O

Z ~Nm
I .~ `=t
O DMZ

• + O
N r
N ~
I+ O
N
m
N
m
Z
Z
O
g
m
r
b
ro
0
y
N b
C ~
W
Q

~ ~ ~
0
~
~

N v
rn
~ ~
Z
rn

~°
~ i
rn

m

c~
g

O
~

_ ~ ~
N n

2
rn
~b
ro
I~
----- ~
k
y
y
A
_ ~
z
AW=
nW~
m
~'. W
?No
xA
op~
7A=
~~~
;A~
ODO
_.o~
d~NNz
NG'
11-
omv
.~ .
Z
N
w
I~
0

B~ 8A 1
~r ~o ~ ro
~~ i~ ro
~ ~° ~
„~ ~ C~
~~ ~ ~
~a z
y y N~

i

-a N ~ m v ~
a N i ~i
>
a of i
yi o n to n
~ o ~ n n ~

m Cf ~
s
t
m
m
m
~
r w m .+ m
m •~ m

0
0
o N
m
~ m m

r
r
v
a
m
i
-=i
m
m
v
N
a
m
c
z
r
m
w
x
O
m
~ ~
~_
2 2
~ ~ .~ /, ~
o ti
~_ ~
N ~
O ~ q
14
m

'-1 H
~ ~ R
~
O ~;
'i 4
A _

C
a '~

N I III iN a

r
Vf
m
O
Z
~j k a
~ I
---- --- [~-- Q 4 ---~ r~
~ ~
m
k

1~
I ~ ~ ~
Q
~
~
g
A
~
o - ~

2

~ .q ;-'
~
~~ N ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
C~
p O
I
r
~/} C
-i N
D ~"
w
V
N r
N
If H
O
0
~ Z
r
Z
~ o
D ~,
w •
00
00
0
i+
rn~ ~~
Oi
c
Z
Z~ ~ v~
i D ,~'„
~
Z Z y ~' nn
0 t DD
~ S p
p
+
+ =~
Nm
'+ v
i
N
m

z p
c Z
o
m A
Z
O
A
O

2

2 ~
G)
~
~
. o
~~
gz
o~ ~
G)
g
m ~ ~ y ~~ ~
0 ~ ~ w
_ _
m ~
4
c~
~ b ~g g
D CN ~ rn
r v
Vf N
m ~
Z m ~
o
~ ~ 1 ~
rn
o ~ z
_
'~
~,
z ~
~
~ ~
rn
N ~ ~~
m WZ
"mom
~. ~
O
~~ 7mZ
~xA
p
C2
i ~~
~
~ ~ ~~
7~
~ rn ~~~

? crnil
~ o ~p -
-$~
~ ~ ~ 01.~~ffa

~
~ NC.
•1-
~mV
N
8•"
~
F

C
~C
m Z
A ~ •
C y
z
F
O
m
~n
~ N
v
m

O 0
Z
-n
~ 8~ g~

~ ~K -
`
~
-
C ~~
~~ O
r ~
~ ~
~
Z
I -~
~~ ~~ --_
~ b 3
~r r
VJ 4

f
asssssses•
~ I
:..:7;.t :.1I.,. ;..
:: -I :.
x .. ....
(., Iit

r t

} I

I~ r

1 1
i a
.
t t
1
I F
t
~ I

:~. ...I r t s
~ r
II:: } t. ~ ~

i

~

}.
u

t -~
ri . } I i ` i II f . } t Ij. 1: 1j •' 1 2

tt
it ? i.
rr..
a .
..t':
i:
' ~ i
r 2

a
...
..l
{ ...
, ~

I~ . ~.
:~, ,

f~~.
I
.

..t::
}.~ .. .. ..
~~
t~ ~~ r! m r
~ ~_ I
o ~^ Z ~"Z o
o~ o~
~~ v,~ °~'
~~ b~
V ~
r ~ `~
`I ~2 rm
ip Ip
°m on~i
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~
~~ v
~ ~ ~~
r
r
rsuuN~n
ryo
~ ~~~~~~
~ ~
~~o
y 2
.~ .~

^~
V J
r
O
-L- 40+00
_ wfT Sfe_ gQ+~3,66
i.
~~
b
2
2

y A ty y ~ \I
~~~~~~
~
~
:°~
~ -
~
0~p
~~
y 2
~ ~ 1.~~

D ~~i
m
o~
~

2 m
?
~~
t
~1y0~~1
Z
~ ~ g ~~
~ ~8~
2 V1 ~ ,~I
y 2 R~
~ O O
~
L
~ n
~ m ~~

o

~
~ ~
~ ~
g ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
p ~
~

~
~
~ 99
~N
~~
~

° g ~ ~$~ rn
~o

l~ii

Opp

C

b

N

4i rn

~ ~ ~

2
N

co
N
~ ~
N ~
~ ~
~, ~~
`~ ~ ~ m rn uwi
~ '~
~
A
~
~ ~

~~ ~
~ ~

~'
~i
~
d
N n
~ pyrn
~o~ r
R1
~4
y

N ~+ ~CO I

~
~
~
~
~
~ x
~~ ~i

-L- 35+Q0
A =
d c~2
nm~
~. ~
rrni, nmi TNo
xp
-~
~ "~' 7~=
nN;
0 DO
m ~ -•o
~ ~ n' z
~'
y ~-~
~ ~mv
~ ~n
~ N
O
rn N V,
ti
2
Z n
N N N
O
m
8
~~
z8z `~~~
~r ~o ro
6~ ~~ ~ ~
$~ ~~ ~
db r
~zy N~

r
sssssscssssssss
MATCH L/NE ST A. 2 8 +00 SEE ABOVE
28'
ll'
li
z
~ ~ ~~
~ •

C ~ ~ ~
rn ~ o
~ cn ~
~ N3NN 1N3N1
~
m ~
A
~ ~
y~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 30+00
pU1j y Rl ~ _
,
~ ,
C
2 ~
2
~ ~ -
_ _ <~ N3_?13_Na 1N3a1 -
~3N-~
~_
- y~1030
z~~ Q31 ~.
~ - - ~ ~n

r

~
~ I
r ~ ~
m
~~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
y
~ ~ ~
b n~
y
~

V
`"
~
~
Z m~

~
/.
rn
~ ?
z ~ ~
~ ;
~ ~ ~
~ ~
A 2

~ ~
~
I~ ~
D r
y
A
Z
~
r ~
+
N
z
m
rn
rn
® ~ ~
z
o
~
i ~
~- m
n~i
g
rn
0
i z
i p
~
~ _
~ ~ ~ ~
rn
~ A ~ o
~ ~ o ~
o ~ c"
~ ~
~-~- , ..
~~
z
o~
rn .
28'
//'
MATCH UNE STA28+00 SEE BELOW
W $ r r
C
~i~~
~po~O
Z N y
~~~~~
~z g
m
orn ~
rno m
rn ~
Q ~
ti
c
20F00 ~
Z
Q
n
ti
0
z
2s+oo ~
N3/ll~l 1N3~J1

ee ss ~i~ie ~ele~ ie ssoGNSesesssessoseecs
6/21/00

I ~~ ~
~ P

~
~
~
8
8
8
8
iR pp

~
~
~
t
t" L
T
~~
,~~
r

~ +
~ +
8
g _

S
~
~j ~ ~
~~ ~~
LOGTION (LT,RL OR CU
'+
~
~
'+
LOCATION ~IT,RT, OR CU <
~
~ 8
O 8
O
~

u
T
~ ~ ~ [pp~~
xg
N
~
FROM
N
N
..

r
MOM
~
°
+ I1>~
i~
y
pppp ~
~
a~~ TO [TRUCryR! NO. ~ N TO 6TRUCIUR[ NO. a
8
i~
~
q
C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Y ~ TO/ EItVATION y~0, 'O TOF NRVAnON
Oy
~y
N $ T ~5 T~j
^'
~
~
~
INVQT ELEVATION
V
~
P
~
INVlIi 6lVATION
~ 1~FF
G
~
~ S7
~
~
~ ~
~ rr__
v
o ~ ~ ~~~
y
O
RJVERT 6lYATION

v

L

NVeRT aerAnoN ]
w $ ~
g uoFE cNnCAL
~ [tOFE CRDICAL

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

N p
O LL.~
4
~~ p
P Anc
. a
+ rr
F r
r
R ~ r~~I•
N
[GGG{ yy yy _ n

~ ~ qq~
~ 3
a 8 ~
~. N ~ y

.,D9
~
~
z M
~
'
.tss .ow t{
.tu 1C ,~ ,~ Q

.tee .ow

au
g .on
+ ~~ .tas ~ ~ ~~
g
•tu &
~ ~
.W9
~+

y
.,>e ~
y ~

p .166 y
'S
.109
b ~ ~
;
0~ ~ ~ -
~

N .109

1R• NW WAIN FIF! [
I'
„7
•
`, ~

~
r j

8 qq
8
~

°

~
~
tr sRx DRAIN FIFE I
e
N
~ ~
'y/
21• LDE DRAIN FVE
~ ~.y
hvy

~
~ !F-CVj•
R.C.F.
Q yy yy
d d
~ C
1~1

~ ~
o ~ ~ ~ [a~
~ ~ ~
CAF. 3 ~
~ C ~J
~ ~

~
y
1
N
~
FER IACN (D'TiR2U S.0'I O4ANiD1E[
FOR DRAINAGE

r r
_
r)

~ ~ yFy
41

b
~ SR ` ~
~~
S.0' 7NRU 10.0'
~ ~
C 57101CRIRlS
• TOTAL LF. FOR FAY
~ O O
r

~
~ F
~
cuANTlrr sNAU [! COL
- ~
~ 10.0'AND AWV E . " y
a ~ wlm R.G - cr. ~ N - c.R. sro. sro.ol oe srD. RAO.OS ^J ~ x W
~~ ~ - ~ ~ n
~a wrtN c.s.-cv. ~~ ~ ~ ~~~
~ ~ ~ ~

a
MA[ONARY DRARiAG! STRUCTURlS
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ £

CUNC YARDS ~ ~

lr FIARED END SECTION fTO, Jt0.0i

v V

O
L b C :~:
~S
z
~
~
~
~
A
i 0 d
=
~Tj nm~
~

-~
~~
~ ~ ~ oo
7A
nNs
~ p
}~ OO
O
3 ~
t
+ ~ s
Z
~>
c, ~
~~~ ~ v
m
~
~
~~

~~F }~ b

;~
~J
~~ ~

~~ Fot ~~~bl~
r ~
~~ ~~

~ ~~ ~'

~~' ~ INJt
N

At

~

•esc:oece:ee
~I~ ~I~
i~
~~
~~~ '~ J ~~IN ~~ ~ ~ ~
ROIYf R0. ~ ~ or
s~1~1 ~.I: N ~
OZ
~O
m
-o
70
~n
m
N
m
m
N
2
m
Z
0
V
~~~~ ~,
~,~~~
'4 :' ':, ~ ............. ..
MATCHUNE -L- STA.20t00A0 SEE SHEET N0.5
;,
.. 'y ..
~31vM N7~N,~yr Sr ~1~~
~n+~
r
. ~ ~~ > ~
~ m ~ d~
Z
}':`,
I
i
1 I
j
1 ~
~
?

_.,
5, .,
,t~- M.SO.SY.IlN
;
...,;
.
. :>

.
,
.,
:,,
I
f ., ~~ ~
..~
,. xl~,:._............_
~{ ...._
Q
,- ~.~., ...~ ism
„
,
• ~
;
Z
~ ,
f n.
~
~ ~R
~~~
,
~~;~;rS ',':
..
.<;.
„fix
~,.,~ .,
~ kY.i!
I
~~
,~
.tr! ~ ~ ~ i:.i; ~
a"' t~.:
'C ]~

,i

oZ
„O
~m
0
~r
T
V!
m
m
N
m
Z
O
V
MATCHLINE -L- STA. 20+OOAO SEE SHEET N0.4
,I i t,.. _.....:
_ ~ e~ e,
l i ~, ~"f
., ,,
~y~i
_.
r {r_ .
'~ ;;i ~ _ ,
. ~ ,
~:~ ~,
I~~ i c~ c,
i r~ ~..:::..:.--:::.:,
ii '
~I
°~, ,
'~ ~ .
I _ ........,
1 {' ~,~ ~~
._..
~ i, I
;.~. .. ~,
,....
c.~;
~ ~ ..
~.
1
M
k~J I._....._... ,
I
~~.._~~1..._.. _............ ~
`\
1
l
I ~
z '_ `I
~4
I I
N i I
4
~ I ''~
I 1
1
I ~
I ~
~'
,. I
( i)
~'I
( i
if IF' ~~KK
_-
I
(
1
~m~ ~ l
m
T ~ ~- Fiil.vi~ I.Y.:k.':
~~~
r I ,. QUO
,. ~ .ii b
~C fi ~~~
__ _ _ ...

.,
..
,
;,~ ~:,
Y~

~, I
~> ~:.~
- ~,__
,,

~
J
,.... _.... ,
~.... _
......_-..
~I
.

i; (i ~'tY U U

r . . i I
............'
i

,._. _

..... I~
............... .....................i
~.i ~~ Y'~Y !t
... I ._....~
(Y
......-1 ~ ........

Cd I
~~: ~~1~ ~~' ~'~

~n7~~ _ .
11WI1 ALIT NN3 M~~-_~ ~ ~~-~I ~Il, ~~
MATCHLINE -L- STA. 32+OOAO SEE SHEET N0.6
..F__.
~I
W Z
V~
v
Z
~w=
WW2
n m-i
W'. ~
?~2
~XO
A
pp~
JA=
f1N~
o~o
=or
n~ 2
~g~
N
O
N ^
N VI

Ntl39 M~
11W~ 1=,
~~ ~
_
Z n
H H
O
m

S ~ 8~
~ ~
N
~
~r o ~
$~ ~~
€
~ . to ~

~r
y _
~ y ~

~, i
c,

MATCHLINE -L- STA 32+00.00 SEE SHEET N0.5
~\ ..~...
`-~
~ ~~~
$~~
~s~~R
2 °~
N ~
N ~
a t?: 1
',_:t k
,.
1' '' -
tld ~-•.... ..........
~~ ~ ~~ A1M3d0 r'... ..,..._....___....
." .......~ " .v'
ytltM tl31t ~ .. ...... ^~ t~i~
fN'...
C:~
`vf
1 ~~ .
')
..
fi. \ 1
..;
.
...
~ .
N 4 ........
..-r' ~
..........._.. "".: ~

~ t
,~._ mm
4

u ~ }
i 7 ! !
~
i
+ it
I; `~ ~ ,~ i

~
~ ~ S

' IN
° '~ li ~ S
~
~'' i ~
<<~' a~- 4 I~~ ;~
t' 4. ~l71 li ~I Q { ~: I
i 'f ~ .I y N~ .~
~~ F;. 11 z
~ ~ t57 ~~
~~I~O~~ ~, ~m
_ :.~ I
N 4 N N N f/1 ~ -'
aa~" 1 I I } ;~.
~2l'; ` V r ,. ~ it to ~If, k
o ii ...........~, _.
~~
ti v
VY 9N1~ ~ * / •. .
~._._--•.....,;. .... ~r 1 it
_.~,, _
.. 1. ,3f ~`P ~~ 111
1 (+,...
1/Y LNlSOl3 •~(; E;5 f~t` Imo f(i't~°'F~•}t li
~~ ' ~
j.: 47 ~^1
. 5pp~ :: ~, :~~j,
iir+N'+J15i7H 'o' ~C(
a~~ ~ d~ .aerra ~~
s _......_ ... .y I
y ...... % I ~ ~ 1
~ k
v'
~ ( j ,
.. ._~ .
...
~~
.~
!,., .
;t ,
_...
>~
_, , ..- ~f ., , ,
j _
,9Z'992 M.--.ZLZ9N ~,,,^,~ 'r. ..
..~ ~
` .. ~
Z
~ ~ O
~ m
~r
r~
m0
mrn
Om
mm
m=
rnm
mZ
Z ~+
o•
N
I
m
~ m
~o

~::-._.
~~
~I~ ~i~
~ a„~
ela uI~J ~~I~ SIN ~„
~ s vAawr s7. ~ ~ ~
~~4~ ~a~o, ~~v~
0
~ ~I~
~.
.
„i. •.~ _.r....~
t t. \
.~ , .
..
_ E;~r ; ~ ~
..
j~
.....
~..
_/
.:
,. •: •
_._....
~'
~
V "`' '
'
~ !
~ yJ~ r r 7. ~ e ~ :~ :. ~ t .._...

! 41i Yi.y3l~~
v
~ ~~ ?
~Y r
y i__.... . ~
'CX;f1.L._..... . rY `,.. •.

'
„ L __._

!~ .
w
~ ~ '~
~."
! ', ~tg8~ iii
'+
i.l~~
r j ~
~ ~~i ^ .
:zn
~
!fi
I ~, ^
~~Q •x~ ~......
f
II !
'Y y Y2 ~yi
i
t a

B ~~i
~ ~I
~
m N ~ .....~~..~ !., ~ N
,,
.
-
~ tl..
. ti __... .

~~"
...,.
~ ~'~' r
~ ~ Z , ~ ` rL:~ t `' a.oz.LO.zes
~ , ~: F ~}:
JI,,,~ P Rlb ~' r~~~"'^ o aII ~, >~t`i t~5 •69'95 m
:
,, . ~.
- ,~:~' ..
- .. ,
,.- .. ;:
~: i :~ n: ... s/.. _. r ~
J'
`, ti N r ~ -
~.
~. ,.,... ic,
_. ___ _.. . _ -...~....~i.. .
ri ~«.»
w
_U ..... C
~ !
! :~! ~~ i..ti° .~a
I ! : ~ -L- POT Sio.1O+l.
1i I il~y . ~i ~~~
'I' .! ~ 111 _.
~ ~,
__..
~,o- O a.oz.Laz9s
;~ , ~r...:::.
~•
~' a
....a _~:~.: _•_. _......_
..t
~ 1S INfW! HLI05
.W~_ ...... JSB!-
~S
,~S
f,', I ''
I(' ' i
1 ' `~...'
s j
T ~ 1.;
! 4, t
m~
r
r
N~ ,? •;
~i
y k
! c~ ~
n:NG
•: t
`..)
AW=
~w2
nm~
~. ~
?N2
zxp
i~=
any
OOp
ogz
0
N ^
N Y.
O
n
H ~~~y1111•
O y
T
g
~ az ~~
K
~r ~~ ~ ~
~x ~~
~~ , ~
~~
z
v
w Z
Y,
O

~~ i

~~~~~~~~~~~~siis~ru~s~ssss~~s~~s~s•

-I~ ~~ ,.I

' } j r
z
0
E

,R'. ~ N
M
~
d

~~ ~

N
~~

w ~ U
~z ~~ N
w~ ~M
a
U

Q a
w
a °O
U
z w
x

0

o
co co
~''~
~
~ N ~ ~
N Z
C
m ~ N Z
Z
m CG ~ Z
d
Z m m m
~ m
3
~
Z
d
m ~

~ C m
O Z
~ ~ m
Z
N ~ yy ~ ~ ~
T ~
~ N
~j
>
c~• ;
3
~. m U N m 2

d
~ p
N C
d ~
~
L
d
C
3
O
'~
a
O ~
o

~ .c

~
t
Y
~
, r
°

C
~
3
'o
~ ~
~
a`
V ~ Z C U ~ ~
c
; ° > ~ a a
Q U U O ~ cJ

• ~ / i
CRAVEN COUNTY -
ALFRED CUNNINGHAM BRIDGE (BRIDGE NO. 60) ON U.S. 70 B (E. FRONT'STREET)
OVER THE TRENT RIVER
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-070B(4)
STATE PROJECT N0.8.1172401
T.LP. PROJECT NO. B-2532

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F} EVALUATION AND APFROVAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
/ a 3 0(~ .
DATE ~° REGORY J. THORPE, PH.D.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Ai~TD ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .

Z j~6 ~ ~~- ~,,
~~ ~~
DATE HN F. SULLIVAN, III, P.E.
DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

.. ~ ~
CRAVEN COUNTY _
ALFRED CUFTNINGHAM BRIDGE (BRIDGE NO. 50) ON U.S. 70 B (E. FRONT STREET)
OVER THE TRENT RIVER
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-070B(4)
STATE PROJECT NO.8.1172401
T.I.P. PROJECT NO. B-2532
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
Document Prepazed by
HNTB North Cazolina, P.C.
343 E. Six Forks Road
Suite 200
Raleigh, North Cazolina, 27609
! / ~ D to
Whitmel H. Webb, P.E. Date
HNTB North Carolina, P.C.
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
/ Zd Olo
Vincent J. Rhe .E. Project Development Engineer Da e
Project Dever pment and Environmental Analysis Branch

+r
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
US 70 Business (East Front Street)
Alfred Cunningham Bridge (Bridge No. 60) over the Trent River in New Bern
Craven County
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-070B(4)
State Project No. 8.1172401
T.I.P. Project No. B-2532 .
Division Cvnstruction
All in-water work for this site will be completed outside an in-water work moratorium from
February 15 through June 30.
To minimize impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAVs), efforts will be made to avoid
barge contact with the substrate and minimize shading during the growing season (May through
September). Logistics associated with minimizing shading include maintaining an elevation of at
least 3 feet above normal high tide (+0.7 feet) for work bridges and avoiding or minimizing long-
term mooring of construction barges during the growing season. Reasonable efforts will also be
made to avoid bottom disturbances in areas of SAV beds during the growing season. For location
of SAS' beds, reference Figure 9.
The pedestrian footbridge (located near the northern bridge abutment) will remain open for public
access as long as practical and until such time that construction activities warrant its closure.
Adequate signage will be provided that informs the public of the footbridge's temporary closure
and of~ an alternate detour route. An adequate pedestrian crossing will be provided in the vicinity
of the E. Front Street / S. Front Street intersection. If the pedestrian footbridge is removed during
construction, a replacement footbridge will be available for public use prior to, or simultaneous
with, completion of the project.
US Fish & Wildlife Service 2003 Guidelines For Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian
Manatee will be followed (Appendix A).
Dirixinn Cvnstruction, Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch
The existing 45 mph speed limit will be reduced to 35 mph.
Dirisiuiz Construction, Roadway Design Unit
Tlicrc ~~•ill be no dredging in the Trent River.
Them Hill be no encroachment into Union Point Park.
Road-rar Design Unit, Structure Design Unit
All improvements within the 50 foot Neuse River Riparian Buffer will occur within the
boundaries of the existing transportation facility, as previously defined by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality and NCDOT.
Categorical Exclusion, TIP B-2532 Green Sheet
January 18, 2006 Page 1 of 3

~r ~ M
(NBRCC) will also be monitored. After completion of pile driving, vibration monitoring
equipment may be discontinued. If vibration levels rise to a level that may cause structural
damage to any building, or if structural damages are discovered during this period, work must
immediately cease, and NCDOT will contact the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office
(NC-HPO) and the property owner(s) immediately. In the case of the NBRCC, only the property
owner would need to be contacted.
Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch
Detour signage will include a reference to "downtown New Bem" or "historic New Bem."
Detour signage will also notify the public of upcoming bridge closure in advance of construction.
Traffic signals and support posts as well as warning gates/barrier gates will be consistent with the
"Findings of Adverse Effect Documentation" prepared by NCDOT and the Certificate of
Appropriateness issued by the New Bern Historic Preservation Commission.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Roadway Design Unit, Structure
Design Unit
FHWA and NCDOT will develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the NC-HPO to
address the finding of adverse effect resulting from the removal of Bridge No. 60. The MOA will
be completed prior to right of way acquisition or the beginning of construction (whichever comes
first) and will address the following items: 1) Recordation of existing bridge; 2) Relocation/reuse
of existing bridge; 3) On-going consultation efforts with NC-HPO regarding the replacement
bridge design; 4) Vibration monitoring; and 5) Dispute resolution. Recordation of the existing
bridge conditions and relocation/reuse of the existing bridge will be handled by the NCDOT
Human Environment Unit (Historic Architecture) Ongoing consultation efforts with NC-HPO for
the Replacement Bridge Design will be the responsibility of the Human Environment Unit,
Roadway Design Unit and Structure Design Unit.
Completion of the MOA is pending ongoing discussions between FHWA, NCDOT and NC-HPO
regarding the relocation/reuse of the existing bridge. An outstanding issue remains with respect to
the length of time the existing bridge must be stored until a new owner can be located. Once this
issue is settled, FHWA and NCDOT will conclude preparation of the MOA with a consultation.
Categorical Exclusion, TIP ~-2532 Green Sheet
January 18, 2006 Page 3 of 3

+ ~ R ~
Alfred C:+nningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exch+sion
Project B-2532
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... i
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .....................................................1
1.1 General Description .....................................................................................1
1.2 Recommended Improvements ....................................................................1
1.3 Maintenance of Traffic .................................................................................2
1.4 Estimate of Cost .......................................................................................... 2
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ...................................... 2
2.1 Existing Bridge Characteristics ....................................................................2
2.2 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Traffic Volumes and Capacity .......................................................... 4
2.2.2 Accident History ...............................................................................4
2.3 Benefits to the Region and Community .......................................................4
3.0 ALTERNATIVES .....................................................................................................5
3.1 Project Description ...................................................................................... 5
3.2 Build Alternatives ......................................................................................... 5
3.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study ................................................. 5
3.4 Preferred Alternative .................................................................................... 7
4.0 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .................................. 8
4.1 Land Use ..................................................................................................... 8
4.1.1 Land Use Planning .......................................................................... 8
4.1.2 Existing Land Use ............................................................................ 8
4.1.3 Future Development ........................................................................ 9
4.2 Neighborhood Characteristics ..................................................................... 9
4.2.1 Population, Race, Ethnicity and Age ............................................... 9
4.3 Social Impacts ............................................................................................. 12
4.3.1 Community Stability, Neighborhood Cohesion and Connectivity..... 12
4.3.2 Relocation Impacts .......................................................................... 13
4.3.3 Environmental Justice ...................................................................... 13
4.4 Economic Conditions ................................................................................... 13
4.4.1 Business Activity/Employment Centers ........................................... 13
4.4.2 Economic Impacts ........................................................................... 14
4.5 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................... 14
4.5.1 Historic Architecture ......................................................................... 14
4.5.2 Archaeology ..................................................................................... 16
4.6 Air Quality, Noise and Vibration ................................................................... 16
4.6.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................ 16
January 18, 2006

~ A i
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
4.6.2 Highway Traffic Noise /Construction Noise Analysis ......................16
4.8.3 Vibration ..........................................................................................17
4.6.3.1. Summary of Air Quality, Noise and Vibration Impacts .................17
4.7 Farmland .....................................................................................................17
4.8 Indirect and Cumulative Effects ...................................................................17
5.0 NATURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................18
5.1 Methodology ................................................................................................18
5.2 Physical Resources .....................................................................................19
5.2.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use .....................................19
5.2.2 Water Resources .............................................................................19
5.3 Biotic Resources .......................................................................................... 22
5.3.1 Terrestrial Communities ................................................................... 22
5.3.2 Aquatic Communities ....................................................................... 23
5.3.3 Rare and Unique Natural Areas .......................................................24
5.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................................. 24
5.4.1 Anticipated Plant Community Impacts ............................................. 24
5.4.2 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife ......................................................... 25
5.5 Special Topics ............................................................................................. 25
5.5.1 Waters of the United States ............................................................. 25
5.5.2 Coastal Area Management Act ........................................................ 26
5.5.3 Neuse River Buffer Rules ................................................................ 26
5.6 Permit Issues ...............................................................................................27
5.6.1 Permits ............................................................................................ 27
5.6.2 Mitigation ......................................................................................... 28
5.7 Essential Fish Habitat ..................................................................................28
5.8 Protected Species ....................................................................................... 28
5.9 federal Species of Concern ........................................................................ 33
5.10 State Listed Species ....................................................................................33
6.0 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...................................................................................36
7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................37
8.0 AGENCY COORDINATION ....................................................................................37
9.0 BASIS FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ...........................................................38
10.0 SECTION 4(F) OF THE U.S. DOT ACT OF 1966 ................................................... 38
January 18, 2006

~ 1 Ir ~
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project 8-2532
11.0 FIGURES ................................................................................................................ 39
Figure 1 Project Area
Figure 2 Aerial Photograph with Preferred Alternative
Figure 3 Typical Section
Figure 4 Photographs of Project Area
Figure S Architectural Rendering of Preferred Alternative
Figure 6 Architectural Rendering of Retaining Wall
Figure 7 Landscape Plan
Figure 8 Hazardous Material Sites
Figure 9 Plant Communities and Soils
12.0 APPENDIX ..............................................................................................................40
Appendix A Federal Letters
Appendix B State Letters
Appendix C Local Letters
Appendix D Memoranda and Meeting Minutes
Appendix E Programmatic 4f for Historic Bridges
January 18, 2006

Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
Categorical Exclusion
Prepared by the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
In Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
SUMMARY
Description of Action -The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
replace the Alfred Cunningham Bridge (Bridge No. 60) over the Trent River in New Bern
(Figure 1). The project will consist of replacing the existing swingspan bridge, related approaches
and traffic control devices with a bascule bridge, new approach structures and new traffic control
devices. The new bridge will feature two 11 foot lanes with a 4 foot shoulder along the
northbound lane and a two foot gutter along the southbound lane (Figure 3). A sidewalk (5.5 feet
in width on the bridge and 5 feet in width on the roadway approaches) will be provided adjacent
to the southbound lane for the entire length of the project, which extends along US 70 B (E. Front
Street) from S. Front Street to Howell Road. The total project length is 2,480 feet, of which the
bridge will comprise 1,763 feet. The bridge is eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. The replacement of the Alfred Cunningham Bridge is included in the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 200b-2012 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). The project is also included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program
(BRSTP-070B(4)). The project is scheduled for construction in 2007 with an anticipated
completion date of December 2009. The estimated project cost in the 2006-2012 TIP is
$25,700,000', including $24,600,000 for construction, $100,000 for right of way and $1,000,000
spent in prior years.
'The construction cost estimate was updated in 2005 to $25,600,000, resulting in a revised total cost of
$26, 700,000.
Summary of Environmental Impacts - No long term adverse impacts to the human or natural
environment are anticipated. There will be no residential or business relocations and there will be
no encroachment into Union Point Park. To minimize water quality impacts, NCDOT will adhere
to its Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. Although the project will
have an adverse impact on properties on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
Historic Places, a Memorandum of Agreement is being prepared that includes mitigation to
address project impacts.
The project is expected to have short term impacts associated with the 3 year construction period,
during which time the bridge will be out of service and traffic routed along a detour route.
Traffic congestion within downtown New Bern and along the detour route could increase. Noise
and vibration will result during construction. Since the detour route will alter existing travel
~ ,
January 18, 2006

• ~ N ~
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
'~,,,,,;,~ Project B-2532
patterns, some downtown businesses could experience a temporary decline in commercial
activity. Emergency service response times could also increase. Bicycle and pedestrian access
from James City to downtown New Bern will no longer be possible across the bridge. The
existing pedestrian bridge underneath the northern end of the bridge will be temporarily removed
during construction.
Pumose and Need -The Alfred Cunningham Bridge is structurally deficient and functionally
obsolete. With a sufficiency rating of 8 out of 100, and less than 10 years service remaining,
action must be taken to ensure the continued existence of a safe and efficient multimodal
transportation facility between James City and downtown New Bern.
Alternatives Considered -The alternatives identified for this project are as follows:
1) Remove the existing bridge with no replacement;
2) Rehabilitate the existing bridge;
3) Replace the existing bridge with a bascule bridge;
4) Replace the existing bridge with a vertical lift bridge;
5) Replace the existing bridge with a tunnel;
6) Replace the existing bridge with a high rise bridge that follows the existing alignment; and
7) Replace the existing bridge with a high rise bridge that curves into the Neuse River and
rejoins the New Bern mainland.
Alternative 3 was selected as the preferred alternative due to its ability to meet the project's
purpose & need, lower environmental /community impacts, and strong agency and community
support. A "No Build" alternative was also considered. However, due to the vital multi-modal
connection to downtown New Bern provided by the bridge, closure without replacement would
fail to meet purpose & need and would be unacceptable to the New Bem community.
Coordination -Several federal, state and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of
this Categorical Exclusion.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• U.S. Coast Guard
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
• National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service
• N.C. Department of Administration, N.C. State Clearinghouse
• N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
• N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
-Division of Coastal Management
-Division of Marine Fisheries
-Division of Water Quality
-Natural Heritage Program
-Wildlife Resources Commission
• Eastern Carolina Council of Governments
• City of New Bern
• Craven County
u January 18, 2006

~ M ~ 7
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
Actions Required by Other Agencies -Clearances at the navigational channel will need to be
approved by the US Coast Guard and US Army Corps of Engineers during the next phase of the
project. The US Coast Guard will begin its preliminary public notice process following
completion of the Categorical Exclusion. The following permits will also be needed:
• US Coast Guard Bridge Permit
• Section 404 Permit
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification
• Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Permit
• State Stormwater Permit
• Coastal Area Management Act Permit
• Riparian Buffer Certificate
NCDOT Division 2 and the City of New Bern will cooperate to reduce the existing 45 mph speed
limit to 35 mph.
Additional Information -Additional information concerning this project can be obtained by
contacting either of the following:
John F. Sullivan, III, P.E. Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone: [phone]
iii January 18, 2006

w ~ ~ ~
' Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project 8-2532
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
1.1 General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the existing
Alfred Cunningham Bridge (Bridge No. 60) over the Trent River in New Bern (Figure 1). The
project will consist of replacing the existing swingspan bridge, related approaches and traffic
control devices with a bascule bridge, new approach structures and .new traffic control devices
(Figure 2). The new bridge will feature two 11 foot lanes with a 4 foot shoulder along the
northbound lane and a two foot gutter along the southbound lane (Figure 3). A sidewalk (5.5 feet
in width on the bridge and 5 feet in width on the roadway approaches) will be provided adjacent
to the southbound lane for the entire project length, which extends along US 70B (E. Front Street)
from S. Front Street to Howell Road. The total project length is 2,480 feet, of which the bridge
will comprise 1,763 feet. The bridge is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places. The replacement of the Alfred Cunningham Bridge is included in the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
The project is also included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program (BRSTP-070B(4)).
The projcct is scheduled for construction to begin in 2007 with an anticipated completion date of
December ?009. The estimated project cost in the 2006-2012 TIP is $25,700,000, including
$24,600,000 for construction, $100,000 for right of way and $1,000,000 spent in prior years.
The construction cost estimate was updated in 2005 to $25, 600,000, resulting in a revised total cost of
1.2 Recommended Improvements
The existing swingspan and related structural and roadway approaches will be removed and a
ne++~ bridge on the same horizontal and similar low rise vertical alignment will be constructed
with a movable span (double-leaf bascule) and new approaches. The bascule bridge will provide a
span or "leaf' which rotates about a point located at a substructure unit. The leaf is balanced by a
large counterweight located behind the balance point much like a seesaw operates and permits the
leai'tu s++~ing upward when required to provide navigational clearance.
Existing traffic control devices will also be replaced with new traffic signals, warning and barrier
gates and navigational lighting.
The projcct will provide a 90 foot horizontal clearance at the navigational channel with unlimited
vertical clearance in the open position. Approximately 16 feet of vertical clearance will be
pro+•idcd in the closed position.
Tlic bridge's typical section will feature two 11 foot travel lanes with a raised 5 .5 foot sidewalk
adjacent to the southbound lane (roadway approaches will provide a 5 foot sidewalk). The
sidc++•alk will extend along US 70B from S. Front Street to Howell Road. There will be no
sidewalk adjacent to the northbound lane. The southbound direction will provide a 2 foot gutter
while the northbound direction will provide a 4 foot shoulder section. The total bridge width will
be 36 feet 1 inch from outside of rail to outside of rail. The design speed will be 40 mph and the
Page 1
January 18, 2006

Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project 8-2532
posted speed will be 35 mph. The total bridge length of 1,763 feet will be the same as the
existing bridge. No additional right of way is anticipated.
1.3 Maintenance of Traffic
The proposed detour route during the three year construction time will take users along the US
70/17/NC 55 Bypass to the Pembroke Avenue exit, to First Street and then onto Broad Street
(Figure 1). The detour route will add approximately 2 miles to the journey.
1.4 Estimate of Cost
Construction $24,600,000
Right-of--Way $ 100,000
Prior Years Cost $ 1.000,000
Total Years Cost $25,700,000'
*Based on 2006-2012 NCDOT TIP
'The construction cost estimate was updated in 2005 to $25,600,000, bringing the new
total years cost to $26,700,000. The project scope was adjusted such that the estimated
cost would more closely align with the 2006-2012 NCDOT TIP target budget.
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 Existing Bridge Characteristics
The Alfred Cunningham Bridge is located on US 70 Business (E. Front Street) in the City of New
Berm, North Carolina (Figure 4). The bridge crosses the Trent River at its confluence with the
Neuse River and is located on the north side of the US 70/ US 17/ NC 55 Interchange. The
bridge provides amulti-modal (pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle) connection between James
City and historic downtown New Bern.
The bridge was built in 1955 and is estimated to have less than 10 years life expectancy. The
bridge is currently posted fora 30 ton single vehicle and a legal gross weight tractor trailer. The
posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour.
The bridge is 1,763 feet long with a 350 foot New Bern approach, a 220 foot truss swing span,
and a 1,190 foot James City approach. The swingspan is situated in the middle of a 300 foot
federally dedicated navigational channel.
The bridge typical section supports a 28 foot clear roadway width (two 12 foot lanes with 2 foot
shoulders) with 3 foot wide sidewalks elevated 10 inches above the roadway surface. Total bridge
width from outside of rail to outside of rail is 36 feet 4 inches.
Page 2
r • 1
January 18, 2006

~ ~ ~
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
~, Project B-2532
The bridge section connects with curb and gutter approach at the New Bern side and widens to
provide a left turn lane at South Front Street. The James City side provides a normal shoulder
section where entrance and exit interchange ramp lanes taper.
Approach spans are of beam and slab construction providing unlimited vertical clearance for
vehicular traffic on the bridge. However, the swing span is a through truss span with portal
framing above the deck limiting the vehicle height to 14 feet 10 inches.
The bridge provides approximately 13 feet of vertical clearance in the closed position for marine
traffic. The swingspan section provides two 78 foot navigation channels with unlimited vertical
clearance in the open position.
A pedestrian walkway passes underneath the northern end of the bridge and provides a
connection between Union Point Park and the New Bern Riverfront Convention Center. There is
a signalized pedestrian crosswalk at the E. Front Street / S. Front Street intersection. Although
sidewalk exists along the bridge's northern roadway approach, there is no sidewalk along the
southern roadway approach.
Existing traffic control devices consist of traffic signals, warning gates and barrier gates.
Although navigational lighting exists for marine vessels, there is no other lighting on the bridge.
There are no overhead electrical or telephone services in the vicinity of the bridge. However,
there are electric and telephone lines suspended from the bridge. Water and sewer lines extend to
the bridge tender's office only. There is an abandoned underground water line along the west
side of the bridge.
US 70 Business is classified as an Urban Principle Arterial. The 2004 Average Annual Daily
Traffic (AADT) was 16,200 vehicles per day (vpd). The percentages of truck traffic are 1
TTST vehicles and 2% dual vehicles. The projected 2030 AADT is 30,600 vpd.
According to Craven County Schools, no school buses currently use the bridge.
The bridge is on astate-designated bicycle route -the NC-7 Ocracoke Option.
The bridge is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
2.2 Purpose and Need
Built in 1955, the Alfred Cunningham Bridge has provided over 50 years of service to the New
Bern community. Corrosion, rust, vehicle collision, and general deterioration of superstructure
and substructure components have rendered the Bridge structurally deficient. According to the
bridge tender, the swingspan is warped due to an accident and will not lock down properly in the
closed position. Further, inadequate sidewalk widths, insufficient railing height and substandard
vertical clearance make the bridge functionally obsolete. The Findings Technical Memorandum,
dated September 13, 2004, provides a more detailed description of the bridge's condition and is
incorporated by reference. A poor sufficiency rating of 8 out of a possible 100 points, combined
with the bridge's estimated 10 years of life expectancy, signify that action needs to be taken to
ensure the presence of a safe and efficient transportation facility.
Page 3
January 18, 2006

Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
The Alfred Cunningham Bridge provides a vital multimodal connection between James City and
downtown New Bern. Conversations with local residents and officials have revealed that a
substantial number of pedestrians and bicyclists use the Bridge to access jobs, visit relatives, tour
the historic district, stay in area hotels, and attend numerous community events. As evidenced by
the 2030 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 30,600 vehicles, the bridge is projected to
experience substantial vehicle use' as well. Therefore, maintaining connectivity between James
City and downtown New Bern is essential to sustained economic development and maintenance
of community cohesion.
3.0 Traffic Volumes and Capacity
Roads arc designed to handle a certain number of vehicles per hour. Volume to capacity ratio
(V/C) is a measurement of a facility's demand compared to its capacity to safely carry vehicles.
The facility is at its theoretical safe capacity when the V/C ratio is equal to 1. V/C ratios below 1
represent lower levels of congestion while V/C ratios above 1 represent higher levels of
congestion. Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) along the Alfred Cunningham Bridge in
2030 is projected to reach 30, 600 vehicles, including 2% duals and 1% trucks, tractors and semi
trailers. Tlic V/C ratio will be 1.07 along the bridge segment assuming no bridge openings. The
number of bridge openings would further reduce capacity and increase delay along the bridge.
Today, the bridge is estimated to be closed to vehicular traffic 17 % of the time in the peak hour,
which would effectively increase the V/C ratio to 1.25. The vehicular delay could be greater if
the future number of bridge openings increases.
3.1.1 Accident History
A crash analysis was provided by NCDOT (dated September 19, 2005). The crash analysis
consisted of a 0.72-mile section, which constitutes approximately 1,000 feet from either end of
the bridge. Sixteen crashes were reported at this location between February 1, 2002 and January
31, ?005. There were no fatal crashes. All crashes were either injury only or property damage
only craslics. The total crash rate was 184.33 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles of travel
(mvmtl. For North Carolina Urban US Routes with two lanes undivided, the comparative rate is
323.56 accidents per 100 mvmt.
3.2 Benefits to the Region and Community
The nc~~ bridge will provide a structurally safe and efficient multi-modal transportation facility
for its users. The bridge will provide a vital connection between downtown New Bern and James
City, contributing to the area's livability and economic vitality. The bridge will be designed to be
architecturally compatible with historic downtown New Bern.
r • ~ ~
Page 4
January 18, 2006

k r ~
~'`+Ae~
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project 8-2532
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Project Description
The existing swingspan bridge and related approaches will be replaced with a new bridge. The
proposed bridge will be located in the same general location as the existing bridge and will offer
two travel lanes with sidewalk adjacent to the southbound lane. Adequate horizontal and vertical
clearances at the federally dedicated navigational channel will also be provided.
4.2 Build Alternatives
Alternative 3 (Preferred) proposes the replacement of the existing bridge with a bascule tvpe
movable bridge. The existing bridge will be removed and a new bridge on the same horizontal
and similar low rise vertical alignment will be constructed with a movable span for navigation.
The bascule bridge will provide a span or "leaf' which rotates about a point located at a
substructure unit. The leaf is balanced by a large counterweight located behind the balance point
much like a seesaw operates and permits the leaf to swing upward when required to provide
navigational clearance.
Alternative 4 proposed to replace the existin bridge with a lift type movable bridge. The
existing bridge would be removed and a new bridge on the same horizontal and similar low rise
vertical alignment would be constructed with a movable span for navigation. The lift span would
provide a single span which rises vertically to the required navigational clearance in the open
position. The lift span employs tall vertical towers at each end of the span and pulley systems
with counter weights similar to electric traction passenger elevator systems utilized in tall
buildings.
Replacement of the existing bridge with a lift bridge would require the use of large towers
exceeding 100 feet in height which would have visual impacts on the New Bern Historic District,
a National Register of Historic Places resource. Alternative 4 would also restrict vertical
clearance in the open position and could prevent certain vessels (such as sailboats) from clearing
the bottom of the deck during periods of strong northeasterly winds, which tend to raise river
levels. After conducting detailed analysis, this alternative was eliminated from further study due
to the visual impact on downtown New Bern and vertical clearance limitations.
4.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
Alternative 1 proposed to permanently remove the existine bridge. Crossing the Trent River
would no longer be possible at this location. Traffic would access downtown New Bern via
alternate routes, such as the Pembroke Avenue and Martin Luther King, Jr. Interchanges along
the US 70117 Bypass.
Removing the existing bridge would eliminate pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle access
between James City and downtown New Bern, an important component of the need for the
project. This alternative would also conflict with the City of New Bern's 2002 Urban Design Plan
in which the Alfred Cunningham Bridge is identified as a gateway entrance into downtown. Due
Page 5
January 18, 2006

r • ~ ~
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project 8-2532
to its failure to meet the project's purpose and need, conflict with local plans and weak
community support, this alternative was eliminated from further study.
Alternative 2 proposed to rehabilitate the existing bridle. The existing bridge would be repaired
and strengthened to the original design capacity. The movable swingspan would require the
following modifications: replacement of the mechanical system; replacement of the electrical
system; replacement of the movable span concrete/steel deck; deck repairs to the approach spans;
structural repair/strengthening of the impacted portals of the through truss; and repainting of the
steel truss and approach beams. Existing functional deficiencies would also be addressed, such as
replacing the existing substandard railing and correcting the inadequate vertical clearance of the
through truss.
If the bridge were rehabilitated, full replacement would be required within 30 years. The cost for
rehabilitation was estimated at $12.2M. NCDOT considered rehabilitation financially unfeasible.
Correcting the vertical clearance of the through truss to meet current standards would require
dismantling and reconstruction of the truss span, which would be impractical. The bridge is not a
good candidate for rehabilitation due to its age, deteriorated condition and low load capacity.
Due to the difficulty in rehabilitating the bridge to current standards, the relatively low life
expectancy and increased long-term cost, this alternative was eliminated from further study.
Alternative 5 proposed to replace the existine bridle with a tunnel beneath the bottom of the
navigational channel. The tunnel alignment would begin at grade south of the Howell Road
intersection and continue on the existing bridge alignment in an open top, three sided section
("boat" section) until becoming a four sided tunnel section through the S. Front Street
intersection. At this location, a boat section is again utilized until existing grade is achieved at the
New Street intersection. The tunnel section would be constructed using a combination of cut and
cover in shallow depth lengths and then an immersed tube tunnel in substantial depth areas.
Construction of a tunnel would require reconfiguration of a portion of the US 70/17/NC 55
Interchange and substantial excavation in the Trent River. Several properties would lose access
to E. Front Street. Existing service levels for pedestrians and bicyclists would also deteriorate as
distance traveled would be increased over existing conditions. Due to an estimated cost of
$159M and environmental and community impacts, this alternative was eliminated from further
study.
Alternative 6 .proposed to replace the existing bridge with a high rise fixed span bridge on
existing alignment. To provide adequate vertical clearance of 65 feet at the navigational channel
while maintaining acceptable grades for handicap accessibility, an alternative was developed
which would alter the existing vertical profile from beyond the Howell Road intersection with the
Neuse River access ramp north to downtown New Bern to approximately New Street. This
alternative would require some rework at the south terminus and extensive reconfiguration of the
intersections with S. Front Street and Union Point Park, Pollock Street and Broad Streets.
Due to its 65 foot height and nearly 3,800 foot length, pedestrian and bicycle access between
James City and downtown New Bem would be much more difficult and would discourage many
from walking or biking across the bridge. Several properties along E. Front Street would lose
their access and the exit ramp of the US 70/17/NC 55 Interchange would require reconfiguration.
The dimensions of a high-rise bridge would also have major intrusions into the New Bern
Historic District. Emergency services have concerns with using high-rise bridges during periods
of snow and ice. This alternative also conflicts with the City of New Bern's 2002 Urban Design
Pian which calls for E. Front Street to be a main bike and pedestrian route. Due to the generally
Page 6
January 18, 2006

Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project 8-2532
high impacts associated with ahigh-rise bridge, and weak community support, this alternative
was eliminated from further study.
Alternative 7 proposed to replace the existing bridge with a high rise fixed span bridge on new
ali ng ment. This alternative alignment for ahigh-rise fixed span bridge would provide 65 feet of
vertical clearance to the navigational channels while maintaining acceptable grades for handicap
accessibility. The alignment would begin south of the Howell Road intersection and curve east to
traverse the Neuse River navigational channel and then curve west across the Neuse navigational
channel a second time and terminating on Broad Street near the intersection with Craven Street.
The northern terminus is consistent with the removed John Lawson Bridge which was replaced
with the US70 Bypass project on new alignment in James City.
The high rise bridge would result in visual impacts to the New Bern Historic District and Union
Point Park due to the Bridge's height and proximity to the New Bern mainland. The high-rise
bridge would also intrude several blocks into Broad Street (including the New Bern Historic
District) and alter existing access points. This alterative would conflict with the City of New
Bern's plans to enhance Broad Street and transform it into a major gateway into the downtown.
Due to an estimated cost of $SOM and environmental impacts, this alternative was eliminated
from further study.
A "No Build" alternative was also considered, but was considered unfeasible since the existing
swingspan structure is approaching the end of its life cycle and will require closure within 10
years. Bridge closure would fail to meet the project's purpose & need and would be
unacceptable to the New Bern community.
4.4 Preferred Alternative
Alternative 3, replacing the existing bridge with a bascule bridge, was selected as the preferred
alternative due to its ability to meet the purpose & need, strong agency and community support,
minimal environmental/community impacts, competitive cost and unlimited vertical clearance at
the navigational channel.
This alternative will provide a 90 foot horizontal clearance at the navigational channel with
unlimited vertical clearance in the open position. Approximately 16 feet of vertical clearance will
be provided in the closed position. The bridge's typical section will feature two 11 foot travel
lanes with a raised 5.5 foot sidewalk adjacent to the southbound lane. The southbound direction
will provide a 2 foot curb and gutter while the northbound direction will provide a 4 foot shoulder
section. The total bridge width will be 36 feet 1 inch from outside of rail to outside of rail. The
design speed will be 40 mph and the posted speed will be 35 miles per hour.
Page 7
January 18, 2006

! ~! I ~
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project 8-2532
5.0 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
5.1 Land Use
5.1.1 Land Use Planning
The northern end of the bridge is located within the planning & zoning jurisdiction of the City of
New Bem. The south end of the bridge is located in Craven County, which does not exercise
land use planning in this area. New Bern is currently revising its 2020 Comprehensive Plan and
the estimated completion date is sometime in 2006. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan is intended to
serve as a guide for the City's government and it's appointed bodies in the development and
management of growth and related public services infrastructure. New Bern also has a Land Use
Ordinance (last updated in May 2004), which includes zoning and subdivision regulations and a
flood damage prevention ordinance. New Bern has a 1990 and 2002 Urban Design Plan to help
guide development in the downtown. The Greater Duffyfield Community Development Strategic
Plan was adopted in January 2001 to help create a "safe, healthy, clean and self-sustaining
community..." for the Duffyfield area.
The northern end of the bridge is adjacent to the New Bern Historic District, which features over
150 historic landmarks. New Bem has a special overlay zoning district called the New Bem
Local Historic District Ordinance, which is intended to protect and conserve the City's historic
architectural, archaeological and cultural environment. The New Bern Historic Preservation
Commission must issue a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for alterations and new
development within the overlay district.
The bridge is included in the 1993 New Bern Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan and listed as a major
toroughfaze. However, the Plan states that the entire facility is projected to be over capacity by
2015, and suggests that the bridge be widened to four lanes. According to the Thoroughfare Plan,
initial assumptions were that traffic would drop substantially on the Trent River Bridge when the
Neuse River Bridge was relocated. However, the trip distribution model (according to the
Thoroughfare Plan) indicated that a large number of trips were originating within and had
destinations to the New Bern Central Business District from the Bridgeton and Pamlico County
areas. This Thoroughfare Plan for the New Bern-Bridgeton-Trent Woods-River Bend area was
mutually adopted by the municipalities and the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) in 1992. Based on cost/scope limitations, community desires and environmental
constraints, the proposed bridge replacement does not involve widening to four lanes. A
Thoroughfare Plan for Craven County currently does not exist.
The project is not in conflict with any existing land use plan, urban design plan or zoning
regulation.
5.1.2 Existing Land Use
Land use within the project study area is urban, with a mix of residential, commercial,
institutional, office and recreational uses. The north side of the bridge includes historic
downtown New Bem with Union Point Park and the New Bem Riverfront Convention Center
located immediately adjacent to the bridge. There are also two marinas adjacent to the west side
of the bridge which provide mooring for recreational boats. The south side of the bridge leads to
Page 8
January 18, 2006

~ 1 I ~
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
a hotel, restaurant and the US 70/US 17/ NC 55 Interchange (also known as the Neuse River
Bridge). The historic African American community of James City is located south of the Neuse
River Bridge interchange.
5.1.3 Future Development
There is a variety of development activity in the vicinity of the bridge. Anew mixed use
development is under construction on E. Front Street that will feature a restaurant, grocery store
and boat slips. Anew 27 unit condominium development is under construction just west of
Bridge Pointe Hotel. A proposed 102 unit condominium building located just west of the
Sheraton Hotel is scheduled to start construction in 2006 and will also offer a marina. Tryon
Palace is planning to add a $40 million educational center with construction scheduled to be
completed by 2010; fundraising efforts for the expansion are currently underway. Finally,
numerous enhancements to Broad Street and First Street are scheduled to begin construction by
mid 2007 with completion by 2010. Enhancements include reducing Broad Street to two travel
lanes with onstreet parking, installation of a median, landscaping, consolidation of utilities and
new street lights.
5.2 Neighborhood Characteristics
5.2.1 Population, Race, Ethnicity and Age
According to the 2000 US Census, the City of New Bem grew by over 33% during the 1990s
while Craven County grew by 12%. According to local officials, the main factors in population
growth are those looking for second homes and the general appeal of the area for retirees. Table 1
shows population totals and growth rates for New Bem, Craven County and North Carolina.
New Bem has a larger population of African Americans than Craven County and North Carolina.
According to local planners, the large presence of African Americans is due to several
predominately minority communities located within the project area, including James City,
Duffyfield, Pembroke and the New Bem Housing Authority communities of Trent Court and
Craven Terrace. Table 2 shows the racial and ethnic composition of New Bern, Craven County
and North Carolina.
Page 9
January 18, 2006
Source: US Census Bureau

1 J ~ ~
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project 8-2532
'~ ~ /
New Bern Craven Coun o Y
Race Po . % Po . Po % Po . Po n'
White 12,685 54.8% 62,435 68.3% 5,647,155
White His anic 258 l.l% 1,517 1.7% 157,501
Black or African 9,260 40.0% 22,729 24.9% 1,723,301
American
Black His anic 65 0.3% 237 0.3% 14,244
American Indian / 72 0.3% 357 0.4% 95,333
Alaska Native
American Indian / 3 0.0% 31 0.0% 4,218
Alaska Native
Hispanic
Asian 145 0.6% 881 1.0% 112,416 '
Asian His anic 3 0.0% 27 0.0% 1,273 '
Native Hawaiian / 9 0.0% 51 0.1 % 3,165
Paci :c Islander
Native Hawaiian / 0 0.0% 5 0.0% 818
Pacific Islander
His anic
Other Race 28 0.1 % 119 0.1 % 9,015
Other Race 304 1.3% 1,508 1.6% 177,614
His anic
Two or More Races 237 1.0% 1,187 1.3% 79,965
Two or More Races 59 0.3% 352 0.4% 23,295
His anic
Total 23,128 100 % 91,436 100 % 8,049,313
Total Hispanic 692 3.0% 3,677 4.0% 378,963
Source: US Census Bureau
The City of New Bern is a popular location for retirees. The 2000 US Census indicates that
approximately 18 % of the population in New Bern is 65 years of age and older (Table 3), higher
than Craven County and North Carolina. New Bern's median age of 38.9 is also higher than the
County and State, supporting the view that New Bern is attractive to retirees.
Page 10
January 18, 2006
Source: US Census Bureau

~ t r
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project 8-2532
New Bern, Craven County, and North Carolina all experienced similar increases in median
household incomes during the period of 1989-1999 (Table 4).
Although the trend during the 1990s was decreasing numbers of those living below the poverty
level, New Bern continues to have a disproportionate share of low income persons. According to
local officials, this is largely due to the presence of the New Bern Housing Authority complexes
of Trent Court, Craven Terrace and New Bem Towers (elderly housing) within the downtown
area.
As Table 6 shows, there are no notable differences in educational status between New Bern,
Craven County, and the State.
Page 11
January 18, 2006
Source: US Census Bureau
Source: US Census Bureau
Source: US Census Bureau

Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
New Bern has a lower median home value and a slightly older housing stock when compared to
Craven County and the State, as indicated in Table 7.
Table 8 contains sample unemployment data from the US Census. Sample data is collected from
a 1-in-6 sample and is weighted to represent the total population. As shown in the table, between
1990 and 2000 unemployment within the County declined by 17.2% ,while the unemployment
rate for New Bern and the State increased by 12.5 % and 10.4 %, respectively.
According to the North Carolina Employment Security Commission, the 2004 unemployment
rates for Craven County and North Carolina were similar, with the County having a 5.1
unemployment rate and the State having a 5.5 % unemployment rate.
5.3 Sociallmpacts
5.3.1 Community Stability, Neighborhood Cohesion and Connectivity
Since the project involves replacing a bridge on existing location, no neighborhoods will be
permanently split or divided as a result of the project. However, community cohesion could be
temporarily disrupted during construction as direct access will no longer be possible between
James City and downtown New Bem.
The Alfred Cunningham Bridge provides a vital connection between James City and downtown
New Bern. Conversations with local residents and officials have revealed that a substantial
number of pedestrians and bicyclists use the bridge to access jobs, visit relatives, tour the historic
district, stay in area hotels, and attend numerous community events such as the annual Neuse
River Festival and Mumfest. According to interviews with the local marinas, many visiting
mariners use bicycles to access various services in James City and downtown New Bern. As
.evidenced by the 2004 estimated AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) of 16,200 vehicles, the
bridge experiences substantial vehicle use as well. Therefore, maintaining connectivity between
James City and downtown New Bern is essential to sustained economic development and
maintenance of community cohesion.
Page 12
r ~I t ~
January 18, 2006
source: us Lensus tsureau
source: UJ C;ensus t3ureau

a ~ 1 v

Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
During the three year construction period, the bridge will be out of service and traffic will be
directed along a detour route. This will temporarily eliminate pedestrian and bicycle access
between James City and downtown New Bern and will require motor vehicles to travel an
additional two miles. The existing pedestrian bridge underneath the northern portion of the
bridge will be temporarily removed during construction, therefore temporarily severing a
pedestrian connection between Union Point Park and the New Bern Riverfront Convention
Center.
5.3.2 Relocation Impacts
The proposed project will not result in residential or business relocations.
5.3.3 Environmental Justice
Hayes Planning Associates conducted an environmental justice assessment to ensure that
traditionally underserved populations were informed throughout the study process. Although
several minority and low income communities were identified, James City and the Trent Court
public housing complex are the only minority and low income communities likely to be affected
by the project during the construction stage (no long-term permanent impacts are expected).
These two communities are located within .6 to 1.4 miles from the bridge and the proposed detour
route is a much longer route from these sites. The other identified minority communities of
Duffyfield and Pembroke as well as the Craven Terrace and New Bern Towers public housing
complexes are situated further away from the bridge and the lack of pedestrian and bicycle access
during bridge construction should not pose a hardship for these neighborhoods. Moreover,
through interviews with local taxi cab companies and several Pembroke and Duffyfield residents,
motorists tend to use the proposed detour route when traveling from these locations rather than
using the bridge. Once built, the new bridge will have an overall beneficial effect for minority
and low income communities due to improvements in pedestrian accommodations over existing
conditions and continued bicycle and motor vehicle access.
Meetings were held within the James City community in December 2004 and September 2005.
Residents expressed support for the project and understood the need for bridge closure.
Low-income households may be affected during the three year construction period. The three
year closing of the bridge will sever transportation access between downtown New Bern and the
James City area. Low-income households. who now use the bridge on a regular basis could be
affected by higher motor vehicle costs and/or the inability to have convenient pedestrian or
bicycle access across the Trent River.
For additional information, reference the Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum
prepared by Hayes Planning Associates (October 18, 2005).
5.4 Economic Conditions
5.4.1 Business Activity/Employment Centers
According to data obtained from the Employment Security Commission of North Carolina
(ESCNC), the largest private employers in Craven County are as follows: Moen Inc
Page 13
January 18, 2006

Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical B'xclusion
Project B-2532
(manufacturing); Brunswick Corp (manufacturing); BSH Home Appliances Corp
(manufacturing); Weyerhaeuser Co (manufacturing); Adecco USA, Inc (professional and
business services); McDonalds; Wal-Mart Associates, Inc; Vertex Aerospace LLC (trade,
transportation, and utilities); Food Lion LLC and Howells Child Care Center Inc (education. and
health services).
The largest employers in downtown New Bern include city and county offices, law firms and the
many hotels, retailers and restaurants, many of which cater to the tourist industry.
5.4.2 Economic Impacts
Downtown New Bern supports a vibrant mix of employers, and is experiencing development and
redevelopment in several locations. Tourist activity plays a major role in the economic health of
the area. The connectivity provided by the bridge offers a major gateway into downtown.
Although the bridge replacement will result in no travel time savings or provide access to
previously inaccessible properties, the bridge will continue to provide an important transportation
link that will facilitate sustained economic activity in the area.
Y • ~ ~
Some downtown businesses (hotels, retail establishments and restaurants) could temporarily
experience a decline in commercial activity during construction. This is due to the alteration of
traffic patterns that will occur because of the need for an off-site detour. Additionally, some
events that normally would occur in downtown (such as the MS 150 Bike Tour) may decide to
hold tl~cir functions in other places due to the detour and the presence of construction noise and
vibration. Taxi cab companies could experience higher operating costs and an accompanying
decline in revenue due to their reluctance to raise pre-established fares with several downtown
hotels. Also, some patrons may choose not to ride taxis due to the higher cost associated with the
detour route.
5.5 Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires
federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (including funded, licensed,
or pcrn~ittcd projects) on properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to
comment on the undertaking. This project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
5.5.1 Historic Architecture
In a Memorandum dated May 13, 2005, the State Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO)
concurred with NCDOT's Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report: Replace Bridge No.
60 (: l l/izcl Cz~nningham Bridge) On US 70 Business Over The Trent River, New Bern, Craven
Counh• dated March 2005, that the Alfred Cunningham Bridge is eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A: Transportation, for its association with the
development of North Carolina's coastal military bases. The bridge facilitated a major corridor
for Cherry Point and Camp Lejeune. The bridge also enabled the reconstruction and restoration
Page 14
January 18, 2006

s ~ 1 ~
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
fi'
of Tryon Palace and Gardens in New Bern. NC-HPO also agreed with the Area of Potential
Effects (APE) identified in the report. NC-HPO further agreed that the bridge has been altered
and no longer retains sufficient integrity to be eligible for the National Register under Criterion
C: Architecture. Furthermore, building demolition and recent in-fill have compromised the
bridge's immediate setting, eliminating the consideration of the bridge as a contributing structure
to the New Bern National Register Historic District (New Bern NRHD).
On August 31, 2005, FHWA, NC-HPO and NCDOT concurred that the project will have an
adverse effect on the New Bern NRHD and on the bridge itself. This is due to modifications that
will be made to the northern roadway approach (E. Front Street), which is located within the
boundazies of the New Bern NRHD. This portion of roadway will be raised approximately 4 feet
above existing grade and will be supported by a retaining wall which varies between 6 feet and 2
feet in height. Should driven piles be used, the resulting vibration could also negatively impact
several historic buildings. Since the existing bridge is eligible for listing on the National Register,
its removal will result in an adverse effect.
Due to the bridge's eligibility for the National Register and its proximity to the New Bern
Historic District, NCDOT consulted with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
NC-HPO and the New Bern Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) throughout the project. A
main concern of NC-HPO and the New Bern community was the aesthetics of the new bridge.
Consequently, two Bridge Aesthetics Forums (BAF) were held in New Bern (March 10th and
June 10th, 2005) to assist NCDOT with developing the architectural treatment of the bridge. The
BAF was composed of local planners, architects, landscape architects, artists, historians and
others having special knowledge or skills related to New Bern's architecture and history. Ideas
received from BAF participants, including representatives from the New Bern Historical Society
and James City Historical Society, assisted the design team in developing architectural renderings
for the project. Particular attention was paid to bridge type, mass, scale, materials, colors as well
as overall treatment of bridge railing and pedestrian railing, the bridge operator's house, sidewalk
design and detailing of the retaining wall at the northern bridge abutment.
On August 23`d, 2005, NC-HPO, NCDOT and the New Bern HPC held a joint public meeting to
review the proposed architectural treatment of the new bridge. After receipt of public comment
and discussion amongst NC-HPO, HPC and NCDOT, the New Bern HPC issued a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA). Additionally, a Finding of Adverse Effect was prepared by NCDOT in
October 2005 which further defined mitigation measures, including recordation of the existing
bridge and its surroundings prior to removal, bridge design consultations, vibration monitoring
and bridge relocation/reuse. Architectural visualizations of the proposed bridge were also
included in the Finding of Adverse Effect. An architectural rendering of the proposed bridge is
shown in Figure 5. Figures 6 and 7 show the aesthetic treatment of the proposed retaining wall
on E. Front Street and associated landscaping (Note: The retaining wall treatment and
landscaping were approved by the New Bem HPC on October 19`h, 2005 and an amended COA
was issued). The August 23rd and October 19`h COA's can be found in Appendix E.
FHWA and NCDOT will develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the NC-HPO to
address the finding of adverse effect resulting from the removal of Bridge No. 60. The MOA will
be completed prior to right of way acquisition or the beginning of construction (whichever comes
first) and will address the following items: 1) Recordation of existing bridge; 2) Relocation/reuse
of existing bridge; 3) On-going consultation efforts with NC-HPO regarding the replacement
bridge design; 4) Vibration monitoring; and 5) Dispute resolution. Recordation of the existing
bridge conditions and relocation/reuse of the existing bridge will be handled by the NCDOT
Human Environment Unit (Historic Architecture) Ongoing consultation efforts with NC-HPO for
Page 15
January 18, 2006

Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
• Project 8-2532
the Replacement Bridge Design will be the responsibility of the Human Environment Unit,
Roadway Design Unit and Structure Design Unit.
Completion of the MOA is pending ongoing discussions between FHWA, NCDOT and NC-HPO
regarding the relocation/reuse of the existing bridge. An outstanding issue remains with respect to
the length of time the existing bridge must be stored until a new owner can be located. Once this
issue is settled, FHWA and NCDOT will conclude preparation of the MOA with a consultation.
5.5.2 Archaeology
In a Memorandum dated September 23, 2004, NC-HPO stated that it is unlikely that any
archaeological resources that may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project. Thus, NC-HPO recommended that no archaeological
investigation be conducted. A copy of this Memorandum may be found in Appendix B.
5.6 Air Quality, Noise and Vibration
5.6.1 Air Quality
The project is located in Craven County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable because the
project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse
effects on the air quality of the attainment area.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance .with applicable
local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in conformance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520.
5.6.2 Highway Traffic Noise /Construction Noise Analysis
Traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. No additional through lanes
or increases in speed limit are planned. Vertical alignment of the proposed bridge will only
slightly increase over existing conditions. For these reasons, the project it is not anticipated to
significantly alter existing noise levels.
Noise levels will increase during construction but will be temporary. General construction noise
impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or
working near the project, can be expected particularly during substructure and girder installation
and during paving and earth moving operations. At the current time, it is not known whether a
pile or pier substructure will be used. Installation of piles will result in higher noise levels as
compared to piers. To minimize noise, NCDOT agrees to utilize a vibratory hammer during pile
installation (should pilings be used). However, it is acknowledged that an impact hammer will be
needed at certain pile penetration depths to complete pile installation.
Page 16
• . ~
January 18, 2006

r
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
5.6.3 Vibration
The bridge's substructure will consist of drilled piers or driven piles. The determination of
substructure type is dependant on completion of geotechnical investigations and a vessel impact
study. There will be vibration impacts during construction, particularly if a pile substructure is
utilized. Vibration could have effects on structures in the adjacent New Bem NRHD and could be
disruptive to activities occurring in the project vicinity, including the many events held at the
New Bern Riverfront Convention Center and Union Point Park. NCDOT agrees to establish a
vibration monitoring and enforcement program during pile installation to ensure construction
activity does not exceed acceptable thresholds.
5.6.3.1. Summary of Air Quality, Noise and Vibration Impacts
Based on past project experience, the project's impact on noise and air quality will be
insignificant. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise
(23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA).
To minimize noise, NCDOT will utilize a vibratory hammer during pile installation to the extent
practical. NCDOT will also monitor vibration levels during pile installation to ensure compliance
with acceptable guidelines.
5.7 Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime or important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. North Carolina Executive Order 96, Preservation of Prime Agricultural and
Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime farmland soils. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by
the Natural Resources Conservation Service based on criteria such as crop yield and level of input
of economic resources. Land which is planned or zoned for urban development is not subject to
the same level of preservation afforded other rural agricultural uses.
The proposed project will occur within abuilt-up area that consists of urban development and
where no agricultural uses exist. All improvements will occur within the existing .right-of--way
limits. Therefore, the project should have no impact on farming operations or prime and
important farmland.
5.8 Indirect and Cumulative Effects
The NCDOT's Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation
Projects in North Carolina outlines a set of factors that need to be evaluated to determine whether
or not a detailed indirect and cumulative impact analysis (ICI) is required for specific projects. In
reviewing the pre-screening criteria for applying indirect/cumulative impact assessment, this
project does not meet those criteria and thus does not warrant an indirect and cumulative effects
analysis. The proposed replacement structure would not alter the existing traffic patterns along
the roadway or change the functional level of service of the roadway system. Therefore the
project is not anticipated to affect existing land uses or increase accessibility to adjacent parcels
of land. For these reasons, indirect and cumulative effects on the existing resources, including
downstream water quality, should be minimal.
Page 17
January 18, 2006

a w ~
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
'~ Project B-2532
6.0 NATURAL RESOURCES
6.1 Methodology
Materials and research data in support of the natural resources investigation were derived before
field investigations from a number of sources including the Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) Craven County (NRCS 1989) soil survey, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
topographic mapping (New Bern [1983], NC 7.5-minute quadrangles), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, N.C. Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database, N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) documents, N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) proposed Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitats,
and 2003 aerial photography furnished by the North Carolina Center for Geographic Information
and Analysis (NCCGIA). Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived
from available sources (NCDWQ 2002a-b, NCDWQ 2004, NCDWQ 2005a-b). Quantitative
sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The project study area was visited on July 7, 2004 and June 8 and 16, 2005. The project study
area was walked and visually evaluated for significant environmental features. Stream, wetland,
and AEC determinations were made and jurisdictional boundaries were mapped.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
distribution and habitat requirements were determined through field observations, evaluation of
habitat type distributions, and supportive documentation. Jurisdictional areas were evaluated
using the three-parameter approach following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
delineation guidelines (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized
according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979) and/or the N.C.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands (1996).
USAGE forms were utilized to document evidence of jurisdictional status and jurisdictional area
characteristics. Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) under the jurisdiction of the North
Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) were determined based upon the Coastal
Area Management Act (CAMA).
A list of federally protected species whose ranges extend into Craven County (February 11, 2003
listing) was obtained from the USFWS. In addition, files maintained by NCNHP were reviewed
for documented sightings of state or federally listed species. Field surveys for protected species
focused on identification of potential habitat areas and detailed searches of those areas.
Page 18
January 18, 2006

r r ~ ~
"" ~ Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project 8-2532
6.2 Physical Resources
6.2.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The project study area is situated in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. Within this ecoregion, the
project study area lies within the Mid-Atlantic Floodplains and Low Terraces sub-region. The
Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain ecoregion has low elevations and little relief. Slow, sluggish rivers,
low-gradient sandy bottom streams, deepwater swamps, oxbow lakes, and alluvial deposits
characterize the region. The region is known for its waterways and extensive wetlands (Griffith
et al. 2002).
Elevations within the project study area range from a low of about sea level near the Trent River
to 10 feet at the ends of the project study area (New Bem, NC 7.5-minute quadrangle). Land use
within the project region is characterized by forestry, mining, low-density residential, and
industrial development, with urban development concentrated in and near the City of New Bern.
Forestland occurs in large patches and corridors along watercourses and low, swampy lands. The
project study area includes areas dominated by maintained highway rights-of--way and heavily
disturbed plant communities, as well as high density development.
Geology and Soils: The Mid-Atlantic Floodplains and Low Terraces is a region composed
primarily of marine sands and molluscan-mold limestone deposited over calcarenite. The project
study area extends through two mapped soil series (MRCS 1989). Soil characteristics are
described in detail below.
The detailed soil map units in which the project study area is situated includes Seabrook-urban
land complex near the north abutment and loamy Udorthents near the south abutment. Seabrook-
urban complex are nearly level soils that are moderately well drained, permeability is rapid, and
the seasonal high water table is 2 to 4 feet. Udorthents are nearly level to gently sloping borrow
areas and landfills. Permeability is moderate and surface run-off is slow. Neither soil unit is
considered hydric in Craven County (MRCS 1997).
6.2.2 Water Resources
The NCDWQ has initiated awhole-basin approach to water quality management for the 17 river
basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed project study area is summarized in the
Meuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ 2002b). The Meuse River Basin
incorporates 14 sub-basins and some 3.9 million acres within the State of North Carolina. There
are a total of 3497 freshwater stream miles, 16,414 acres of lake waters, 369,997 acres of
estuarine areas, and 21 miles of Atlantic coastline in the basin. The average population density is
211 people per square mile (NCDWQ 2002b).
6.2.2.1. Water Quality
The project study area is located within NCDWQ subbasin 03-04-10 of the Meuse River Basin
(USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020204). Sub-basin 03-04-10 of the Meuse River Basin supports 16
permitted, point source discharges with a total discharge of over 13.8 million gallons per day.
Four of the permitted dischargers are classified as major, discharging 12 million gallons per day.
The 12 remaining permitted dischargers are minor with five having no limits set on discharges
Page 19
January 18, 2006

• ~ y
"' A wed Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
'` -R' Project 8-2532
(NCDWQ 2005b). Major non-point sources of pollution within the Neuse River Basin include
runoff from construction activities, agriculture, forestry practices, mining, hydrologic
modification, and stormwater runoff from roads, parking lots, and roof tops. Sedimentation and
nutrient inputs are major problems associated with non-point source discharges (NCDWQ
2002b).
The Trent River (NCDWQ Index 27-101-(39)) and the Neuse River (NCDWQ Index 27-(96)) are
the only surface waters located within the project study area. The Neuse River has a best usage
classification of SC Sw NSW, and the Trent River has a best usage classification of SB Sw
NSW. The SC designation includes all tidal salt waters protected for secondary recreation such
as fishing, boating and other activities involving minimal skin contact; aquatic life propagation
and survival; and wildlife. The SB classification includes surface waters that are used for primary
recreation, including frequent or organized swimming and all SC uses. For both designations (SC
and SB), stormwater controls are required under CAMA and there are no categorical restrictions
on discharges. The supplemental classification Sw, Swamp Waters, characterizes the stream as
having naturally occurring very low velocities, low pH, and low dissolved oxygen. No specific
restrictions on discharge types or development are involved. The supplemental classification
NSW, Nutrient Sensitive Waters, is intended for waters needing additional nutrient management
due to vulnerability to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. In general,
management strategies for point and non-point source pollution control require no increase in
nutrients over background levels. Both the Neuse River and Trent River are Impaired. No
benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring stations occur within one mile of the project study area
(NCDWQ 2002b).
The NCDWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7. The list is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired
waterbodies. The Neuse River is on the NC 2002 and the 2004 303(d) list of impaired streams in
the Neuse River Basin. The cause of impairment is high concentrations of chlorophyll-a. The
Trent River is not on the NC 2002 list of impaired streams, but it is on the 2004 Section 303(d)
list of impaired streams in the Neuse River Basin. Like the Neuse River, the Trent River also
suffers from high concentrations of chlorophyll-a.
The NCWRC has developed a Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat database to
enhance planning and impact analysis in areas proposed by NCWRC as being critical due to the
presence of Endangered or Threatened aquatic species. No Significant Aquatic Endangered
Species Habitat occurs within the project study area. The nearest Significant Aquatic Endangered
Species Habitat within the Neuse River Basin occurs approximately 74 miles northwest on the
Little River (SIN 27-57-(8.5)) and its associated tributaries (NCWRC 1998).
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion-control schedule and the use of Best Management Practices
(BMPs). The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures
as outlined in 23 CFR 6~0 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled Control of Erosion, Siltation,
and Pollution (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures include the
use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff; elimination of
construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous
cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds)
with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into steams
by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
Page 20
January 1B, 200b

r - ~
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
6.2.2.2. Stream Characteristics
Project study area streams consist of the Trent and Neuse Rivers (Table 9) and are considered
riverine and estuarine systems, respectively, as defined by Cowardin et al. (1979). The Trent
River is approximately 1700 feet wide at the crossing of Bridge No. 60. The water depth is
generally 1 to 12 feet with the navigable channel located near the northern shoreline. The
southern portion of the Trent River bed is shallow, generally 1 to 7 feet, and composed mainly of
sand and mud. The Trent River is classified as a tidal riverine system with an unconsolidated
bottom (R1UBV). The main force behind tides in this area is wind. During several field visits
(July 7, 2004 and June 8 and 16, 2005), flow was always sluggish. However, the clarity appeared
to depend on prevailing wind tides and ranged from poor (high tide) to good (low tide).
The Neuse River is approximately 5000 feet wide at its confluence with the Trent River. During
the field visits, the flow and clarity were similar to the Trent River (see above). However, the
clarity was generally worse in the Neuse River. The water depth ranges from 1 to 16 feet. The
Neuse River is classified as subtidal estuarine system with an unconsolidated bottom (EIUBL).
Both rivers are classified as warm water streams.
Name Cowardin Drainage Area On Quad Substrate Avg. Width
Classification s uare miles feet
Trent River R1 UBV 547 Yes sand 1500
Neuse River E1UBL 4492 Yes _ mud 5000
Source: Natural Resources Technical Report (October 2005)
6.2.2.3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project study area may result from activities associated with
project construction. Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on stream
banks, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and
pavementlculvert installation. The following impacts to surface water resources could result from
the construction activities mentioned above.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of road crossings and increased
erosion in the project study area
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles
Long-term impacts to streams along the project corridor will be limited to large rivers and
estuaries. Impacts to these reaches adjacent to the facility footprint will be temporary and
localized during construction. Long-term impacts to adjacent reaches resulting from construction
are expected to be negligible.
Page 21
January 18, 2006

Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
At the August 17`h, 2005 Concun ent Point 4B meeting, it was agreed by federal and state agency
representatives that stormwater from the new bridge could be discharged directly into the Trent
River without treatment. This allowance was based on the fact that impervious surface of the
new bride will not exceed that of the existing bridge. Minutes from this meeting can be found in
Appendix D.
6.3 Biotic Resources
6.3.1 Terrestrial Communities
The project study area is located in a region of high-density commercial, residential, and urban
land use. Impervious surfaces such as road pavement, driveways, and building footprints occupy
approximately 3.33 acres (21.0 %) of the 15.85-acre project study area. Open waters of the Trent
River and Neuse River within the project study area occupy another 8.76 acres (55.3 %).
Disturbed Land occupies approximately 3.48 acres of project study area (22 %) and is the
dominant plant community. A small amount of freshwater marsh (0.04 acre or 0.3 %) occurs in
the southwest quadrant of the project study area. The remaining plant communities occur within
the Lengyel Mitigation Site. Salt Shrub habitat occupies approximately 0.15 acre (0.9 %) of the
project study area. Brackish Meadow occupies approximately 0.09 acre (0.5 %) of shoreline in
the southeast quadrant of the project study area.
Due to the highly developed nature of most of the project study area, various types of disturbed
land constitute the dominant land use. Disturbed land occupies all of the northern end and much
of the southern end of the project study area. Plant communities and associated wildlife are
described briefly below. Wildlife directly observed in a plant community or determined to be
present through evidence (tracks, scat) during field investigations are indicated with an
asterisk (*).
Disturbed Land -Disturbed Land consists of lawns, road rights-of--way, planted trees and
shrubs, and volunteer plants growing on rip-rap substrates between bulkheads and the water. This
category includes the landscaped grounds of commercial establishments in the City of New Bern
at the northern end of the project study area including Union Point Park and the New Bern
Convention Center. Mown roadside shoulders and medians along US 70 Business make up the
bulk of this plant community within the project study area. Environmental factors for plant
communities are sometimes harsh and the low diversity of plant species reflects this fact.
Disturbed land supports planted grasses and shrubs such as centipede grass (Eremochloa
ophiuroides), fescue (Festuca sp.), wax myrtle (Morelia cerifera), and crepe myrtle
(Lagerstroemia sp.) as well as tough, weedy species such as dandelion (Taraxacum officinale).
Volunteer species in areas beyond limits of regular maintenance, i.e. along rip-rap bulkheads,
include wax myrtle, groundsel (Baccharis halmifolia), black willow (Salix nigra), paper mulberry
(Broussonetia papvrifera), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), golden rod (Solidago sp.),
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), catbrier (Smilax bona-
nox), and muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia).
The diversity of faunal species utilizing this plant community is low, as little foraging, resting, or
breeding habitat is present. Mammalian species are expected to be especially scarce, but may
include such adaptable species as Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor)*, and
bat species, such as silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans) and eastern pipistrelle
(Pipistrellus subflavus), may find foraging habitat in these areas and over water. Some bird
species are adapted to disturbed land and are likely to occur within the project study area,
r - * ~
Page 22
January 1$, 2006

r t ~
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project 8-2532
including killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)*, mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)*, European starling
(Sturnus v:,lgaris)*, common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula)*, rock dove (Columba Livia)*, and
house sparrow (Passer domesticus)*. Reptile and amphibian elements are probably rare but
might include green anole (Anolis carolinensis) and rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus),
which can utilize shrubby components of the disturbed land community.
Freshwater Marsh - A series of drainage ways convey water from a stormwater pond located
between the Bridge Pointe Hotel and the Outback Steakhouse to the Trent River. A portion of
these drainage ways contains characteristics of a Freshwater Marsh. Located in the southwest
quadrant of the project study area, the Freshwater Marsh is partially inside and partially outside of
the project study area. Emergent herbs including arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia), marsh
pennywort (Hvdrocotyle sp.), and smartweed (Polygonum sp.) grow in the marsh. However, the
emergent nature of this wetland would not persist without regular maintenance by the Bridge
Pointe lnn. At the confluence with the Trent River, the marsh contains black needle rush (Juncus
rome,•ia,,,,.s) and is considered a coastal wetland at this point.
Natural shoreline can only be found from stream flags KC11 to KC14, KDO1 to KD03, and a
small portion near KCO1 within the project study area. All of the natural shoreline except near
KCOI is located within the NCDOT Lengyel Mitigation Site (Figure 1). Two plant communities
occupy this area; Brackish Meadow and Salt Shrub.
Brackish Meadow - A small patch (0.09 acre) of Spartina patens occupies the area between the
KF and hC lines. This plant community is accreting sediment, does not have hydric soils within
12 incl~cs. and is being infiltrated by centipede grass.
Faunal di~•crsity is practically non-existent within the brackish meadow because it is so small in
areal extent. However, birds such as laughing gulls (Carus atricilla) were seen using this area as
a resting site and may be used by shorebirds for brief periods of foraging during high wind tides.
Salt Shrub -The rest of the Lengyel Mitigation Site within the project study area (0.15 acre)
consists oi' volunteer species such as bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), wax myrtle, black
willo~~. groundsel, golden rod, trumpet creeper, catbrier, and muscadine grape. Salt shrub
resembles an early succession forest but occupies relatively harsh environmental conditions due
to ~~•ind tides and storms that can prevent long term establishment of trees.
The higl~cst faunal diversity relative to the other plant communities within the project study area
can hr found in the Salt Shrub community. Mammals such as the raccoon and opossum may be
found within the dense vegetation and foraging along the shoreline. Songbirds such as yellow
warblers I De„droica petechia), northern cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis), and brown thrashers
(Tos,,.ctrnrw rt,ft,m) will nest in the thick shrubbery and may provide migrating songbirds with
food sources during migration. Reptiles and amphibians that may be found foraging and sunning
within this habitat include Carolina anole and rough green snake.
6.3.2 Aquatic Communities
The Trent and Neuse Rivers are expected to support a wide variety of fish species because of the
brackish waters such as Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus), Atlantic menhaden
(Breroortia tvrannus), gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus),
hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), redfin pickerel (Esox
Page 23
January 18, 2006

Abed Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
-....,.~" Project 8-2531
americanus), eastern silvery minnow (Hybognathus regius), white catfish (Ameiurus catus),
channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), Atlantic needlefish
(Strongylura marina), mumichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia),
white perch (Morone americans), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), striped mullet (Mugil
cephalus)*, and hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus). Marine crustaceans such as blue crabs
(Callinectes sapidus)* and shrimp (Panaeus sp.) can also be found in the Trent and Neuse Rivers.
Few mammals utilize the open water habitat within the project area although bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus) or other marine mammals will infrequently swim this faz into an estuary.
Some bird species dependent on aquatic resources can also be found within the project study area
such as barn swallow (Hirundo rustics)*, laughing gull*, common tern (Sterna hirundo)*,
Caspian tern (S. caspia), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)*. Aquatic
reptiles and amphibians are typically rare in open waters of this size but may infrequently include
American alligators or marine species such as sea turtles. Waters within the project study area
are jointly managed by the NCWRC and the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
(NCDMF). West of Bridge No. 60 are joint fishing waters and east are coastal fishing waters
(15A NCAC 03Q .0201).
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) is present within the project study area (Figure 8). SAV
beds provide habitat for many aquatic species, especially during earlier life stages. The SAV
beds are located near the southern and northern bridge abutments. The beds near the northern
abutment are localized between the abutment and the pedestrian walkway that exists underneath
the deck of the bridge. The beds near the southern abutment are located along the western shore
of the Neuse River and extend north on both sides of the bridge encompassing approximately 1.0
acre. State and Federal agency representatives have indicated that no SAV survey will be
required as long as no dredging occurs.
6.3.3 Rare and Unique Natural Areas
No NCNHP Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHA) have been identified within the project
study area. However, the Trent RiverBrice Creek SNHA and the Duck Creek Natural Area are
located 0.75 mile west and 2 miles east of the project study area, respectively. No water bodies
are deserving of special attention as denoted under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of
1968 (Pub. L. No. 90-542, 82 Stat. 906; codified and amended at 16 U.S.C. 1217-1287 (1982)) or
under the Natural and Scenic Rivers Act of 1971 (G.S. 113A-30). Because rare or unique
resources have not been identified within the project study azea and those outside of the project
study area are upstream or over one mile away, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
A portion of the Lengyel Mitigation Site is located in the southeast quadrant of the project area
and includes all land between the protective rip rap and bulkheads and the Neuse River. This is a
NCDOT mitigation site consisting of 13.2 acres of brackish marsh restoration and preservation
used to mitigate impacts associated with the US 17 Trent and Neuse River bridges. Disturbance
will be completely avoided in this site.
6.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
6.4.1 Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
Potential impacts to plant communities resulting from highway and bridge construction reflect the
relative abundance of communities within the project study area. Much of the project study area
Page 24
~ ~ ~ ~
January 18, 2x06

y i 1
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Ezcdusion
Project B-2532
6.4.2 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Fragmentation and loss of wildlife habitat is often a consequence of highway development.
However, the proposed project is not expected to result in fragmentation or adverse impacts to
any wildlife populations due to the project goal of in-place replacement of an existing facility.
Most local species in this developed area are habituated to anthropogenic disturbances and are
expected to move back into the vicinity of the construction area upon project completion.
Avoiding and minimizing impacts to SAV beds has the greatest potential for protecting fisheries
and wildlife in the area.
As this reach of the Trent River has potential as a travel corridor for migratory fish, this project
can be classified as Case 2, where no work in-water will be allowed during moratorium periods
associated with anadromous fish migration (February 15 through June 30).
6.5 Special Topics
6.5.1 Waters of the United States
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharge into "waters of the
United States." Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the USACE has major responsibility for implementation,
permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the CWA. The USACE regulatory program is
defined in 33 CFR parts 320-330.
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
the Section 404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are also considered "waters of the
United States." Wetlands are described by (33 CFR 328.3(b) [1986]) as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
Page 25
January 18, 2006
is within highway rights-of--way and commercial/industrial region of Craven County and,
therefore, disturbed land comprises the majority of plant community acreage (Table 10). Impacts
to plant communities are expected to be limited to cut-fill and clearing limits. Since this project
involves improvements to existing roadways, no fragmentation of plant communities is expected.

Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project 8-2532
Wetlands are defined by the presence of three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and
evidence of wetland hydrology during the growing season (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Open water systems and wetlands receive similar treatment and consideration with respect to
Section 404 review.
Based on NWI mapping, no wetlands occur in the project area. However, a small drainageway
from a stormwater pond on the west side of the southern end of the project study area has wetland
characteristics and flows north along the project study area boundary (Wetland 1). A total of 0.04
acre of wetland is located within the project study area. Wetland 1 can be classified as palustrine
with non-persistent (except by maintenance), emergent, vegetation that is permanently saturated
(PEM2B). Wetland 1 is obviously maintained by groundskeepers at the Bridge Pointe Hotel. At
the confluence with the Trent River, Wetland 1 contains characteristics of a Coastal Wetland and
is therefore regulated by NCDCM. Wetland 1 is outside of the right-of--way and is not expected
to be impacted by replacement of the bridge.
A total of 8.76 acres of surface waters (7.99 acres of Trent River and 0.77 acre of Neuse River)
occur within the project area. Impacts to jurisdictional areas resulting from the proposed project
will be limited to the construction of support bents in the Trent River bed. Bridge demolition fill
will be placed on a barge to be disposed of off-site.
6.5.2 Coastal Area Management Act
The proposed project will occur in one (Craven) of the 20 counties covered by CAMA. Areas of
Environmental Concern (AEC) within these counties are under the jurisdiction of the N.C.
Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM). The Coastal Resource Commission (CRC) has set
up four categories of AECs; The Estuarine and Ocean System, the Ocean Hazard System, Public
Water Supplies, and Natural and Cultural Resource Areas. The Estuarine and Ocean System can
be fiirtl~cr divided into four components; Public Trust Areas, Estuarine Waters, Coastal
Shorelines, and Coastal Wetlands. Based upon field investigations, the project study area
contains Public Trust Areas, Estuarine Waters, Coastal Shorelines, and Coastal Wetlands, some
of ~~~I~icl~ arc expected to be affected by the proposed project (15A NCAC 07H .0207).
Avoidin~~ and minimizing impacts to SAV beds has the greatest potential for protecting fisheries
and ~~~ildlife in the area. Some considerations towards this end include minimizing disturbance to
the mud bottom so that SAVs do not become uprooted or silted over. Shading from demolition or
equipment barges, mainly during the SAV growing season, May-September, can impact SAV
beds. Logistics associated with minimizing shading include maintaining an elevation at least 3.0
feet off surface waters, eliminating or minimizing long term mooring of construction bazges in
designated beds, and avoidance of demolition or bottom disturbances during the growing season.
6.5.3 '\euse River Buffer Rules
The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of
Riparian Buffers for the Neuse River Basin (15A NCAC 02B .0233) provides a designation for
uses that cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Neuse River Basin. The Neuse River Basin
Buffer Rule applies to 50-foot wide riparian buffers (measured perpendicular to the stream)
directly adjacent to surface waters in the Neuse River Basin. Changes in land use within the
buffer area are considered to be buffer impacts. Land use changes within the riparian buffer are
Page 26
Y ~ J y
January 18, 2006

~ ~ ! ~
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project 8-2532
defined as being Exempt, Allowable, Allowable with Mitigation, or Prohibited (15A NCAC 2B
.0233 (7)). The Exempt designation refers to uses allowed within the buffer. The Allowable
designation refers to uses that may proceed within the riparian buffer provided there are no
practical alternatives, and that written authorization from the NCDWQ is obtained prior to project
development. The Allowable with Mitigation designation refers to uses that are allowed, given
there are no practical alternatives, and appropriate mitigation plans have been approved. The
Prohibited designation refers to uses that are prohibited without a variance. Exemptions to the
riparian buffer rule include the footprint of existing uses that are present and ongoing (15A
NCAC 2B .0259 (3) (b)).
The Trent River and Neuse River within the project study area are subject to the Neuse River
Basin Rule. Because the bridge is located within an urban area, most of the buffer zones have
pre-existing bulk-heads and/or rip-rap. To comply with Neuse River Riparian Buffer
requirements, all improvements associated with TIP B-2532 will remain inside the limits of the
existing transportation facility (as defined by NC Division of Water Quality and NCDOT during a
site visit on August 15`, 2005).
6.6 Permit Issues
6.6.1 Permits
The proposed project will occur in one (Craven) of the 20 counties covered by CAMA. Because
the project study area contains open water or wetlands within a CAMA county, a NCDCM
representative was consulted to verify the presence or absence of AECs. If replacement of the
bridge avoids impacts to AECs, the NCDCM will review the permit application for .CAMA
consistency. If an AEC is proposed to be impacted, a CAMA Major Permit for bridge
replacement (15A NCAC 07H.2300) may be applicable. The CAMA Major Permit application
process coordinates most required state and federal permit authorizations. These permits include
Dredge and Fill, Easement to Fill, Water Quality Certification, Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) will likely consider this reach of the Trent River navigable for
bridge administration purposes under Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the
General Bridge Act of 1946. Coordination with the USCG will be required in order to obtain a
permit for the replacement of Bridge No. 60 from the USCG (33 CFR Parts 114 and 115).
Because the bridge is located within an urban area, most of the buffer zones have pre-existing
bulk-heads and/or rip-rap.
The Neuse and Trent Rivers have potential as travel comdors for migratory fish, this project can
be classified as Case 2, where in-water work will be restricted by fish moratorium periods
associated with fish migration, spawning, and nursery areas (February 15 to June 30). Bridge
demolition fill will be placed on a barge and disposed of off-site. NCDOT will coordinate with
various resource agencies during project planning to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge
demolition are resolved. The final decision for this determination lies with the NCDMF and
NCWRC.
Page 27
January 18, 2006

r ! ~ ~
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
6.6.2 Mitigation
The USACE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy that 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, and specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
Compensatory mitigation for Section 404, CAMA AEC, and NCDWQ jurisdictional area impacts
may not need to be proposed for this project due to the limited nature of the project impacts.
However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts. A final
determination regarding mitigation rests with the USACE, NCDCM, and NCDWQ.
Opportunities for compensatory mitigation are limited within the project study area. An existing
NCDOT mitigation, the Lengyel Site already exists within the project study area and the
developed nature of the southern peninsula effectively prohibits on-site mitigation.
6.7 Essential Fish Habitat
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (PL 94-265),
defines "Essential Fish Habitat" as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,
breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" (16 USC 1820(10]). An August 11, 2005 consultation
with the National Marine Fisheries Service and referral to Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish
Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies (NMFS 2004) indicated that Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH) for five species may occur within the project study area. These species are
managed by the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The on-Site
EFH consists of Estuarine Mud Bottom, Estuarine Water Column, Estuarine Emergent Wetlands,
and SAV beds. Managed species associated with the EFH within the project study area include
summer flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), and shrimp
(Panaeus spp.). Avoidance and minimization of EFH includes avoiding dredging and other
extensive bottom disturbing activities, minimizing shading, and not dropping demolition
materials in the water. Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) occur in the project study
area as SAV beds for larval and juvenile summer flounder. Mitigation by restoration and creation
of SAV beds has largely been unsuccessful (SAFMC 1998 and Stephan et al. 2000). Every effort
to avoid and minimize adverse effects to SAV in the project study area will be made
(Section 5.5.2).
6.8 Protected Species
Species with Federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Endangered status refers
to "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range," and Threatened status refers to "any species which is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16
U.S.C. 1532). Six federally protected species are listed for Craven County by the USFWS as of
February 11, 2003 (Table 11). These species are briefly described below.
Page 28
January 18, 2006

~ r ~ ~
'° Armed Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
Dermochelys coriacea (Leatherback sea turtle)
Endangered
Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: June 2, 1970
The leatherback turtle is distinguished by its large size (46- to 70-inch carapace, 650 to
1,500 pounds) and a shell of soft, leathery skin. This species is primarily tropical in
nature, but the range may extend to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (Palmer and
Braswell 1995, Martof et al. 1980). The leatherback is a powerful swimmer, often seen
far from land; however, it sometimes moves into shallow bays, estuaries, and even river
mouths. Its preferred food is jellyfish, although the diet includes other sea animals and
seaweed. The leatherback generally nests on sandy, tropical beaches.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Marginal foraging habitat for leatherback sea turtle exists within the study corridor.
Construction activities will have no long-term impact to leatherback sea turtles as a result
of this project.
Alligator missisippiensis (American alligator)
Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
Family: Alligatoridae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
Date Delisted: June 04, 1987
The American alligator is listed as Threatened due to the Similarity in Appearance
(T[S/A]) to other federally-listed crocodilians; however, there are no other crocodilians
within North Carolina. American alligators can be found in a variety of freshwater to
estuarine aquatic habitats including swamp forests, marshes, large streams and canals,
and ponds and lakes.
Page 29
January 18, 2006
Source: Natural Resowces Technical Report (October 2005)
'Federal Status: E--Endangered; a [axon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range" T--Threatened; a
[axon "likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range" T/SA-Threatened due to similarity of appearance.

Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
T(S/A) species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion for
this species is not required. Potential habitat for American alligator exists within the
study corridor. Construction activities may temporarily displace any American alligators
in the vicinity; however, no long-term impact to American alligator is anticipated as a
result of this project.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle)
Threatened
Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6 feet. Adult bald eagles are
dark brown with a white head and tail. Immature eagles are brown with whitish mottling
on the tail, belly, and wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed on fish but may also take
birds and small mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season extends from December
through May (Potter et al. 1980). Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a
conspicuous location near open water. Eagles forage over large bodies of water and
utilize adjacent trees for perching (Hamel 1992). Disturbance activities within a primary
zone extending 750 to 1500 feet from a nest tree are considered to result in unacceptable
conditions for eagles (USFWS 1987). The USFWS recommends avoiding disturbance
activities including construction and tree-cutting within this primary zone. Within a
secondary zone, extending from the primary zone boundary out to a distance of 1.0 mile
from a nest tree, construction and land-clearing activities should be restricted to the non-
nesting period. The USFWS also recommends avoiding alteration of natural shorelines
where bald eagles forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing activities within 1500
feet of known roosting sites.
~ 1 ~ y
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
The Trent and Neuse Rivers may offer foraging habitat for the bald eagle within the
project study area. The rivers offer large expanses of open water. However, large trees
along the banks suitable for nesting and perching are at least 1.0 mile away from the
project study area. Existing disturbances due to traffic on US 70 Business and human
activity in New Bem may deter eagles from regularly visiting the area but are known to
become habituated to human disturbances (Vancouver, BC). The Trent and Neuse River
were surveyed during the field visits for one-half mile upstream and downstream of
bridge No. 60, and no eagles were found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) documents one occurrence of bald eagles within 2.5 miles of the project study
area. This project may affect bald eagle foraging on the short-term but is unlikely to
affect the bald eagle long-term.
Page 30
January 18, 2006

i i 1 ~
{ Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project 8-2532
Picoides borealis (Red-cockaded woodpecker)
Endangered
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches long) has a black head, prominent white cheek
patches, and ablack-and-white barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades)
behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et al. 1980).
Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by
loblolly, long-leaf (Pinus palustris), slash (P. elliottii), and pond (P. serotina) pines
(Thompson and Baker 1971). Nest cavities aze constructed in the heartwood of living
pines, generally older than 70 years that have been infected with red-heart disease. Nest
cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, which are referred to as colonies (USFWS 1985).
The woodpecker drills holes into the bark azound the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny,
resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees.
Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas, which have been maintained by frequent
natural or prescribed fires, serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker.
Development of a thick understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker exists within the project study area. No
evidence of red-cockaded woodpecker presence, including foraging birds, was noted
during the field studies. The closest occurrence ofred-cockaded woodpecker recorded by
the NCNHP is approximately 4 miles south-southwest of the project study area neaz in
the Croatan National Forest. This project will not affect the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Trichechus manatus (West Indian Manatee)
Endangered
Family: Trichechidae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
The West Indian manatee (manatee) is a large, gray or brown aquatic mammal that
averages 10 to 13 feet in length and weighs up to 1000 pounds. This species occurs from
Brazil to the West Indies to the east coast of the United States. During summer months
West Indian manatees migrate from their Florida wintering areas as far north as coastal
Virginia. Reported occurrences in North Carolina are greatest from June to October.
These mammals inhabit warm waters, both fresh and salt, where their diet consists mostly
of aquatic vegetation (Limey 1998, Clark 1987, Webster et al. 1985).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
The manatee rarely occurs in North Carolina inland waters; although there have been
recent sightings in the Cape Fear and Neuse Rivers. The study corridor is expected to
serve as a movement corridor and support foraging habitat for the manatee in the form of
SAV beds. NCNHP records have documented manatee within 0.5 mile of the study
corridor.
Page 31
January 18, 2006

Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
The USFWS has developed recommendations for general construction activities in
aquatic areas which may be used by the manatee (USFWS 1996). The USFWS directs
that construction which can be completed in several months be scheduled during the
seven month period of November through May. The USFWS also makes a series of
recommendations pertaining to construction and the manatee, some of which are
summarized as follows: 1) construction managers should advise all construction
personnel to be aware of the possibility of manatee appearance and the legal obligation to
avoid harassment of the species; 2) construction personnel will watch for manatee
sightings and be prepared to shut down equipment if one is made; 3) any sightings or
contact with manatees will be reported to the appropriate natural resource agencies
(USFWS, NCWRC); 4) a sign will be posted providing instructions to equipment
operators in case a manatee is sighted; 5) special steps will be taken on site concerning
operations during the no-blast moratorium period, such as guidelines for operating water
craft and placement of siltation barriers. Detailed guidelines are available in
Appendix A.
Based on available information, the manatee is not expected to be in the project area
during the period of November to May and is unlikely to occur from June to October.
However, any construction associated with the project will follow guidelines prepared by
the USFWS to avoid impacts to the manatee.
Aeschynomene virginica (Sensitive joint-vetch)
Threatened
Family: Fabaceae
Date Listed: May 20, 1992
Sensitive joint-vetch is a robust, bushy-branched, annual legume often exceeding 3.3 feet
in height. Young stems have bristly hairs with large, swollen bases. The alternate,
compound leaves are even-pinnate, approximately 1.3 to 2 inches wide, with 30 to 56
toothless, gland-dotted leaflets (Radford et al. 1968). Flowers are bright greenish-yellow
with red veins, about 0.5 inch long, and are subtended by bractlets with toothed margins
(Leonard 1985). Flowers are produced on few-flowered racemes from July to October.
The jointed legume (loment) is about 2 inches long, has 6 to 10 segments, and a 0.5 to 1.0
inch long stalk. Sensitive joint-vetch occurs in the intertidal zone near the upper limit of
tidal fluctuation. It seems to prefer sparsely-vegetated areas where annuals predominate.
Habitat for this species in North Carolina consists of moist to wet coastal roadside ditches
and moist fields that are nearly tidal (USFWS 1995), especially in full sun (Leonard
1985). Associated plants listed for this joint-vetch in North Carolina are all fresh water
species. Sensitive joint-vetch is not expected to be found in association with salt-tolerant
species such as salt marsh cordgrass or giant cordgrass (Rouse 1994). This species seems
to favor microhabitats where there is a reduction in competition from other plant species,
and usually some form of soil disturbance (USFWS 1995).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
There is suitable habitat for sensitive joint-vetch within the project area including
disturbed open areas with little herbaceous competition. A survey was conducted on
August 15, 2005 for sensitive joint-vetch in areas of suitable habitat. No individuals of
sensitive joint-vetch were found within the project study area resulting in a biological
conclusion of Iv'O EFFECT.
Page 32
January 18, 2006
r 1 + ~

• a / ~
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
In a letter dated December 27, 2005 (Appendix A), the US Fish & Wildlife Service concurred
with the above biological conclusions.
6.9 Federal Species of Concern
Seventeen Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are listed by the USFWS for Craven County
(February 11, 2003 list). FSC are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until
they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. An FSC is defined as a
species that. is under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing. Table 12 summarizes Federal Species of Concern listed for Craven County.
Records of the NCNHP indicate that the FSC species recorded within 5 miles of the project study
area arc the southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus) at 3 miles west of the project study area,
Carolina spleenwort (Asplenium heteroresiliens) at 4 miles southwest of the project study area,
and spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidago verna) and Godfrey's sandwort (Minuartia godfreyi) at
2 milts southwest of the project study area. No FSC are specifically documented within the
project study area, and no further action is currently warranted.
6.10 State Listed Species
The NCNHP lists 69 species as rare in Craven County in addition to federally listed species
(Table 13; NCNHP 2005).
Page 33
January 18, 2006
Sourer: Natural Resources Technical Report (October 2005)

~ Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project 8-2532
Eastern Fox S uirrel Sciurus ni er SR
Southern Bo Lemmin S na tom s coo ri helaletes SR
Anhin a Anhin a Anhin a SR
Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virgins wa nei SR
Double-crested Comorant Phalacrocorax auritus SR
Diamondback Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus E
Chicken Turtle Deirchel s reticularia SR
Gloss Cra tsh Snake Re ina ri ida SR
Black Swam Snake Seminatrix aea SR
Pi m Rattlesnake Sistrurus miliarius SC
Neuse River Waterdo Necturus lewisi SC
Stickleback S Ites uadracus SR
Carolina Madtom Noturus furiosus SC
Ca Fear S ike EIIi do marsu iobesa SC
Roanoke Slabshell Elli do roanokensis T
Eastern Lam mussel Lam sills radiafa T
Graceful Clam Shrim L nceus racilicomis SR
Non'h Carolina S in Cra ish Orconectes carolinensis SC
Reversed Roadside Ski r Ambl scirtes reversa SR
Little Metalmark Cale hells vi iniensis SR
Frosted Elfin Callo h s irus SR
Dismal Swamp Green Stink Chlorochroa dismalia SR
Bu
Mottled Dusk in E nnis martialis SR
Be 's Ski r Eu h es be i SR
Twos otted Ski r Eu h es bimacula SR
Dukes' Ski r Eu h es dukesi dukesi SR
Dotted Ski er Hes ria attalus slossonae SR
Lemmer's Pinion Litho hane lemmeri SR
an owlet moth Mero leon diversicolor sullivani SR
Kin 's Hairstreak S rium kin i SR
Fitz erald's Peatmoss S ha num fitz eraldii SR-T
Scale-leaf Gerardia A linis a h lla SR-P
Branched Gerardia A linis vi ata SR-P
Bo Bluestem Andro on mohrii SR-P
Crowned Be articles Bidens coronata SR-P
Lon 's Bittercress Cardamine lon ii SR-T
Ho like Sed a Carex lu uliformis SR-P
Leconte's Thistle Cirsium lecontei SR-P
Twi -rush Cladium mariscoides SR-0
Tennessee Bladder-fern C sto tens tennesseensis E-SC
Robbins's Spikerush Eleocharis robbinsii SR-P
4 f
Page 34
January 18, 2006

• - A r
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
• State Status:
• SC = "Any species of plant in North Carolina which requires monitoring but which may be collected and sold under
regulations adopted under the provisions of [the Plant Protection and Conservation Actj" (GS 19B 106:202.12);
• SR =Significantly Rare, "Species which are very rare in North Carolina, generally with I-20 populations in the state,
generally substantially reduced in numbers' ;
• SR-T =Significantly Rare, Throughout- "rare throughout their ranges (fewer than 100 populations total)"; SR-L =
Significantly Rare, Limited= `endemic or near endemic";
• SR-P =Proposed- "A species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Thrcatencd, or Special Concern,
but has not yet completed the legally mandated listing process °;
• SR-0 =Significantly Rarc, Other- "The range of the species is sporadic or cannot be described by the other Significantly
Rare categories";
• T =Thrcatencd, "Any resident species of plant which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (GS 19B 106:202.12).
• E =Endangered, "Any species or higher taxon of plant whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's
flora is determined to be in jeopardy" (GS 19B 106: 202.12).
Page 35
January 18, 2006
Source: Natural Resources Technical Report (October 2005)

Abed Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
s,,:; Project 8-2532
NCNHP records indicate that eight of these species have been recorded to occur within 5 miles of
the project study area within the past 20 years. The nearest documented occurrence of each is:
riverbank quillwort at 0.75 mile west of the project study area, chicken turtle (Deirchelys
reticularia) at 1.5 miles southwest of the project study area, crowned beggar-ticks (Bidens
coronata) and water arrowhead (Sagittaria stagnorum) at 2 miles southwest of the project study
area, northern white beaksedge (Rhynchospora alba) at 3 miles northeast of the project study
area, shadow-witch (Ponthieva racemosa) at 3.5 miles southwest of the project study area, hop-
like sedge (Carex lupuliformis) at 4 miles northeast of the project study area, and long-beak
baldsedge (Rhvnchospora scirpoides) at 5 miles southwest of the project study area. No state
listed species have been specifically identified within the project study area. At this time, no
further action is warranted.
7.0 Hazardous Materials
In a Memorandum dated September 28th, 2004, the NCDOT Geotechnical Unit stated its findings
of a gcocnvironmental impact evaluation for the project. The main purpose of the investigation
was to identify properties within the project study area (generally defined as the Trent River to
the south, the Neuse River to the east, Broad Street to the north and North Carolina Railroad to
the west) that are or may be contaminated and therefore result in increased project costs and
future liability if acquired by NCDOT. Geoenvironmental factors may include, but are not
limited to, active and abandoned underground storage tank (UST) sites, hazardous -waste sites,
regulated landfills and unregulated dumpsites. Due to the age and development of downtown
New Bcm, any parcels impacted by the project have the potential for soil and / or groundwater
contamination.
As shown in Figure 8, thirty-two potentially contaminated modem and historical sites were
identified. Of the six modern sites located in the project area, only two have a medium to high
probability to impact the project: 1) Union Point Park, a former municipal landfill and 2) Property
owned by Swiss Bear Inc., an inactive Superfund site and also part of Union Point Park.
How~c~•cr, since construction will occur within the existing right-of--way, this project is not
anticipated to impact these sites.
Page 36
January 18, 2006
r A ~ ~
source: IVLUUf C;eotechmcal Unrt
*See Figure 8 for site locations

Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
8.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Substantial coordination with local officials and stakeholders has occurred throughout the project.
Numerous meetings and telephone interviews have been held with local planning staff and
emergency service personnel as well as business owners and marina dock masters. NCDOT has
met with local business groups such as the Swiss Bear Downtown Development Corporation and
the New Bern Chamber of Commerce. Meetings with neighborhood leaders, including James
City, Duffyfield and Pembroke, were also held. As the request of local leaders, two meetings
were held in the James City community (December 9, 2004 and September 29, 2005).
Citizens Informational Workshops (CIW) were held on October 28, 2004 and September 22,
2005. Both workshops were held at the New Bern Riverfront Convention Center located adjacent
to the northern end of the bridge. Both workshops included formal presentations to elected
officials of the City of New Bern and Craven County. Notification of the workshops was made
by advertisements in local publications, including The Sun Journal, The Havelock News, and The
Daily Drum. Notices were sent to the New Bern Public Housing Authority for circulation to their
residents. A newsletter was developed for each workshop and mailed to everyone in the project
mailing list, which consisted of nearly 5,000 entries. NCDOT send copies of the newsletter to
local churches for announcement and distribution to members. Comment cards were also
distributed at each workshop.
Approximately 80 attendees signed in at the October CIW. In general, attendees were supportive
of replacing the existing bridge with a new bascule bridge. However, the architectural treatment
of the new bridge was a prevailing concern.
Approximately 55 attendees signed in at the September CIW. Again, attendees were supportive
of the project. Most concerns centered on temporary impacts during construction, including noise
and vibration, impacts on local businesses and congestion of the road network. Many
respondents felt that traffic congestion in downtown New Bern would be worsened by the
simultaneous construction of the new bridge and the proposed Broad Street enhancements
(TIP U-4755).
A project Internet website was developed and maintained throughout the duration of the study.
9.0 AGENCY COORDINATION
Comments on the effect of the project were requested from appropriate federal, state and local
agencies. Listed below are the agencies that were contacted:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• U.S. Coast Guard
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
• National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service
• N.C. Department of Administration, N.C. State Clearinghouse
• N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
• N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Page 37
January 18, 2006

;, j~„~ Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project 8-2532
-Division of Coastal Management
-Division of Marine Fisheries
-Division of Water Quality
-Natural Heritage Program
-Wildlife Resources Commission
• Eastern Carolina Council of Governments
City of New Bern
Craven County
Due to TIP B-2532 being an in-place bridge replacement, it was determined that the project
would not be placed in the Section 404 / NEPA Merger O1 process. However, a meeting was held
with the Concurrence Point 4B agencies to discuss drainage on the bridge. During this meeting it
was agreed that direct discharge of stonnwater from the bridge would be permitted (see meeting
minutes in Appendix D).
10.0 BASIS FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
On the basis of planning and environmental studies conducted for this project, it is determined the
proposed replacement of the Alfred Cunningham Bridge will not have significant adverse effects
upon the human or natural environment. The project is expected to have an overall positive
impact as replacement of the existing deficient and obsolete bridge will result in safer traffic
operations and will maintain multimodal connectivity between James City and downtown New
Bern. Therefore, a categorical exclusion is applicable for this project.
11.0 SECTION 4(F) OF THE U.S. DOT ACT OF 1966
Section 4(f) resources within the vicinity of the Alfred Cunningham Bridge include the following:
1) Union Point Park; 2) New Bern NRHD; 3) Existing multiuse path underneath the bridge; and
4) the National Register-eligible Alfred Cunningham Bridge.
Union Point Park is at the northeastern end of the bridge and is owned by the City of New Bern
(Figure 1). Since all modifications will occur within the existing right-of--way, the replacement of
the bridge and related approaches will not require the use of property from the park or otherwise
impair its vital functions.
The northern roadway approach (E. Front Street) is located within the New Bern NRHD. This
roadway will be elevated approximately 4 feet above existing :grade to accommodate the bridge's
new vertical alignment. Due to the need to avoid encroachment into Union Point Park, and the
need to comply with the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules, the use of a retaining wall is
proposed. The retaining wall will also allow the proposed modifications to E. Front Street to
remain within the existing right-of--way. During Section 106 coordination, NC-HPO and the New
Bern HPC agreed on the aesthetic treatment of the retaining wall and associated landscaping
(Figures 6 and 7). Since the proposed modifications will occur within the existing right-of--way
and the road itself has not been identified as being on, or eligible for listing on, the National
Register, there will be no permanent or temporary use of historic property and thus no Section 4f
involvement. However, as also noted by NC-HPO, there could be temporary vibration impacts
A ~ ~.
Page 38
January 18, 2006

r ~ 1 +
.L Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
7~ Project B-2532
on structures within the Historic District during pile installation. Consequently, NCDOT has
agreed to implement a vibration monitoring and enforcement program.
A City owned footbridge crosses underneath the northern end of the bridge. According the City
officials, this is a multiuse path that is used by pedestrians and bicyclists. The footbridge
provides a connection between Union Point Park and the New Bern Riverfront Convention
Center. During construction, the footbridge will likely be temporarily closed. During closure,
pedestrians and bicyclists would need to follow a short detour to the E. Front Street / S. Front
Street intersection. NCDOT will keep the pedestrian footbridge open for public access as long as
practical and until such time that construction activities warrant its closure. NCDOT will provide
adequate signage that informs the public of the footbridge's temporary closure and of an alternate
detour route. NCDOT will also ensure an adequate pedestrian crossing is provided in the vicinity
of the E. Front Street / S. Front Street intersection. If the pedestrian footbridge is removed during
construction, NCDOT will ensure a replacement footbridge is available for public use prior to, or
simultaneous with, completion of the project. City officials understand the need for temporary
closure of the footbridge and are satisfied with the proposed mitigation.
The Alfred Cunningham Bridge is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
The proposed project will require use of (i.e. removal) of the bridge. Section 4(f) of the US DOT
Act of 1966, as amended, states in part "The Secretary may approve a transportation project or
program requiring the use of a publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife
and waterfowl refuge, or land of a historic site of national, state, or local significance (as
determined by the Federal, State or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, recreation
area, refuge, or site) only i£
1. there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and
2. the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize
harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or
historic site resulting from such use."
A Programmatic 4(f) Evaluation and Approval Form for the Use of Historic Bridges is included
in Appendix E.
12.0 FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Area
Figure 2 Aerial Photograph with Preferred Alternative
Figure 3 Typical Section
Figure 4 Photographs of Project Area
Figure 5 Architectural Rendering of Preferred Alternative
Figure 6 Architectural Rendering of Retaining Wall
Figure 7 Landscape Plan
Figure 8 Hazardous Material Sites
Figure 9 Plant Communities and Soils
Page 39
January 18, 2006

* 1 ~ ~
~~ Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
``' Project B-232
13.0 APPENDIX
Appendix A Federal Letters
Appendix B State Letters
Appendix C Local Letters
Appendix D Memoranda and Meeting Minutes
Appendix E Programmatic 4f for Historic Bridges
Page 40
January 18, 2006

r - ~ r

Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
FIGURES
January 18, X006

r
d
`4~ N
y ~ ~
d
v ~ a
n ~ e
a ''
d
a ti
nx
V
~,
=o
e~
~ d
~ ~
a ea
1
e '~
v o
v
n y
L ~
• ~,
i~~

' N C
m ~ A
~

Q
~ m
~ m
c ~
~ C
c.

Q m •~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ •E ~ ~
~- ~ m d
7 ~ o
= t of 5
O ~
Z v ~
~ d O
~+
(~ 0
d t'i o
2 m Y
co
~ y
z Y
_
U ,~ c
-~ c
m o ~
~ = v ~ U E

a c

= =
0 3 d
~
a c jp

t ~
c m

~ ~` m
°'
~ h N

O O.
m
- H ~ _ ~ ~ W ~ V r
cmc
o
~
W ~
o;
~ ~ O~jZ~~
LL ~
. O ~ZVV=
~ ~
L r
C
~C d
7 'fl ~ J~
~ m '~
-J ~{ ~s O
d~~ ~
ti `
~~~OP ~ ^ ~
/ ~ ~o
ane~0 w, .
o /,
c S fw ~ RaUro•d W
~ ~ Nortl+Garouoa p /
/Bq,~o
lleoaa ~ Y ~
~ ~ O
`m - 0 °' ~ ~I ~ O
~ n. ~i ~
m U
~ uap3
°'
v wag ti
~IVest ST.,a r'
u, L-~- ~'
~ °' ~- ~
`~ ~ ~
m ~ m
Q U
3
5~ ~ /
G
pM8 uoas ~
~ span Q m
m ~ 0
H
3 '
~o
o ~ m -d o `~ f d
~° ~ Q a ~/
o
~ ~ d

i t
11-2"
-•
3'-0"
SIOEwAIK
36'-4"OUT TO OUT
9•-0"C~EAR ROADWAY
'0" 14•-0"
.1,
I
I -~-
I 6%2`
GRADE I ~CONC
POINT ~ DECK
I ~ I
1 w24x76 STEEL BEAM tTYP.) j
ANON-COMPOSITE-PAINTED) j
.I i
1._2.
3•-0"
SIDEWALK
NOTES 14 -2~i ~ 4 GIRDER SPACES A T'-0" = 28'-0" ~i; '-2 ~~
DEPTH FROM GP
TO BOTTOM EXT. EXISTING BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION -APPROACH
BEAM = 2.6't a)
]'-

36'-1"OUT TO OUT
5'-6" 28'-0"CLEAR ROADWAY
IDEwALK 13'-0" 15'-
2'-0" 11'-0" I 11'-0"
GUTTER LANE j LANE
GRADE
POINT
-L-
i
j 8%?"
CONCH
~ DECK
4'-0•
1'-
_ .02 .02 _ '
- - -02 - I
M '
i i I 1 6" 0
j I I j P.V.!
DRAB
~ ~ TYPE Iv t54'~ PRESTRESSED
CONCRETE GIRDER lTYP.)
I tf'c = lOksi) I
''8~~(" 3 GIRDER SPACES A 9'-T• = 28'-9" 13'-8'/
NOTE: PROPOSED BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION -APPROACH
DEPTH FROM GP NOTESs
TO BOTTOM EXT
ASTIC
IPE ~TYP.)
BEAM = 6.0'c a) ~• HIG~RY CORROSIVE FIGURE 3
ENVIRONMENT BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTIONS
2. MAX. DESIGN SPEED = 45 MPH
tMAX. POSTED SPEED = 40 MPH)
ALFRED CUNNINGHAM BRIDGE
OVER THE TRENT RIVER

~ . ~ ~
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
Figure 4: Photographs of Project Area
Point Park
January 18, 2006
View 1: Looking towards downtown New Bern from the
Neuse River Bridge
View 2: Looking south towards James City from Union

~ ~ • _~
J Abed Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
January 18, 2006
View 3: Looking south from the intersection of E. Front
Street and S. Front Street
View 4: Looking southeast from the New Bern ltiverfront
Convention Center

~ , r ~
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
'J
View 6: Looking north towards downtown New Bern.
Union Point Park is on the right. New Bern Convention
Center is on the left
January 18, 2006
View 5: Original bridge tender's house in the foreground;
Current bridge tender's house behind

r ~ ~ K r
ti
1
a ~

~ z
~,
.,
~..~

., _tj3
•

F~+-~1
ri J
~;
w
C~
w
J
~ m
~
~
i
w

ait ti,s :r .
'~r ~c `~`
3ti#
C. ~ ,'
~.~~
K~y ~~' ~'
~3
x
W ]~ i ~ yj
~~;?~~
r~
~,k~ -
~,,~ ~ _,
~ °~n
i
~~ .r~~ ~
~ +
+ ,~7~:
w ~~... i~ 't "
r. a~ i ~'
~~.F~~
~e4 :Ya.
vii m
~up ~..
G~ _
r
~
~~:. _
nr
., ~~.
t~ ~ ,_
i.
~
~'
a
~;

~~
~
~`
I. ~'+

1
i~
~ ~~~
~
~~~ ~
!" ~,- L
(
~ ~T
1
VVV ----
~A~~.... _ ...~
~~~
IC
(•

r
IC
t _.~
i~~ __.
~C ~~
1

~ ~ .
~~ !`
!!' w-~
~f
I
p
h
.~
W
X
:<
•>"
t a
y=s
.s.:
F
s
i•
~XF
l . ,,
___,
~•--;
i~
''
--
:~
;~
x
`,~ _
s
X
Y

r
w ~'~~ ~
a~ ~ `_ e~
~~ ~~* ~
„~, M~a~ v.Y. ~
~dT~ ~ 6: '1~ rFl ~~
5 CR,~ ,~. ~ r}6~ij
}
~~ ~~,
' yr~
~t
,~.
.r
t ~
a.
~h
r g~ }
~n r .
~~
f~E!5
.r
V: ~c" t a
'Tt2r,; ~~' ~
dT¢
~+
..yy ~ old
T`~i~
K~•a
y~?j.
~~
Y.
T..
b4
Y' ~/

l~
r
~ '

~ ,
`# ,
~~
~;_
N`}
.~ ~:
;~
'!
l
~~ ;

I;r
,j h
,; !'
t~
:~.~ ~!•~
~ '
-'
r
~t
~~
~~
,~ ~~-
X41 1
~~ i
' `{
'~
~~ f~~
.....
!r
* ~ ~y
s
r~i , r', L
~ m
..

~ s
r ~,',
~;
~ ,_
v"*A `~"
t
u ~
=L4
'Y'~
l
fi
i~fi _
^. .S.
R~ j
~r ~
['

~~
,,. ~
~ ,;
.~~
x ,
e '~'..,~ r~,,
,~ ~,F s , .
I~~1 c.+ ~~}.
~'~~
w m
r~ = I

i s
~ ~;..:. h
~p =.
~ ~ ~
I~
°A r
~~,
~ ,~~.. _
~ ffi~
:.~,'
~w F
~`~`~
~f....'~ .,3.3..%.
^y'H,F..~ ,.
V'1 m ~ -
,~ ~ I .~
_ T _
t

. x
c'
~~
~~
g
CCC
F
a~
~z
74G z
~ m
'~
:_ _

• ,~
c~
~~
~~
~~
-:
3
~z
z~
m
w

K1
O ~ N
4 ~ o
l
~ ~ _
~~ ~
~ ~ ~
b~ ~
s
E;
e ~
'r_ O
b
C
~ O
V ~
t! Op
;~
N
41 ~
' u
~ 4
i
' m
F
z
"1
/""~
~~//~~
vI .d.. ~ m N N
C
W C U NN ~ .C
N y
~ J U
Z ~ C
~ ~
~ d
c ~ ~ ~ N
' r
E r.+
~
"
p a a
i
`~ W
g w o a° ~"
m E
` o
= o
Y ~ J Li •
c
~
w~
iQi ~ in
C1 ~.
C m
,U ~ ~ W
; Q
= Y
C
° N
N
~ ~ Z V O
N~ ii i v cLi> > v
i w
o a
~ m
a E
a~ E
m p
c
Q
Q
_ ~ ~ iii iii v ui is ~~
m rn a o 3 3 .-- V~
(n lA ~ N f~ N 2 m O F Z Z ~ W C m C~
~ ~

0
00
0
0
0
~
~
~
~ ~
Z V m
~cod~
~ QC1~L~
~2VC1=

~~~
t ~
o~`~
~Fc
/ L`
.~.,~
/:
Y
c`o
U ."~
West St
T
a~
:' (~ e
_C
•C ~
C
V ~L
~m
L
~_
~C Q
.~
~S Ipp. ~ , ~ C
lina Railroad
North Caro
~S uap3
~ ~ I
~,
0
~~
aS ~ o~~ 3
~.-tij
O~
l'~
0
ti
r

~~ ~ ~
~• •~ ~' • r+ ~ Y
~ + f•~-
~ "-
•: !,~1. t
~ ~ ,,~ t.° ;.~ ~ ~~~~ ~ , .
1~ - ~ StBa •ILaiiA'C~y~~
_ ~ ;-
'r_~` , ..
.r/' ti
..y
;;~,
LEGEND
[_] Project Study Area
Disturbed land
SAV
Freshwater Marsh
~(~ Salt Shrub
~_- brackish meadow
Impervious Surface
Craven County Soils
•.;`s ~.r
~r~
~.~ ~ '~
~,~~
.t ~ :~~,
ti
~~
' •a - ~
•~~a ~
~trtbents ~
-~-•. .,
~'
+~ ~
a
fr,...
!'~ .4y
' ~~. awt ~
`' ' ~ `S
EcoScience
Corporation
t tdt Nayn•t Strwt Suns tOt
Raingli, Nate CatMna T)tiM
- 919•E2b313J Fu 919-•2t•~Stt
.~..~
400 0 400 800 Feet
_-~
i
Source Data: NCCGIA 2003 aerial, Craven •County Soils
Plant Communities and Soils
Replacement of Bridge No. 60
US 70 over the Trent River
t3-2532
Craven County, North Carolina
owr,oy. Kcw Figur
Style: 1:5,000
_
_
_
Oato~ August 2005
Project-- OS-240 9

Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
Appendix A
FEDERAL LETTERS
January 18, 2006

r ~ ~
'Pt~E,NT OF ryF '
Q ~
+u ~
O 9p
~ S
9
United States Department of .the .Interior
FISH-AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
• Raleigh Fidd Office
.Pox OtFice Box 35726
Raleigh, North Carolina 276363726
.July 9, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental:Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center -
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
~_
`~:
'~~~~~.
+ 1
.~u t
Cc ~~
This letter is in response o your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed replacement or refurbishment
of Bridge No. 60 on US 70 Business over the Trent River in Craven County, North :Carolina (TIP.
No. B-2532).: These comments provide scoping inforniation in,accordance with provisions of the
. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (l6 U:S.C tiGl-tit7d) and section 7 ofthe Endangered
Species Act'(ESAj of 1973, as amended (1t U.S.C. 1531-I543).
Recent aerial photography reveals the highly disturbed nature of the project area. Very little
t~rrestria] habitat remains. However, aquatic habitat value is significant. `.For bridge replacement
projects, the Service recommends the following general conservation measures to avoid or '
minimize environmental impacts to fish.and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland, forest and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practical;
2. Tf unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance: Project planning should include a detailed
.compensatory mitigation plan for,offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities
to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation easements, land trusts or by
other means should, be explored at the outset;
3. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
. aligned along the, side of the existing structure which has the least and/or.lowest quality
offish and wildlife habitat.. At the completion of construction, the detour area should be
entirely removed and the impacted areas should be planted with appropriate vegetation,
including trees if necessary;
A-1

2
~ • •
4. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 -June 30;
5_ New bridges should be long enough to allow for sufficient wildlife passage along stream
comdors;
6. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
.implemented;
7. Bridge designs should include provisions-for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through
a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream.. This buffer should be-large
enough to alle~riate any potential effects from'run-off of storm water and pollutants;
$. The bridge designs should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology or
impede fish passage. To the extent possible, piers and bents should be placed outside the
bank-full width of the stream;
9. Bridges and approachesshould be designed to.avoid. any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. If spanning the flood plain is not feasible,
culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion ofthe-approach to restore some of
the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of floodwaters
within the affected area.
There are five federally protected species listed for Craven Countyahe`bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalars), leatherback sea turtle (Derv:ochelys.coriacea), West Indian manatee (Trichechus
nranat:rs), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and sensitive jointvetch (Aesclryno~nene
i~irginica). information about the habitats in which these species are often found is provided on
our web site, http://endangered.fws.gov/ . It appears that no habitat exists in the project vicinity
for the red-cockaded woodpecker. The North Carolina Natural :Heritage Program (NCNHP)
. database indicates two historical occurrences of sensitive jointvetch in the project area.
Although their current presence is questionable due to the developed nature of the site, this
should be verified with a field survey during the flowering season if any `habitat remains .for the
species. The NGNHP database alsoindicates a 1994 occurrence of the West Indian manatee in
the project vicinity. The Service's "Guidelines For Avoiding Impacts To The West Indian
Manatee" should. be fully implemented to avoid effects to this species.: These recently. revised
guidelines can be found at the following website: httna/nc-es.f~is.:?ov/mammal/mammal.html .
Surveys should also be conducted for bald eagles and nests if any habitat exists within aone-half
mile radius of the project site. Any survey documentation must include methodologies and
results.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A-2

j _. ~
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for. the proposed project; .
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
'#. The extent and acreage of waters of the:U.S., includutg wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based.on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NV11I). Wetland boundaries should be deternzined by using the 19S?
Gores of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps .
of Engineers; .
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, :both temporary and .permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to :cumulative adverse.
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including
fragmentation and direct loss of habitat;
7. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning'should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates, the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
.during the progression of the planning process, including. your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
J,.^
~ ; ;n-w ~~ . j r
:john Hammond
Ecological. Services Acting Supervisor
ec: Mike Bell, USACE, Washington, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
A-3

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 27, 2005
Vincent 7. Rhea, PE .
North Cazolina. Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center _
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Rhea:
This letter is in response to your letter of December 13, 2005 and subsequent December 20, 2005
revision which provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological
determination of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) that the
replacement of the Alfred Cunningham Bridge (Bridge No. 60) on US 70 Business over the
Trent River in Craven County (TIP No. B-2532) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
the federally listed bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and West Indian manatee (TYzchechus
nlanatus). In addition, NCDOT has determined that the project will have no effect on the
federally listed leatherback sea turtle (Derrnochelys coriacea), red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis) and sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica). 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, eagle surveys were conducted on June 8 and 16, 2005. No
eagles or eagle nests were observed. It is understood that little to no bald eagle habitat exists in
-the project area. To avoid impacts to the West Indian manatee, NCDOT has agreed to
implement the Service's 2003 Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee
during construction. Based on the information provided and other information available, the
Service concurs with your determination that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect the bald eagle or West Indian manatee.
According to information provided, a plant survey was conducted at the project site on August
15, 2005 for the federally threatened sensitive joint-vetch. No specimens of sensitive joint-vetch
were observed. In addition, no habitat exists at the project site for the federally listed red-
cockaded woodpecker and leatherback sea turtle. The Service concurs with your determination
that the project will have no effect on sensitive joint-vetch, red-cockaded woodpecker and
leatherback sea turtle.
We believe that the requirements of section 7ta)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind
you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information
A-4

' c ~ Y
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 maybe affected by this identified action. '
The Service appreciates the opportunity ~to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
IOM ~' `' ~"
~~' ~ lJ I
~ete~ Benjamin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: William Wescott, USACE, Washington, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor; NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Tracy Roberts, HNTB, Raleigh, NC
A-5

> ,,
cs~''~~;~'?s, United States De~lartment of the Interior
.4~~~~;; ~ :., p
~- FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
~r• s
Raleigh Field office
~!-:::~ ~~~ Past Office Box 3372ti
~r~ a•'$ Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
GUIflELINES FOR AVOIDING IMPACTS TO THE WEST: INDIAN MANATEE
.Precautionary-Measures for Construction Activities in North .Carolina Waters
The West Indian manatee.{Trichechus manatus), also known as the Florida. manatee, is
aFederally-listed endangered aquatic mammal protected underthe Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.1531 et seq.) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C 1461 etseq.). The manatee is also listed as endangered
under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act of 1987 (Article 25 of Chapter -113 of
the General Statutes). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the lead Federal
agency responsible for the protection and recovery of the West Indian manatee under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Adult manatees average 1 D feet long and weigh about 2,200 pounds, .although some
individuals have been recorded at lengths greater than 13 feet and weighing as much as
.3,500 pounds. Manatees are commonly found in fresh, brackish, or marine water habitats,
including shallow coastal bays, lagoons, estuaries, and inland rivers of varying salinity
extremes. Manatees spend much of their time underwater or partly submerged; making
them difficult to detect even in shallow water. While the manatee's principal stronghold in
the United States is Florida, the species is considered a seasonal inhabitant of North ;
Carolina with most occurrdnces reported from June through October.
To protect manatees in North. Carolina, the Service's Raleigh. Field Office has prepared.
precautionary measures for general construction activities in waters used by the species.
Implementation of these measure will allow in-waterprojects which do not require blastin4
to proceed without adverse impacts to manatees.. In addition, inclusion of these guidelines
as conservation measures in a Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation, or as part
of the determination of impacts on the manatee in an environmental document prepared
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, will expedite the Service's review of the
document for the fulfillment of requirements under Section.? of the Endangered Species
Act. These measures include:
1. The project manager and/or contractor will inform all personnel associated with the
project that manatees may be present ire the project area, and the need to avoid any harm
to these endangered mammals. The project manager will ensure that all construction
personnel know the general appearance of the species and their habit of moving about
completely or partially submerged in shallow water. All construction personnel will be
informed that they are responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence
of manatees.
2. The project manager and/or the contractor will advise all construction personnel that
A-S

there are civil and criminal penalties for harmirig, harassing, or killing manatees which are
protected under the Marine. Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.
3. If a manatee is seen within 100 yards of the active construction and/ol- dredging
operation or vessel movement, all appropriate precautions will be implemented to.ensure
protection of the manatee. These precautions will include. the immediate shutdown of
moving equipment if a manatee comes .within 50 feet .of -the. operational area of the
equipment.. Activities will not resume until the manatee has departed the project area on
its own volition (i.e., it may not be herded or harassed from the area).
4. Any collision with and/or injury to a manatee will be reported immediately. The report
must be made to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (ph. 919.856.4520 ext. 16), the
National'Marine Fisheries Service (ph. 252.728.8762), and the North' Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (ph. 252.448..1546)..
5. A sign will be posted in all vessels associated with the project where it is clearly visible
to the vessel operator. The sign should state:
CAUTION: The endangered manatee may occurin these waters during the warmer
months, primarily from June through October... Idle speed is required if operating
this. vessel in shallow water during these months. All equipment must be shut down .
if a manatee comes within 50 feet of the. vessel or operating equipment: `A collision
with and/or injury to the manatee musf be reported immediately to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (919-856-4520 -ext: 16), the National Marine Fisheries Service
(252.728.8762), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(252.448.1546),
6. The -contractor will. maintain a .log detailing sightings, collisions, -and/or -injuries; to
manatees during project activities. -Upon completion of the action, the project managerwill
prepare a report which summarizes all information on manatees encountered and submit
the report to the Service's Raleigh Field Office.
7. All vessels associated with the construction project will operate at °no wake/idle" speeds
at all times white in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four foot
clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible.
8. If siltation barriers must be placed in shallow water, these barriers wi(I be: (a) made of
material in which. manatees carinot become entangled; (b) secured in a manner that they
cannot break free and entangle manatees; -and, (c) .regularly monitored to ensure that
manatees have not become .entangled. barriers will be placed in-a manner #o allow
manatees entry to or exit from essential habitat.
Prepared by (rev. 06/2003):
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
919I856.452D
A-7

- f s M
Figure 1. The whole bodyof the West Indian manatee may be visible in clear water; but
in the dark and muddy waters of coas#al North Carolina, one normally sees only a small
part of the head when the manatee raises its nose to breathe.
CC~~~-- 4

tfrD
Illustration used with the permission of the North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences.
Source; Claris, M. K. 1987. Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fauna of North Carolina: Part L
A re-evaluation of the mammals. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina BiologicalSurvey 1987-
3. North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences. Raleigh, NC. pp. 52.
A-8

• ~: r~' ^ -- ~ Commander ~ 431 Crawford Street
_ U.S. Department of United States Coast Guard Portsmauih. Va.-23709-5004. ~ t%.
• Homeland Security, Fifth CoasFGuard District Staff Symbol: obr
Phone: (757) 39&6629
Unlted Stffi@S Fax: (757) 39&6529
C08St CiuBf•d Email: gheyerot~lantd5.uscg,mil
~_•
16393 ..,.~
22 Jul-04 ;, +~~~~,/~~ -
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director '''~ ti~ ^
NC Department of Transportation . ~'ro ~t'Mr
Project Development and Environmental Analysis ~o ,~~,~ o
1548 Mail Service Center °i`~c'r ~YS~ ~~' ~
Raleigh N.C. 27699-1548 ~',yT~ A ~~~5~.~
Dear Mr Thorpe:
This is response to your letter of June 22, 2004, regarding the proposed improvements to your
Bridge No. 60 (Alfred Cunningham Bridge) over Trent River.
In response to our previous telephone conversation, you were provided a copy of our Bridge
Permit Application Guide delineating ourregvirements in obtaining a formal Coast Guard bridge
permit. Upon review of the proposed replacement project, we will proceed with the publication
of our public notice. If you choose to refurbish the bridge in-kind, the following initial..
conditions are required:
You or the:contractor must notify us at leash 45 days in advance of the rehabilitation, and any
work or structures placed in the water, which maybe obstructions to navigation so we can
publish the information in our Local Notice to Mariners. Please advise us of the location and
type.of construction plant that will be used in this activity.. Plans showing is information as
-well. as the. sequence of operations. should be provided to us at the time of :the 45-day, advs~nce
notification.
Please call Mr. Gary Heyer, Bridge Management Specialist at the above listed number, if you.
have any further questions.
Sincerely,
~~/yv
WAVERLY . G GOR , JR
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch
By direction of the Commander.
I?ifth Coast Guard District
Copy: MSO Wilmington
A-9

• ~ r
,,~, Armed Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Excl:~sion
Project B-2532
' ......,.~..~...__.~......,_~_V.._..~.~..~.~.~...._.._ _..~._._..~......_.~,.._.~.......~...__ .............~w~_..~..._._._...~.~......~.~.
1

1

' Appendix B
' STATE LETTERS

January 18, 2006

• •r...-
'~.wd
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor Gwynn T. Swanson, Secretary
. Julie 30,2004
Mr. Vince Rhea
NG Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental.An
1548 A4ai1 Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-158
Dear Mr. Rhea:
Subject: Scoping -Proposed improvement of Bridge No. 60 (Alfred Cunningham Bridge), on
US70 Business, over the Trent River.. TIP #B2532
The N. C. State. Clearinghouse has received the above project.for intergovernmental review..This
project has been assigned State Application Number 04-E-4220-0375. Please use this number vrith
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review. of this project should be completed on or before 07/30/2004. Should you have any
questions, please call'[phone]..
Sincerely
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Aluifing Adr/ress: Temp/rune: (9/9J801--2935 ~ Lucnrlon Address:
13DI Mail Service Crntcr Fay (919)733-9i7 t 116 West loots Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 Slate Courier Ni I-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail: Chrys.Ba~gctt~lncmail.net
do EgrrolOpportunigt~A~rmutive Ac[ion Employer
B-1

__ ar`
~~ 3 y ~ ~
North Carolina
Department of administration
4iichael F. Easley, Governor Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
August 3, 2004
lv1r. Vince Rhea
NC Department of 'Transportation
Project Development and Environmental .An
143 Mail Service Center -
RaleiRh.1~~C 27699-148
Dear Mr. Rhea:
~: ;SCI-I File ~ 04-E-4220-0375; Scoping; Proposed improvement'of Bridge No. 60 (Alfred
Cunningham Bridgel, on US70 Business, over the Trent River. TIP;#B2532
The abo~•e referenced environmental impact information. has been submitted to the State :Clearinghouse
underth~pro~~isions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a
state a~Tency is required to prepare an em'ironmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
znvironmentai docwnent meets the-provisions ofthe Siate Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for ;your consideration are the .comments made. by a`encies in the course of this review.
if any further. environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this, of#ice for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions. please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
. Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attac'nments
cc: Region P
rllviling.drlr/rrss: Trleplronr: (919)801-1x15
I~01 Mail Service Center Fae {glg)733A571
R~lei~h. ~C '_7/199-13t)I St~tc Courier ~: I-01-f10
r-mail Chrys.Baggetr~memai/.net
.9n Equal Oppornenit}L9~rmarii~e Action Emply}•er
Location .~f Jdrrsr:
116 Wes- Jones Street
Raleigh. Nonh Carolina
r L
B-~

r y
A~•
.... r~ ~ State of North Carolina
~CDENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Reviewing Office:
Project Number: ®~ ~ 37~Due Date: / /
!NTERGOVERNMENTALREVlEW -PROJECT COMMENTS
4her review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals Indicated may need to be obtained in order far this project
:o comply with North Carolina law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
411 applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS 5PEC1Al APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REC)U(REMENTS Normal Process Tlme
(Statutory Time Limid
Permit to consrrua & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days
faci8ties, sewer system extensions & sewer systems . concr+cts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual. (g0 days)
nos discharging into state surface waters.
NPOES-permit to discharge into surface waterand/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection preapplicatlon
permit to operate and consttuct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment 90 -120 days
discharging into state surface waters. faciliry•granted abet NPDES. Reply time, 30 days aher receipt of plans or issue (N/A)
of NPOESpermit-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit Preappliotion technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A).
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the . 7 days
installation of a well. (15 days)
Dredge and fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
t 55 da s
y
-
• On-si
e inspection. Preapplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement (~ days) .
to Fill from N.G Department of Admtnistratlon and Federal Dredge and FiI1 Permit
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 ANCAC NIA ti0 days
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300,2H.0600)
Any open burning auociated with subject proposal .
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must 6e in compliance with 60 da s
15 A NCAC 20.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification. N/A (90 days)
and removal prior to dertiolition. Contact Asbestos
Control Group 919,733-0820.
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
^ The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation 20 days
~ control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 (30 days)
days before beginning activity. A fee of 550 for the first acre or any part of anacre. -
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be aiidressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. - N ~' bO ~ 30 days
~ ~ Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOTs approved program. Particular attention should be
given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable stormwater conveyances and outlets.
^ Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed whh DENR. Bond amount varies with
r/pe mine and number of acres of affected land Any are mined greater than 30 days
one aue must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be rceived before (60 days)
-the permit can be issued
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.G Division of Forest Resources it permit exceeds 4 days 1 day
(N/A)
Q Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit•22 counties On•site inspection by N.GD~vision of Forest Resources required'if more tlwn five 1 day
in coastal N.C. with organic soils. acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested (N/A)
at least ten days before actual burn is planned:
Oil Rerining Facilities N!A 90 - 120 days
(NfA)
B-3

~ ;
I PERMITS SPE{IAL APPUCAl1oN PROCEDURES or r~EC)UIREMEiVTS Normal Process Time '
'(Statutory Time limit)
[3 .Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction, Applicant
must hire N.C.qualified engineer to: prepare plans,lnspett const-txdon, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under

mosquiro control program, and a 404 permithom{orps of Engineers: 30 da s
y
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. Aminimum (~ days)
fee of 5200.00 must accompany 1he.application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost uwtl be required upon completion.
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well file surety bond of.55,000 with DENR running ro State of N.C. conditional that any l0 days
well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according (N/A)
ro DENR rules and regulations.
^ Geophysical E~cploration Permit Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application 10 days
by letter. Np standard application form. {N/A)
^ State Lakes Construction Permit Application fees based on structvrc size is charged Must include descriptions 75.20 days
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. ' (N/A)
0 _.401 Water Quality Certification N/A ~ 55 days
(130 days)
^ LAMA Permit for MAOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application 60 days
(130 days)

Ir CAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
^ Several geodetic monumen[s are looted in or near the projectarea.lf any monument needs ro be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C.Geodetic Survey Bax 27687 Raleigh, N.C.27611
^ Abandonment of any wells, if required must be In accordance withTide 15A. Subchapter 260100.
^ Notlfiation of the proper regional office isrequested if'grphan-underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 1 SA NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(N/A)
x Other co ddiuonal pages as necessary,being certain to cite comment authority)
~Jf
;`
`ti~1~~
~1C' J ~

-
~An
N'
~l
O
n r^1
o -~ o~
o,
~~
~
~
.
. r
..
-
L-..
l~~~l ~i r•l~~
~;
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Offi{e marked below.
^ Asheville Regional Office ^ Mooresville Regional Office ^ Wihttington Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place 919 North Main Street 127 Cardinal Orive Extension '
Asheville, N.C.28801 Mooresville, N.C.28115 Wilmington, N.C.28405
[phone] ~ [phone] [phone] ._
fl Fayetteville Regional Office ^ Raleigh Regional Office ^ Winston-Salem Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714 3800 Barrett Drive, P.0.6ox 27687 585 Waughtown Street
Fayetteville, N t. 28301 Raleigh, N.C. 27611 Winston-Salem, N.C.27 i 07
[phone] [phone] j336} 771-4600
^ Washington Regionalaffice
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N:C. 27889
(252J 946=b481
B-4

y
6 ~
MEMORANDUM _
TOe Melba McGee, NCDENR
FROM: Steve Sollod, NCDCM:
DATE: July 22, 2004
SUBJECT:.. Proposed Improvement of Bridge No. 60 (Alfred Cunningham Bridge), on
US 70 Business, over the Trent River. TIP. # B-232
State Number 04-E-4220-0375
The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) has reviewed the
scoping etter of the above referenced project, which was submitted to the NC State .
Clearinghouse for intergovernmental review. We offer the following comments, which
should be considered in preparation of an environmental document.. .
1. A determination of consistency with the North Carolina Coastal. MariaQement
Program may be required for this project. The consistency determination
should include a review of the State°s coastal program and contain an analysis
describing how the proposed project would be consistent, to -the maximum -
extentfeasible, with. the.State's-enforceable coastal policies as mandated by
Executive Order #15. The consistency determination should be included in the
final environmental document.'
2. Section 103(5)(b) of the Coastal Area Management Act exempts road
maintenance within apublicright-of--way from CAMA permitting requirements.
The draft environmental document should evaluate why this projecrconstitutes
maintenance within the meaning of the State's coastal program rather than new
development. Should the refurbishment of the bridge be considered by
NCDCM to be road maintenance, a LAMA permit will not be required for the
.project. Bridge replacement will require. a CAMA permit. The project crosses
..public trust waters and estuarine shoreline CAMA Areas of Environmental
Concern (AEC). Should the project require a CAMA permit, no consistency
review would be necessary as he CAMA permit serves as the consistency
review.
~. Regardless of whether the bridge is repaired or replaced, measures. must be
undertaken to ensure that the proposed project does not result in unacceptable
impacts. to navigation.
4. Due to the bridge's proximity to the New Bern historic district, care must be
used to ensure that adverse impacts to the historic district are minimized.
B-5

JUL..-'b uullU11 1a~?'b uttiflK l;UJ1,~11. D9t;,ti11' 'l'EL:919 7,ia 1~9~ P. Q03
v y
5. The 1996 Craven County Land Use Plan was reviewed For policies that might,
apply to the proposed project, The Craven County Land Use Plan policies state
that, "Craven County is receptive to all state and federal programs which "
provide improvements to the county, The county will continue ro fully support
. such programs, especially the following: the North Carolina Department of
Transportation road and bridge.improvementprograms, ...".. Specifcally, the.
county supports the replacement of the US 74 Bridge over the Trent River,
o. DCM's GIS-based wetland inventory. and mapping program provides wetland
data that can be used to improve wetland avoidance, minimization, alternatives
analysis, impact assessment, and mitigation site s>rarches. DCM's GIS-based
wetland maps and data maybe included by DOT within the environmental
document for this project, The GIS-based wetland maps -and data.are available . .: .
through DOT's Geographic Information Systems Unit located at.tbc Century.
Center on Birch Ridge Road in 13aleigh. DCM's GIS-based wetland inventory
and mapping program includes three wetland inventory and assessment tools
available for the coastal area:..
a. Wetland type data. This data can be ;used early in the planningprocess to
avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and specific wetland types, to
estimate project impacts, and to esdniate mitigation needs..
b. 'Wetland Functional Sienificance data fNC-CREWS) This data can be
- used to refine the road alignment to avoid the most ecologically significant
wetlands that contribute most to thou watershed's health.
c. Potential wetland restoration and enhancement site data_ _This.data can be
used to locate mitigation sites.'
~Ve hope that you find these comments helpful and that .they will be addressed during
planning and preparation of the environmental document for this project. During future
interagency project coordination ad review,. DCM may. have additional comments on the.
project, and may place conditions on the consistency determination to minimize any
impacts to coastal resources: The information provided in this letter shall not preclude .
DCM from requesting additional information throughout the. interagency project '
coordinator and review process, and following normal consistency review procedures,
• :~- Z'3D
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact nu at [phone] x ~0, or via
-e-mail at [e-mail]. Thank you for your consideration of the Nordt
Carolina Coastal Management Program.
r
B-6

r ,• ~ . ,
~,
~ forth ~arol~na Wi~c~life Resources CoYnmission
" Charles R Fullw ood, Esctutive Director
NIE~iV10RANDUM
TO: Melba lvIcGee .
O$iee of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs,l?ENR
FR.Q1b1: Travis W. Wilson, Hi~way Project_Coor_dinato~r~-; ~ /~~~.. ~---~ -
Habitat Conservation rogram .~..-..~, -'~:~~ ~L.~-~'
DATE: 7uly 26, 2004
StiBJECT: Request for infozmation from the ,v. C. Department of Transpartaiion
(NCDOT) regarding 6sh and wildlife concerns for the proposed
improvements tci Bridgehro. 60 an US 70 Business over the:Trenk River,
Craven County, Noah Carolina: TIl' Iv'o. 8-2532,' SCH Project lvo. 0;-
037~
This memorandum responds to a request `iYOm :Gregory J. Thorpe of the iVCDOT
for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the ,
subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Reoourccs :Commission.
(NCIVRC) have reviewed the proposed improvemcnts. '.`Our comments are prpvided in
accordance with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act l4? U.S:C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and. Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stet. 401, as amended; 6
U.5:C. 661-667d):
Specific comments regarding the ~ubjeci project are as follows:
1. This azea of the Trent River supports a significant fishery for sunfish
while also-. being urilized by anadromous fish species such as Striped bass,
American shad, and River herons. ''W'RC will request an;in-water work
moracozium from Feb 15 %-June 30. ,
3. NCDOT should conduct a Survey for' Submerged Aquatic jTegetation
(SAV's). DOT should avoid and mininuze impacts to SAV's,
Prcconstruction and post construction surveys should be conducted to
accurately determine impacts'to this resource.
3. Located in the Southeast quadrant of this bride is the Lengyel mitigation
site. This is a DOT mitigation site consisting of 13.2 acres of brackish
marsh restoration and preservation used to mitigate impacts associated
with the 17 bypass Trent and Meuse river bridges. This site should be
avoided.
~Iailitt= Addrtss: Division of Inland Fisheries • 172 i ~•Iail 5crvicc Center • italeigh, t ZC Z%699-1721
Tele~,honc: 19!91 733=363 c::[. 291 • Tax: !?141 71 ~-il,#~
E0 39t1~ 6EB66Z56I6 6©~TT b09Z/4Z/L0
B-7

~ Y Y
Memo 2 .luly 36, 2004
To help facilitate document preparation and the review process, our general
informational needs aze outlined below: -
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
_ or special concern species. Potential borrotiv areas to be used, for project
construction should be included in the inventories. .listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation.with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
] 615 Mail Service Center '
Raleigh,~N. C: ?7699-1615
[phone]
and, -
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27617 -
Raleigh, fit. C. 2761 I
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affectedby theproject. `The need for
charuiclizing orrelocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of -
such activities.
S. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all-project=related areas that may
utidergo hydrologic change as a result of ditching, :other drainage, or
filling for project construction.. Wetland identification may be
accomplished through coordination with the U.:S. Azny Corps of
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the person: dzlineating
wetlands should be identified and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by
the proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The c?ttent to which the project wrill result in loss, degradation, or
fi-agmentaiion of v-+ildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. 1~titigation for..avoiding, minimiain~ or compensating for. direct and indirezt
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. 4 cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environancntal
effects of highway construction and quanti#ies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natwal resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the,improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
b0 ~d
6EBfiBZS6I5 6fl ~ I I bB9Z /°Z /L43
B-8
y k,

5a 3JtJd 6EB68~b6z6 bO=LT. b00~/5Z/LO
B-9

~~~~ ~~a
IN~DENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael f.l=asley, Governor ~ William G. Ross. Jr., Secretary
.luly 26, 2004. ~~ y ~ } t"
~~ ~
ti RFC ~~
I~T.EN10RAlVDUM ~, ~~,`~ o
~~
TO: Melba McGee ~~ 'L
`` J,~ r 1 ~3``t`
~~ t! ~t `~
FRO~1: Ham• LeGrand, Natural' Heritage Frogram !~L
SL'EJECT: Proposed Improvements to Craven County Bridge No. 60 (Alfred Cunningham
Bridge); on US 70 Business over the Trent River; Craven County
REFERS\CE:04-0375 -
The Natural Heritage Program has a record of a nesting colony of the State Special Concern least.-
tern (Sterna arrtrllar'um) in the general project vicinity. In 200 ] -the date for the last coash~ide
sur~~ey -- l 6 nests were counted on a rooftop of a Food Lion on "t1S 70E", at coordinates
>05~19iy; 0710224W; vv°hich places the building just to thesouthavest of the southern base of the
bridee (if the:coordinates were measured correctly): Bridge construction should not affect the
nesting birds:. as lone as the shopping center and its flat rooftop are not impacted'in theprocess.
in addition, there.:are one to several "stray" records of the Federally. Endangered Vlrest. Indiana
manatee (Tr•ic%echtis nr{rnatus) from the Trent River. This mammal is a nearly .annual visitor to
some part of the state's coastal waters from farthersouth.
1801 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, Morth Carolina 27899-1601 ~~ ne
Phone: 9i9-733-4984 • FA3(: 919-715-3060 • Internet wurN.enrstate.nc.us ivorthCarolina
fn ci~al Lpacr!~rtury • Aifrcrbtive Adion ~FmRloyer - 50 °,e R~•/clod • 10 A Pest Corsumer Paoet ~`c tl~r~ill
B-10

a 1 - -
t ,.
~ 57~E a ~~
~a. ~ r ~
- - ~ ~. -
'M aw. NMI
.North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans. Secretary
JefTrce J. Cro~t•. Dnpuq• Secretary
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
August 24, 2004
hiF_iviORANDt7T4
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph:D., Director -
Project Development and F~aronmental Anal~~sis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROD~: Peter B. Sandbecl:~cL
SUBJECT: Craven CountS~, Bridge No. 60 (Alfred Cunningham Bridge) on
L'S 70 Business over Trent.Ri~*es, Federal Aid Project BRSTP-070B(4).,
Srate Project No. 5.1172401,:TIP B-2»2, ER 90-$222
Thank }jou for }'our letter of June 2~, 2004, concerning the above project.
~~%e ha~re conducted a search of our maps and files and located ahe following structure of historical or
architerrural importance within the general area of this p=oject:
New Bern. Historic District,.af which the subject bridge is a contributing element and considered a
local hallmark.
~X!e recom>nend that a Department of Transportation architectural historian idtmtifF and evaluate:an}'
structures over fifth pears of age within the project area, and report the findings to us.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 10G of the rational Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations. for Compliance with Section 1 D6 codified at 36 CFR
Part $00.
Thank you for }•our cooperation and consideration. If you.have quesrions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at .919/733-47G3. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the .above referenced tracking number..
PBS:w
cc: lvlar}~ Pope Furr
Location Mailin0 Addrtys TekphonelFaa
ADAi1N1sTRATIQN 507 N. Blount Street. Rakiph NC 4617 Mtdl 5erviceCenta, Rtdciph NC?7699-1617 (919)73:1-476JR33-865+
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Stttet. Ankiph NC 4617 Mail Service Cetua. Rakiph NC ??699.461 i 1919)73 3-6 54 78 1 5-4 801
SLIR~'El' S ALANN[NG 51> 1\. E3lount Strces, Aalcigh, NC 4617 Mail Scrricc Cana, Rokigh P1C'?7690.4617 (919)73;.-655/715-dkill
Pua II. Sandbcd;, Adtntnwhator
Office of Archives and, History
8-11

Mit~eel F. Euky, tiovctnor
i,iabdh C. Evens, Sa~reluy
kPfray J. Crow, Deputy Secrdnry
ves eAory
Division of Historical R.eaaurees
..David Bmok, Dirainr
September 23, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J, Thorpe, Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
NCDOT,.Division, of,Hlghways
-FROM: Peter B. Sandbeck ` .,
SUBJECT:: Review. of Scoping Sheets, Bridge No. 60 .(Alfred. Cunningham Bridge),
on. US 70 Business. over Trent'River, Craven County,:Federal Aid.Project
BRSTP-070B(4), State Project 8.1172401; TIP B-2532, ER 90-8222 .
Thank you for your letter of August 31, 2004,-concerning the above project
Please see attached memo from August 24, 2004,with -our comments. In addition, there are no known
archaeological sites .within the proposed project area. Based on-:our knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that
-any archaeological resources'that may be eligible for conclusion in he National Register of I-iistoric:Places
..will be affected by the project We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological:investigation be conducted
in connection with this. project
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. 7f you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In alI future
communication .concerning this project; please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
. PBSw
Attachment
cc: .Macy Pope Furr
depheoelFu
ADMDVIS'771X1'~N SOT N.N. BbvAt Street, Raleigh NC 4617~kf~vl' Swix Ceuta, Raldgh NC 278994617 (919)733•i7t0lT3~1653
RESTORATION 515 N. Dbim[ Stn:et, Raloi®h NC 4617 hfa~7 Swim Curter, Raleigl-NC 276994617 (9l9)733.8547r115.4g01
SURVEY do PLINNQVG S 15 N. Blauot Street, Raleigl4 NC 4617 bLil SavimCenlq Raleigh NC 27699-0617
C)19)733~6545/T15,{gol
~~
~~~~,
.~
.North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
PetaB sandbedr,Adm~a
~ i
oQiao oPArrLi ead ii'
B-12

~ i J {
~~E4
~d ~_~
VIMM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
_ Petec H. sandbxk, Adminutotor
ltfichaet F. Easley, Governor Office of:Archives and StttotT
Irsluth G E~zn., Secretary Division of Fiiseoeenl Reaouccrs
JefFrey J. Crow, Deputy 5etxetary ~:' "' '# at:F~~ David Brook, Diteeror
Map 13, 2005 ~~ ":'+~
„~.. -
MEMORANDUM ~'~. ~. ~. ~.
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director . ~~i~~` ~'
ProjectDevelopment and EnvironmentalAna~ysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highwanys
FROM: Peter B. Sandbeck~ P.~ .
SUBJECT: Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report; Replace Bridge No. 60 (Alfred A.
Cunningham Bridge) on US Highway 70..Business over the Trent River, New Bem, B-2532,
Craven County; ER90-8222
Thank you for your letter of March 14, 2005, concerning the above project
For.plzrposes of compliance with Section `106 of-the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the .
following property is eligible for the National Register~of Historic Places under:the criterion.cited:
• Alfred A. Cunningham Bridge, (Bridge No. 60), New Bern, is eligible for the Natioaal.Register of
Historic Places under Criterion A: Transportation, for its association with the development of North
Carolina's coastal military bases. The bridge facilitated a major corridor for Cherry Point and Camp
Lejeune. The bridge also enabled the reconstruction and restoration of Tryon Pahace and Gardens
in New Bem. _ ,
The Cunningham Bridge has been altered and no longer retains sufficient integrity to be eligible for.the
National Register under Criterion C: Architecture. Furthermore, building demolition and recent in-fill have.
compromised the bridge's immediate setting,. eliminating.the consideration of the bridge as a contributing
structure to the New Bem National Register Historic District
We concur with the proposed National Register historic boundaries as defined and delineated in the survey
.report.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we .concur that the
following property remains eligible and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places:
• New Bem Historic District
Location Ma1ng Adtltus telephone/Fax
rtDb11MSIRATION 5f~7 N. Blount Sttea, IWtigh NC 4617 hda+7 Setrioe Crnt:r, Raleigh NC 27699-4Gt7 (919}733-47GS/731.9GSS
BESTORA710N 515 N. Blount Saeec, lialeigh NC 4617 Mv15ee+rice Curter, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (917)3-GS47/715~4901
SURVEY & YLANI`7NTG its N. Blount Sttee~ Raleigh, +~C 4G17IKsil Sec„ce Curter, R>teigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715.4801
$-13

B-14

~ , s ~
Fc•Jrral ,did # B1251'P-117013 (-l) TIP #B-?S33 CnrrrrtJ~: Craven
Properties within the area of potential effects fur which there is no et~tcct. indicate if property is
National R~;istzr-listed (NR) or determined zligible (DE).
Properties within the area of potential effects for which there is an effect. Indicate property
status fNR or DE) and describe the effect. : .
New.Bern Historic District (NR) Adverse Effect for. Alternative 3
No Adverse Effect for Alternatives 1 &
Alfred A. Cunningham Bridge (DE) `Adverse-Effect for Alternatives l & 3 .
No Adverse Effecf for Alternative : Z .
Initially, the project offered seven alternatives and has been reduced to three, with Alternative 3
(replace existing bride with a bascule bridge) the favored option by the City, of New Bern.'
Alfernative .1(remove existing bridge with no replacement) tivill not have. an adverse. effect on
the New Bern National Register Historic District (NRHD), as the bridge is not a contributing
element to the district. Removal of the existing bridge, because the Alfred A. Cunningham
Bridge has been determined eligble under Criterion A for Transportation, will have an'adverse
.effect..
.Alternative 2 (rehabilitate existing bridge will not have an adverse effect on the New Bern
. NRHD; nor upon the Alfred A. CunninghamBridge.
Alternative 3 (replace existing bridge with a bascule bridge) will have an adverse effect on the
New Bem NRHD. Construction.limits at the bridge's northern approach fall within the southern-
• boundary of the:NRI~. Streets that will be directly'affected by the altered approach to the
bridge-South Front, East Front, and:Pollock,streets--contain some of the district's most
important architectural resources, including two exceptional examples of antebellum brick '
townhouses, the Justice House and the ;Thomas Sparrow House (East Front Street), and the circa-
:1843-1.880 frame Wade-,Yleadows House (South Front Street). Union Point Park at the . _ •
confluence of the Neuse and Trent rivers is also in the district, and the new bridge's north _
approach will cut into a small section of the park's southwestern and western boundaries.
Another-issue that will create a further adverse effect is if th ..w^~ven piles, rather than piers,
in the bridge's substructure. The resulting vibration during, ~ n6 wrll•irnpact several historjc -
buildings, includinb those now outside of the APE yet within the New Bern NRHD, such as the , . .
circa-1.798 Harvey Mansion (2l 9 South Front Street), New Bern's oldest masonry mercantile _
,., building. [f driven piles arc approved, the ME will need to be considerably expanded to factor in - '
potential impact within the district. ~
~..
lnitialcd; IJCDU'f"'-1~S`~ l~(1WA~~ ilE'f)S~~
B-15

a.~.:.1 ~: .. Y ~ ~:+LPi
~, L
i L t r
Frrl~•ral.-tid # BlhSTP-Q7QB (~1) TIP# B-2S3Z Cnrraty: Craven
CONCURRirNCE FOI~CFOR FISSESSMENT OF EEF£CTS
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 60 (Alfred A. Cunningham Bridge) on US Highway 70
Business over the Trent River, New $ern '
On August 31, ?QOM, representatives ofthe -
® ~ Noah Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
® Federal Highway Administration {Fi-IWA) ~
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) ~ ;
^ Other i
Ii
Reviewed the subject project and agreed I`
^ There are no effects on the National Register-listed-property/properties located.within '~
the project's azea of potential effects and listed on the reverse.
^ There are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within . ` ~
the project's area ofpotential effects and listed on the reverse:
® There is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the ~ ~
project's azea of potential effects. The property/properties and the effect(s) areaisted an
the reverse.
- `~
® There is an effect on the National:Register-eligible property/properties located within the ~ !
project's area of potential effects.. The prpperty/properties and effect(s) are listed on the ~ , .
r
reverse. ;:
..Signed: ~ s - .
Representati , NCDOT . _ - :Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
~~`
Representative, HPO
f-[istorc !reservation Ufliccr
B-16

4 ~ " ~ ~
Altcrn:-ti~•c 3 gill have an adverse eft~ct upon tiu tllfced A. Cunnin~,ham Brtd~,c, whitlt has
been determictcd eligible under Criterion ~\ for Transportation. While the brids:e must be
replaced forsafety masons, its loss will be, with the recently-replaced IYeuse.RivcrBrid~e,
another va<tisl~d posnvar resource. Therefore this will have an adverse ettect on the district and
the bridge.......
Initiaictl; ;vCflU"f ~ r•'I I Wn~~~1 (i['U `?.,~ J 1 • 1
..- ~
3
B-17

,~ Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
ProjectB-2532
1

1
1
1
Appendix C
LOCAL LETTERS
1
t
w

1
1
January 18, 2006

..~ ~ ~
C~1*~ice c~~ P{anninp
And
Caozt~.txt.utritiy Develcapment
vu.~.~~ c~~ f ra~~r~
t~anatd ~, I~aurxt8~rdner, t~irectar
~tept~axzxe ~. C:urricr, Assstat~.t T~irectar
Shelton P. T+nlc:r., C;hei; Bldg. C'.ades tn~:cc~r
.tut~~ !3.201}4
(~ire~ory J. Thom,. Ph.D.., t"3irectctr
?+uC' Department of Trattspttr~tation
Prc:-jt~ct [.)eveicpent and ~nvironm~ntal Analysis Brandt
1518 '~9ai1 Service Cetater
ICateifh. NC 2769y-t5~8
Human aervic+es Atanex
zl~z8 Neese Blvd,
?`view Bern, Nt~ a856x
~l~~zYin azxd C:1~ {x~z) 6;6~66tt~
Pax (z~~) ~;6-s~q
IxY~pectians f~S~} 636'9$7
Fax {x~z) 63~~9~4
Subject: Craven County, Bridge ~ 60 (Alfred Cutiningtratn Bridge}, on I.iS 70 Busixtess, over
7"rent River, Pecieral Aitt Prr~jt'ct B'R:STP-g70B f 4}, Mate l'%}ect IYc~. S, t t 7240 i,1`I.P
itio, B-2532
I.)car Ur. ~i•11c3r~:
Thi. later is in restttmse ttc- yottr request .f'or ittfr~ton regat~iirt~ ttte study for the
rrl~larcmentiretiut`bishtnent of the Atfrett ~Gnnnitt~htam Bridge on I~ 7U Business oven the Trent
tZi~ rr. 'vti, permits or approvals wilt !te required by the graven County t'tannttg and. Instreoctons
1)~I,:irtment. However, :t would tike to provide the names of setae Local represerttatives wtic~ have
been intrumentat in the revitatition of downt+~wtt. New Bern and the transpt~tation patterns that
sere ~ this area. '1"he fallowing indivittuats were not ab~ to attend ytaur fYrst meetittg in ?+tew Bern
dut• t,~ ,chettuling conflicts but are likely to have an interest in this project and in attending any
i~uturc meetings regarding the taridge:
.)ud. Nitts, Piatutittg director, Ftetit Caurc~ti,ta Council at'Cioverrnments, PC) Bc~x 171.7, Ncwv ~t+rirn, 1VC`
:.'. R ~t„- i ? 17, {252} 63$-31$5
7'ro) timith, Wacd anti Smith PA, tt)(}1 t;ollege Ct., ~eW Bern, NC 28562, {252) 67Z-S~t1U
~u.an Mof'titt-Thames, Dire'ctar, Swims .Bean .t~riwntewn T{ovitatixatit~i Corporation, 33 tvliddte Strom,
!~r~ ficrn, ivC' 28561), (252} 6385781
(ioh !~tattacks, President, Jenkins Clan arts! tail Compaxty, f'C3 Btrx 156, Aottactcsvitles 2~t+~ 2$573, {25Z~
'_':'-t-R91 1
1)ann~ 1-leadawss I~;tt~ittcer-, City trf?~tew.Berra, PC) Box 1224, New Bern, NC; 28563, {252}6.36-~t}()4
l:e~~in Roberta, Dir~ttrr, New Beta C;ltaber of Carnmerce, 3lti S. 1"roni Stmt., I~te~w tern, ~C
,R>60, (2~2} G3fi-3111
ti ittcercly,
~- .-
,..~; '~~Lt-
Donatd Banrr~ardt~r
Planning C3re~tar

i+*! w ^ Y
I` ~
£T
l~r 4
3u~ ~~}
~~ ~,: ~`~
~~"``~'"` `EH~
84ARD Q~ E[1UCAT14N
36u(~ T~'or~i Res
~e~ 8ryry~rn1, ~!C 2ry6~62
l G..~`i6~~ t.++`F`~~F.Iw
FAX~252~~14-6321
~ave~~ ~"~~~ c~CO~ls
t3i~c°tc7n Bra>c-~htc~n, b:rec~tc~r
Duty 21, 2t?f~t
~C Department Of Transpartaticln
Project Development and ,Environmental Analysis
t 548 :Mail Service Center
Rategh, NC 279-t 5~8
Dear Mr. Davis Maare,
~ i~y*f{}~ I 4
4
1,1 ~ ,
:~,,,
~~ ~~
U~~ gU5 ~~t
SC~{b4L BUS GARAGE
1 ~! 6 F#azai Avenue
t~e~v Bem, HC 2856~J
X252}6f 4-63'17
FAX t2~2ty1~3~t

This teeter is in response to -TIP. project dumber: &2532.
Subject. Bridge t+tta. 60 on Hwy 70 Business, o~Per Trbnt River, Craven County

As of 3uly 20C?4, there are no school bases muted over the Alfred Cunningh$m Bridge on
Hwy 7{} Business aver the Trent. River. The arty possible situation that cooed result in
needed schoat bus travel on this bridge would be the re-districting ofschool attendance
boundaries for etementary schools, However, the bridge replacement would not create an
unworkable schoat bus routing situation since the Hwy 7(} (Freedom. Memorial} twin
span bridge wooed be util.z~d.
The single requirement for safe school bus routing is a safe turn asound near the last
student passenger's residence. V4'hen construction begins, if NC DCIT «auld assist with
devetopment of a suitable turn around, if needed, then any Taus routing :inconvenience
wt~uld be minimal. Cur tocai NC Dt~T has always been very helpful in assisting with.
road mainienance at existing scht~l bus turn around areas; therefore, I do riot foresee any
significant paolrlem:
Sincerely,
Sedan Broughton
C: 1~illiam Rivenbark
I.~avid Clifton

~/ 1 r ~
ALitE'RM~ti~f `'~ Tt~M SA'f1,3aS, i!4
.feiLildS C. ?AR[MRM, .1~. AdA'{~tq
~C?B~~Ffr. r~Al Nnfi, ,f~. NIAC:T~R ~, liRf2ThlAN, Jft,
F+4A~lC L. "MRX" Fq~EZE GIT'3 MANAGER
JC?~EPii t. MAT"£4tVGLY, JAI.
SAR~ARA ;.EE ViC:t(IE Wt..P4~tiNSgN
~"tllLiAM H. BALi.ENC"aEH CITY CLEi'~K
A~AftY 8, iaE~lFtA~xt.tA
~Ezra"~~ ~.r~tc~~.r:~rR, zxI nrtfT ~zrttitn~z ~eril~r~e cixy r~i"asui~~~z
~~~~s~u:^e tTtn
~'t?c~ne;: (~52} £S3~-w~00 P.C7. Box f lZa

~tt~Ck'Ilt Rh~t3, ~±~~~~
I3mject I3~veioiament and Irn~~ircar~~t~~;r~t~I ~ndiysis Branch
54~ I~!Iaii Scr~icc Center
IZaieigia, I.C. ~~~~~- t 518
Ix,e: TI P B-.2532
Dear ~Ir. Rhea:
Tine City afl~eu~ I3err~ rer~c~~~ts the: utilixatic~n nfa ~2" Texas Classic Rail, in fire
replacement nfthe Aifreci C~ur~nir~~ilan~ I~rtie aver the "Crept Riven Thank ynu tnr ynur
ccansideratinn in this n~attrrr.
Si ly~.'
;~ ` ,
~,,..~~ ~
~'.A. ayliss III
~ayar
,~#ri£z~tt~q fir ;~::.+cc~cr.

~~ + , ~
Allred Ct+riningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exclusion
Project B-2532
_._~-___.,..w...Y....._~..._._,...-..~...._.~ .....,._...~.~..~..~...~....._...~..~_._,._...r.~~..__~....~..~~._._.~.~....,...__..~.~..~....

1
1
1
1
t
Appendix D
MEMORANDA AND MEETING MINUTES

1
i
1
January i 8, X006

The HNTB Companies
~~
Memorandum
To: Vince Rhea, NCDOT PDEA Date: Dec. 17, 2004
From: Tracy Roberts, AICP HNTB Job Number
37685
Subject: Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Project:
Summary of October 28th Citizens Informational
Worksho
On Thursday, October 28th, 2004, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
sponsored a Citizens Informational Workshop in New Bern. This memorandum summarizes
the public outreach efforts and public comments associated with the Workshop.
Event: Citizens Informational Workshop
Date: October 28th, 2004
Location: The Berne Room, New Bern Riverfront Convention Center
Time: 2:OOpm -Presentation of the project to the New Bern Board of Aldermen and the
Craven County Board of Commissioners
4:OOpm-7:OOpm -Public Workshop
Summary of public notification efforts
- HNTB mailed approximately 2100 newsletters to residents and businesses in the vicinity
of the Alfred Cunningham Bridge. The mailing list was based on Craven County tax
records and a database of renters provided by Hill-Donnelly Corporation. The mailing
list also included other known stakeholders, such as local government officials and
NCDOT officials.
- HNTB also mailed approximately 39 packets to churches in three predominately minority
neighborhoods (James City, Duffeyfield and Pembroke) in the project vicinity. Each
packet contained a letter from NCDOT requesting that announcements be made during
church service about the upcoming workshop. Each packet contained 25 newsletters to
be distributed to church members.
- NCDOT posted advertisements in the following local newspapers:
Havelock News
The Daily Drum
New Bern Sun-Journal
The News & Observer
- HNTB placed advertisement in the New Bern Public Housing Authority's October
newsletter
- HNTB placed advertisement on the project website:
www.ncdot.org/projects/alfredcunningham/
According to responses indicated on comment cards (49 total were completed), participants
were made awaze of the Workshop by the following methods (some respondents checked more
than one box):
- Newsletter: 21
- Newspaper Advertisement: 23
- Church Announcement: 2
- Friend/Relative:6
- TV/Radio:l
- Email: 1
P:137685 Cunningham Bridge\Public Involvement\10-28-04 Citizens Informational Workshop\Workshop Summary Memo (final).doc

~ ~ ~ ~
Summary of questions and comments received from local elected officials
during the 2:OOpm presentation:
Attendees:
Lee I{yle Allen - Craven bounty Board of Commissioners
Johnnie Sampson -Craven County Board of Commissioners
Mayor Tom Bayliss -New Bern Board of Aldermen
Joseph Mattingly -New Bern Board of Aldermen
William (Bill) Ballenger -New Bern Board of Aldermen
Barbara Lee -New Bern Board of Aldermen
Mack "Max" Freeze -New Bern Board of Aldermen
Harold Blizzard -Craven County Manager
William (Bill) Hartman -City of New Bern Manager
Danny Meadows -City of New Bern Public Works Director
A. T. Moms -Town of River Bend Public Works Advisory Board
John Rouse - NCDOT -Division 2
Ed Eatmon - NCDOT -Division 2
Derrick Weaver - NCDOT -PDEA
Vincent Rhea - NCDOT -PDEA
Whitmel Webb -HNTB North Carolina, P.C.
Anne Redmond -HNTB North Carolina, P.C.
Tracy Roberts -HNTB North Carolina, P.C.
Jeffrey Dayton -HNTB North Carolina, P.C.
Peggy Hayes -Hayes Planning Associates
Tracy Roberts, HNTB Senior Planner on the project, described the proposed project using a
PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Roberts distributed copies of the PowerPoint slideshow to the
meeting attendees. Following the presentation, he opened the meeting to questions and
comments.
• Alderman Mattingly inquired as to if any alternative was infeasible at this point. The
fixed span alternative may have to be long to match the existing grade. Mr. Roberts
responded that as part of the study process, all alternatives must be considered. The
study team will be looking at a possible channel relocation for grade considerations.
• Alderwoman Lee opposes the tunnel and high rise alternatives.
• Mayor Bayliss asked if maintenance costs would be considered in the study as it would
cost more to maintain a rehabilitated bridge. He would like to see a new bridge. Mr.
Roberts responded that operation and maintenance costs would be considered for the
rehabilitation and moveable bridge options.
• Alderman Mattingly and Mr. Blizzard expressed concerns on the length of time it would
take to build the new bridge. Mr. Roberts indicated that a new bridge could be built by
New Bern's 300 year anniversary in 2010 if the project is non-controversial.
• Commissioner Sampson supports a new bridge alternative, but opposes the fixed high
span.
• Alderman Mattingly opposes removing the bridge without replacement and
rehabilitation of the existing swing span.
• Mr. Blizzard asked if a preliminary cost estimate for the bascule bridge option is
available. According to NCDOT TIP estimate, the bascule bridge alternative would cost
$25.7 Million. However, according to Mr. Roberts, this cost estimate is preliminary and
will be refined through the course of the study.
• Mayor Bayliss likes that the bascule bridge alternative would assure no height
limitations, and asked what the height limitation could be on a lift span alternative.
Mr. Roberts responded that the study team was unsure at this point what the height
limitation would be for the lift span alternative, but this would be studied further.
Workshop Summary Memo Page: 2 of 7

•, - x ~
• Alderman Mattingly thought the replacement of the bridge was a given, but wondered if
it was cost prohibitive.
• Both Mayor Bayliss and Alderman Mattingly expressed concerns of the aesthetics of
the chosen alternative. The appearance of the bridge is very important.
• Alderman Lee agreed that the new bridge must maintain the aesthetics of the area and
must maintain the chazacter of the downtown historic district.
• Mr. Blizzard stated that the tunnel alternative would be the most aesthetically
pleasing, but the cost may be prohibitive.
• Alderman Mattingly expressed concern that the fixed span alternative may act as a
barrier along E. Front Street, particularly in the azea of Union Point Park and the
Convention Center.
• Commissioner Lee asked if there were any similar tunnels in North Cazolina. The
study team was unawaze of any tunnels under waterbodies in North Carolina, only
tunnels through mountains in the western portion of the state.
• Mr. Roberts stated that there is a vertical lift bridge over the Cape Feaz River in
Wilmington.
• Mr. Hartman asked where the fixed span on the existing alignment would tie into. Mr.
Roberts indicated that this option would require the project team to study relocating
the channel. Mr. Hartman also emphasized that the study team will need to give
people an idea of the visual aesthetics of the various alternatives. Mr. Roberts
responded that NCDOT or HNTB's New York moveable bridge experts also have the
ability to provide renderings of the alternatives.
• Alderman Mattingly requested that the project completion date occur before 2010, as
2010 is unacceptable.
• Alderman Ballenger indicated a preference for the bascule bridge or fixed span on
existing alignment options.
• Mr. Haztman stated although the tunnel alternative may be infeasible, he would like
the study team to consider it.
• Mr. Blizzazd asked if the study team could also consider a suspended bridge.
• Mayor Bayliss humorously asked that the NCDOT not repaint the bridge and pass it off
as the completed project.
• Alderman Mattingly asked about how long the bridge would be out of service during
the rehabilitation or construction of a new bridge. Mr. Roberts responded that this
project would require atwo-yeaz construction period. Mr. Blizzard asked if this two
year period includes removing the existing swing span. Mr. Roberts responded that the
two-yeaz construction period included removal of the exiting bridge.
• Alderman Freeze inquired as to whether a temporary bridge could be constructed and
indicated that impacts to First Street aze not something that could not be mitigated or
overcome. Mr. Roberts responded that it would be difficult to construct a temporary
bridge without impacting the Union Point Park or the New Bern Convention Center.
• Mayor Bayliss stated that it was very important to keep the navigation channel open
during the course of this project. Mr. Roberts stated that the Coast Guard would
probably require this.
• Alderman Freeze inquired as to what the superstructure depth of the new bridge would
be. The study team replied that this information is unavailable at this time. Alderman
Freeze expressed support of the bascule bridge alternative as it seems less obstructive
of the view of downtown.
• Mr. Blizzazd asked that any new bridge have close joints on the pivot azeas.
• Alderman Mattingly asked that the horizontal clearance of any new bridge alternative
be coordinated with the Coast Guard. Alderman Mattingly also stated that it appears
that the favored alternatives from this afternoon's discussion were the bascule bridge,
tunnel and fixed span on existing alignment. The group in general agreed.
Workshop Summary Memo Page: 3 of 7

> y
Summary of comments received from the general public during the 4:OOpm-
7:OOpm Workshop:
80 attendees signed in. Each person was offered a comment card and a copy of the October
2004 newsletter. Each person was asked to place a sticky dot on a map that indicated the
location of their residence. Three stations were set up that offered attendees an opportunity
to discuss the project with HNTB and NCDOT staff. Attendees were encouraged to write
comments and questions on posters placed on the wall.
The following comments reflect those made verbally to HNTB and NCDOT staff, those
provided on comment cards and those provided on comment posters. In general, most
attendees were supportive of the project, with most prefemng the bascule bridge alternative.
There were very few supporters of the removal with no replacement alternative. The
architecture of the new bridge and keeping some sort of bridge in place seemed to be the
prevailing concerns.
Questions:
• What are measurable criteria to be used to determine desired outcomes?
• How long will the bridge be closed to car traffic/boat traffic?
• How about combining with railroad trestle and eliminate existing bridge?
• Why does boat traffic receive priority over road traffic? The bridge should not open on
demand.
• Can the opening of the bridge be made faster?
• Why not consider another swing span bridge?
• Can you provide a visual of what ahigh-rise would look like?
Benefits:
• The benefits depend on the type of bridge.
• Abridge is needed. Downtown businesses rely on traffic coming from James City, etc.
Downtown would die just when everyone is trying revitalizing it.
• The bridge selected should improve the appearance of downtown.
• Abridge is needed for downtown New Bern.
• The bridge must be replaced.
• Downtown businesses & residents would be greatly affected in a negative way if the
bridge goes away.
• Provide a lighted, safe structure for pedestrians and bicycles to pass from New Bern to
James City restaurants, hotels, and businesses.
• The bascule bridge would reflect the historic aspects of our town and could be an
asset visually.
Challenges:
• It is a waste of resources to do anything if the current maintenance practices
continue. If the present bridge had been properly cared for, it would not need
refurbishment or replacement.
• There must be a replacement. We cannot lose this access.
• Avoid impacts to Union Point Park.
• Movable bridges are obsolete, especially where there is high boat traffic.
• Forget the high-rise, tunnel, and vertical lift alternatives.
• A bascule bridge is the only logical choice.
• The approach to the movable bridge (fixed part) needs to blend with the historic
nature of downtown.
• It would be unrealistic to close the river to boat traffic for more than 3 months.
• The replacement bridge needs to fit in with the atmosphere of the town.
• Ensure to improve bridge access for pedestrians.
• If the minimum height is over 35 feet, it would minimize number of openings.
Workshop Summary Memo Page: 4 of 7

~ ` r ~
• The bridge should not open on demand.
• The City of New Bern should not be in the bride maintenance business.
• A tunnel would be a maintenance nightmare and would be too expensive.
• Rehabilitation would be a waste of money.
• The entry and exit portals for a tunnel would have to be raised considerably above the
existing grade since this area is subject to flooding.
• Environmental impacts of a tunnel would be too great.
• Traffic lights on East Front Street and South Front Street should be coordinated with
bridge openings.
• The opening of the existing bridge should be changed to open on the hour and half
hour only.
Community Values:
• The delay of boats now is very short. The bridge should be replaced with a similar
structure to what is there. A bridge is necessary.
• The appearance of the bridge is important.
• Lighting of the bridge is important. Lighting should match the lighting used at Union
Point Park.
• The vertical lift bridge is too imposing and would be too unsightly.
• Cannot get a boat through the bridge during high winds.
• Bridge openings delays Hatteras Yachts when performing on test runs. This increases
the cost of doing business.
• Bike and pedestrian lanes are needed for the bridge.
• Wheel chairs and baby joggers need access across the bridge.
• Do not consider removing with no replacement!
• Select a bascule or swing type bridge. It is very important that design is compatible
with the historic character of the city. No Jersey barrier type rails.
• Use a low profile that will not obscure downtown.
• Dislike the dingy/rusted appearance of the existing bridge.
• Any new structure must be integrated into historical character of New Bern.
• Lengthy traffic (vehicle) delays should be avoided.
• A swing or draw (bascule) bridge adds charm to downtown.
• Many visitors appreciate the nice visual approach into downtown New Bern that the
Alfred Cunningham Bridge provides.
• There are long traffic queues at the Pembroke Avenue exit (the westbound ramp),
especially during 7:30am - 8:30am. NCDOT should look at traffic signal timing at this
intersection and the signal at Pollock Street/First Street, especially since additional
traffic during the 2 year construction period would only make matters worse.
• Ensure good public involvement. Suggest using small groups (10-12 people) for
consideration of evaluation criteria.
General comments
• Consider building a bridge from Hancock Street, over the railroad trestle, and tying
into the NC 70/ 17/55 Interchange. This would not require a detour route and would
help keep large trucks out of downtown. Much of the land this alternative would pass
over is vacant.
• A bascule bridge should be elevated to allow more boats to pass without having to
activate the draw.
A total of 49 comment cards were completed by workshop participants.. While most comment
cards were completed during the workshop, a few were mailed to NCDOT following the
workshop. Each comment card asked visitors to select their preferred alternative (some
respondents checked more than one). The results follow:
Workshop Summary Memo Page: 5 of 7

I ~ ~ V
Alternative 1 -Remove the existine bride with no replacement
Number preferred: 1
Reason given:
• Because of the historical neglect of the bridge, why subject a new bridge to more
abuse at taxpayers expense?
Alternative 2 -Rehabilitate the existine bride
Number preferred: 8
Reasons given:
• least expensive and retains the existing fabric
• cost and time of being unable to use the bridge are big factors
• least impact to boat and car traffic
• bridge is historic and is one of the few remaining in the state
• bridge adds charm to the downtown area
Alternative 3 -Replace the existine bridge with a bascule bride
Number preferred: 31
Reasons given:
• minimizes visual impacts and would look most like the existing bridge
• could be made to fit into the historic feeling of downtown
• railings and street lamps could be made to coordinate with the quaint ambiance of
downtown
• costs, aesthetics, efficiency
• bascule bridge would compliment the existing historic context
• quick to open & close; minimal vertical clearance interference
• could enhance the entrance to the New Bern Historic District
• clean aesthetic lines; minimal functional mechanisms
• faster operating times
• less interference with the channel
• less need for dredging, right-of--way acquisition and property purchases
• less need for US Army Corps of Engineers permits
Alternative 4 -Replace the existing bridge with a vertical lift bridge
Number preferred: 3
Reasons given:
• None
Alternative 5 -Replace the existing bridge with a tunnel
Number preferred: 8
Reasons given:
• reduces noise pollution
• eliminates traffic jams caused by bridge openings
• would not detract from the historic appearance of downtown New Bern
• allows a clear view of the water front
• more aesthetically pleasing than other alterantives
• minimal maintenance
• better for homeland security
• least hindering to boats
Alternative 6 -Replace the existine bridge with a hieh-rise bridge on the same alignment as
the existing bridge
Number preferred: 11
Reasons given:
• interferes least with the flow of traffic
• convenient to motorists with no delays
• most efficient of the alternatives
Workshop Summary Memo Page: 6 of 7

r • ' ~
• no maintenance required
• improves air quality since no vehicles would be idling
• doesn't interfere with boat traffic
• no labor costs (i.e. no need for a bridge tender)
• maintains the nature of the New Bern waterfront and access
Alternative 7 -Replace the existing bride with a high-rise bride that curves outward into
the Neuse River before reioinin~ the New Bern mainland
Number preferred: 4
Reasons given:
• eliminates traffic jams and congestion
• eliminates waiting for the bridge to open (make sure the park is not affected)
• saves fuel costs since it would eliminate vehicle idling
Geaeral
According to responses provided on comment cards, the vast majority of respondents drive
across the bridge while a smaller number bike and walk. A few respondents indicated that
they also boat through the bridge. Many respondents indicated that they use the bridge
several times a week.
Workshop Summary Memo Page: 7 of 7

~ ~ ~ s
TIP 8-2532 Armed Cunningham Bridge
James City Community Meeting
January 7, .2005
Memorandum
To: Vince Rhea, NCDOT PDEA Date: January 7, 2005
From: Tracy Roberts, AICP HNTB Job Number
37685
Subject: James City Community Meeting Summary Memo
James City Community Meeting
December 9, 2004
7:OOpm
James City Community Center
408 Plum Street, New Bern NC
At the request of Clarence Spellman, Chairman of the James City Community Organization, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) held a community meeting in James City
to discuss the proposed Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Project. NCDOT sent Mr.
Spellman copies of the October 2004 newsletter, including announcements of the December 9"'
meeting. Mr. Spellman stated that he distributed this information throughout the James City
community and that announcements were made in local churches.
Copies of the newsletter, comments cards and Power Point slides were distributed to all meeting
attendees. Attendees were encouraged to take extra copies home with them for distribution to
their neighbors and any others interested in the project.
Attendees:
Vincent Rhea, NCDOT -PDEA
Travis Totten, NCDOT - OHE
Tracy Roberts, HNTB
Peggy Hayes, Hayes Planning Associates
16 James City residents
Sandy Wall -Reporter with The Sun Journal
Clarence Spellman, Chairman of the James City Community Organization, opened the meeting
with a prayer.
Tracy Roberts, Senior Planner with HNTB, introduced the team members that were present.
Mr. Roberts described the proposed project and the seven alternatives under consideration by
using a Power Point presentation. Following the presentation, he opened the meeting to
discussion about each of the alternatives.
Alternative 1: Remove the existina bridae with no replacement
The overwhelming sentiment of the James City attendees was that this was not an acceptable
alternative and should not be considered.
Myrtle Downing commented that many James City residents as well as tourists staying at the
Bridge Pointe Hotel and Marina travel and walk across the bridge. She implored NCDOT to not
separate James City again.
P:\37b8~ Cunningham Bridge\Public lnvolvementUames City meetingsVames City meeting 1Vames City
Community Meeting Summary Memo.doc - 1 -

~ ~ ~
TIP 8-2532 Alfred Cunningham Bridge
James City Community Meeting
January 7, 2005
Another commented that it is much safer to use the existing bridge than the bypass. Many
people jog across the bridge.
Many commuters use the bridge; for example, many use it to get from New Bern to Cherry Point.
Mr. Roberts stated that the NCDOT estimates that 12,000 vehicles use the bridge per day and
this number is expected to grow in the future.
Question: Why was the replacement of the bridge not considered when the Neuse River Bridge
was built ten years ago?
Mr. Roberts responded that the bridge was considered for rehabilitation as part of the Neuse
River Bridge EA/FONSI in 1994 but that there was not as much of a need to repair the bridge 10
years ago as there is now. The bridge only has about 10 years remaining.
Alternative 2: Rehabilitate the existing bridge
Question: Why not just rehabilitate the existing bridge instead of replacing it with a new bridge?
Mr. Roberts responded that a rehabilitated bridge would be expensive and yield only an additional
15-25 years of service.
Question: Will the new bridge be much higher than the existing bridge? Many people do not like
to drive across the Neuse River Bridge, especially when it is windy and icy weather.
Mr. Roberts responded that the height of the replacement bridge will depend on which alternative
is selected. The Coast Guard and/or the US Army Corps of Engineers will determine the vertical
clearance requirements for this area of the Trent River. The vertical lift bridge alternative would
also need to rise high enough to provide the necessary clearance. The bascule bridge
alternative would be most similar to the height of the existing bridge and there would be no height
limitations to the type of boats that pass through the bridge opening.
Comment: A vertical lift bridge would need to be very high, would have many mechanical
problems and would have bad visual impact because it would contain lots of metal. Many people
are concerned about the riverfront appearance.
Comment: The Atlantic Beach Bridge is a high rise bridge - I don't like going across it.
Comment: The vertical lift bridge would have many mechanical problems and would snarl traffic.
We need to look ahead to the future repairs.
Alternative 3: Replace the existing bridge with a bascule bridge
Question: Will the bascule bridge stop traffic?
Mr. Roberts commented that all the movable bridges would stop traffic; only the high rise and
tunnel alternatives and the removal with no replacement alternative would not stop traffic.
Question: Will there need to by any relocations?
Mr. Roberts responded that Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 would most likely not require any
relocations. More detailed engineering design work needs to be completed in order to determine
whether the high rise or tunnel altematives would require any relocations.
P:~37685 Cunningham BridgelPublic InvolvementVames City meetingsUames City meeting 1Vames City
Community Meeting Summary Memo.doc - 2 -

TIP B-2532 Alfred Cunningham Bridge
James City Community Meeting
January 7, 2003
Comment: The bascule bridge is less massive and would have less visual impacts than the
vertical lift bridge.
Comment: The bridge area is prone to flooding.
Question: Will the bascule bridge stop traffic?
Tracy Roberts responded that traffic will be stopped, but the bascule and vertical lift bridge
alternatives are more efficient in opening than the current swing bridge resulting in less vehicular
delay
Group consensus: The bascule bridge is the best alternative that has been presented thus far.
Alternative 4: Replace the existing bridge with avertical-lift brid4e
Comment: This alternative looks like lots of maintenance and would have more mechanical
problems. There would be future locking problems with the bridge getting stuck.
Mr. Roberts responded that good maintenance could minimize the mechanical problems
associated with any of the movable bridge alternatives.
Comment: This is a massive bridge and has bad visual impacts.
Alternative 5: Replace the existing bridge with a tunnel
Comment: This alternative would have lots of impacts for James City.
Comment: Tunnels are very complex.
Comment: Openings on both sides would be prone for flooding.
Mr. Roberts responded that the openings on either side would need to be raised and designed
such to minimize flooding problems. Flood gates could also be installed.
Question: Would the tunnel require more distance?
Mr. Roberts responded that more distance would be needed in order to maintain the proper
slope.
Question: Which alternative would you (meaning NCDOT) like the best?
Mr. Roberts responded that design work will begin in January. No preferred alternative will be
selected until all the factors are studied.
Vincent Rhea of NCDOT also responded that NCDOT will be responsible for the final decision,
but it is important for the agency to understand how the community feels about the alternatives.
Question: How did you come up with the altematives that are being presented tonight?
Mr. Roberts responded that the seven alternatives currently being considered are the result input
from NCDOT and local officials.
Question: How many communities have you presented this to thus far?
Mr. Roberts responded that the alternatives were presented at the October workshop. This is the
only community meeting that has been requested thus far. NCDOT and HNTB are willing to meet
with any group that wants a presentation. The next public workshop will be next fall. Mr. Roberts
encouraged the attendees to contact himself or 1VCDOT if they would like additional meetings.
P:~37685 Cunningham Bridge~Public 1nvolvementUames City meetingsVames City meeting lUames City
Community lvleeting `Summary Memo.doc - 3 -

TIP 8-2532 Aifred Cunningham Bridge
James City Community Meeting
January 7, 2005
Question: What is the cost of a new bridge?
Mr. Roberts responded that the preliminary cost of a new bridge would be about $25 to $26
million. Current estimates suggest that it would cost about $9 million to rehabilitate the existing
swing bridge. Better cost estimates will be prepared when the design work is completed.
Question: What will be the exact impact on James City?
Mr. Roberts stated that there has been no detailed engineering work completed so the exact
impacts are not yet determined. The preliminary estimates are that the movable bridge
alternatives would not exceed the interchange, but that the high rise and tunnel alternatives
could.
Question: You have already taken our community -what more do you want? Why are you really
here?
Mr. Roberts responded that it is very important for NCDOT to receive feedback from the
communities affected by transportation projects. NCDOT values the input received from James
City residents in its decision-making process.
Question: Why do you want this bridge? We know that this bridge is needed for the yachts.
Comment: Myrtle Downing responded that James City should not underestimate the power that
they have. Back in the 1990s there were 12 alternatives being studied for the bypass and one of
those came right through James City. We were able to keep the bypass bridge off of us and no
one was relocated.
Comment: Where there is smoke there is fire. I have been here for 14 years. We are being
taken inch by inch just like what always happens to black communities that are chiseled away.
Not fair for us.
Alternative 5: Replace the existing bridge with a tunnel
Group response: We do not need to even hear about it.
Mr. Roberts explained the tunnel alternative and the pros and cons associated with tunnel
construction.
Alternative 6: Replace the existing bridge with a high rise bridge on existing alignment
Question: Why not build a swing span? Build a new bridge just like what we have now.
Question: Will the bascule bridge take more space than the current bridge?
Mr. Roberts responded that a new bascule bridge may be wider than the current bridge, but it
would be most similar to the existing bridge than any of the other alternatives.
Mr. Rhea responded that the bascule bridge would have the least impact while the tunnel
alternative most likely would have the most impact.
Comment: The high rise bridge would be much higher than what we have now and in winter is
more likely to get ice. It will be dangerous to drive and there will be no way to get into New Bern
from James City when the bridge is closed because of bad weather conditions.
Comment: I am not fond of Alternative 6 because it will be closed when there is snow and ice and
the other bridge is also closed.
Question: Where will the bridge come down?
Mr. Roberts responded that it depends on the height stipulated by the US Coast Guard or
USACOE, as well as ADA compliance and general engineering practices.
P:~37685 Cunningham Bridge~Public InvolvementVames City meetingsVames City meeting 1Vames City
Community Meeting Summary Memo.doc - 4 -

~ • r ~
TIP 8-2532 Alfred Cunningham Bridge
James City Community Meeting
January 7, 2005
Comment: A high rise bridge will have a big visual impact on New Bern.
Comment: I prefer the bascule bridge because it is more compatible with New Bern.
Alternative 7: Replace the existing bridae with a high rise bridae that curves into the
Neuse River
Question: How far will the bridge curve out?
Mr. Roberts highlighted the potential alignment of Altemative 7 on a map.
Mr. Roberts explained that the exact alignment would not be known until engineering design work
had been done.
Question: Do you have a picture?
Mr. Roberts explained that visual illustrations for some of the alternatives will be available next
year.
Question: Would it be similar to the Bridgeton Bridge?
Mr. Roberts explained that it could be similar in appearance but the impacts would likely be
greater due to its closer proximity to the New Bem mainland.
Comment: The bridge would have to be designed to accommodate boat traffic and would need to
be high over the channel.
Question: How will it impact James City?
Comment: A high rise bridge would impact walkers.
Group Discussion of Preference
The meeting attendees supported Altemative 3, the bascule bridge.
Potential Impacts During 2-Year Construction Period
Mr. Roberts informed the participants that the rehabilitation or construction of the bridge would
take about 2 years. The Pembroke Avenue exit would be the likely detour route during
construction. It is not feasible to build a temporary bridge because of the location of Union Point
Park and the Convention Center. What will be the impacts to James City?
General Consensus: We will have to deal with the detour period - it is unavoidable.
Question: Will the new bridge accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists?
Mr. Roberts responded that the bridge is part of a designated NCDOT bicycle route. It will have
to be designed to accommodate sidewalks and may have to feature wide lanes for bicycle traffic
Question: Myrtle Downing: Will the new bridge be "enclosed?" Myrtle then clarified her question
and asked whether the pedestrian/bicycle path would have barriers (railing), rather than meaning
an overhead partition.
Mr. Roberts explained that railing would be provided along the outer edge of the bridge.
Question: Did Bridgeton people come to the October workshop? Bridgeton residents will have to
travel a longer distance by using the Pembroke exit to go to downtown.
P:137b85 Cunningham Bridge~Public 1nvolvementVames City meetingsVames City meeting 1Vames City
Community Meeting Summary Memo.doc - 5 -

w . y ~
G TIP 8-2532 Alfred Cunningham Bridge
James City Community Meeting
January 7, 2005
Peggy Hayes stated that there were several Sandy Point residents that attended the October
workshop.
Question: What was the preference of those who attended the October workshop?
Mr. Roberts stated that most workshop participants preferred Alternative 3, the bascule bridge.
Peggy Hayes urged the participants to submit the comment cards and give their mailing address
if they wanted to be added to the mailing list.
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm.
P:\37685 Cunningham Bridge\Public InvolvementVames City meetingsVames City meeting 1Vames City
Community Meeting Summary Memo.doc - 6 -

r ~ . r
Final Minutes for Hydraulic Design Review Meeting
B-2532
Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement
A Hydraulic Design Review Meeting was held on Wednesday, August
17, 2005 in the Location and Surveys conference room at the NCDOT
Century Center Complex, Raleigh.
Team Members: Andrew Nottingham-NCDOT Hydraulics (Present)
Bill Biddlecome-USACOE (Present)
Christina Breen- NCDWQ (Present)
Travis Wilson-NCWRC (Absent)
Gary Jordan-USFWS (Present)
Chris Militscher-EPA (Present)
Greg Brew- NCDOT Roadway Design (Absent)
Chris Underwood-NEU (Present)
Donnie Brew for Clarence Coleman-FHWA (Present)
Steve Sollod-NCDCM (Present)
Bill Arrington-NCDCM (Present)
Ed Eatmon-Division 8 (Present)
Vince Rhea for Derrick Weaver-PDEA (Present)
Lonnie Brooks-Structures (Present)
Renee Gledhill-Early for Sarah McBride-SHPO (Present)
Ron Sechler-NMFS (Absent)
Participants: Stephen Morgan-NCDOT Hydraulics
David Chang-NCDOT Hydraulics
Laura Sutton-Structure Design
Theresa Wyatt-NCDOT Admin. Office
Enrico Roque-HNTB
Tracy Roberts-HNTB
Paul Barber-HNTB
Anne Redmond-HNTB
The meeting began at 1:00 p.m. with introductions and NCDOT Hydraulics giving a brief
description and history of the project. The team then reviewed the plans. The following
items of importance were discussed:
The new bridge has been designed so there will not be any increase in impervious
area when compared to the existing bridge. Deck drains from the existing bridge drain
directly into the Trent River. Since the new bridge will not increase the impervious
area NCDOT proposes to allow the deck drainage from the new bridge to drain
directly into the Trent River also. The team agreed that this would be acceptable.

ti r '~ ~
• The grade of the new bridge will be higher than the old bridge to allow longer span
lengths to be used resulting in fewer piers in the water. On the north end of the
bridge a retaining wall is proposed on both sides of the road. to minimize the footprint
of the road. The maximum height of the wall will be approximately 6 feet at the end
of the bridge and taper down to the existing ground approximately 200 feet from the
end of the bridge. The use of the retaining wall will help avoid impacts to the Union
Pointe Park on the East Side and the New Bern Riverfront Convention Center on the
West Side. The roadway improvements will be kept within the existing transportation
facility limits. A footbridge currently exists underneath the bridge at the north end,
which connects Union Pointe Park with the New Bern Riverfront Convention Center.
The footbridge will be preserved or replaced.
• The existing roadway width will be maintained on the north approach to the bridge so
there will not be any increase in impervious area. The existing approach on the north
side of the bridge is a curb and gutter section. NCDOT proposes to match the
existing roadway width on the north side of the bridge and use the curb and gutter
typical section to maintain the character of this area. The sidewalk on the East Side
of the north approach to the bridge will be eliminated up to South Front Street since
the new bridge typical calls for a single sidewalk on the West Side of the bridge. This
will reduce the impervious area in this location. The existing catch basins near the
South Front Street intersection will be maintained. The catch basins in this area drain
to a storm drain system, which runs west on South Front Street and then connects to
storm drainage from downtown New Bern. This storm drain system then flows south
across the convention center property and discharges into the Trent River west of the
north end of the bridge. The team discussed if this storm drainage could be treated.
It was determined that there were no practicable areas where this could be treated and
since there would be no increase in impervious area that it would be acceptable to
maintain this system.
The existing roadway width will be maintained on the south approach to the bridge.
The existing approach on the south side of the bridge is a shoulder section with gently
sloping side slopes. NCDOT proposes to match the existing roadway width on the
south side of the bridge and maintain the shoulder section. The roadway
improvements will be kept within the existing transportation facility limits. On the
West Side of the south approach runoff from the roadway will sheet flow across the
fill slopes into a large drainage swale that drains to the Trent River. On the East Side
of the south approach runoff from the roadway will sheet flow across the fill slopes
and eventually drain into the Neuse River.
• The team discussed that the bridge would likely be constructed using a barge as a
work platform in the deeper parts of the river and in the shallower portions of the
river near the bridge ends that work bridges would likely be used.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 1:45 p.m.

y ~ . n
Tire HNTB Contpsnfes

Memorandum
To: Vince Rhea, NCDOT PDEA Date: 11 / 23/ 2005
From: Tracy Roberts, AICP HNTB Job Number
37685
Subject: Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Project:
Summary of September 22°d, 2005 Citizens
Informational Worksho
On Thursday, September 22nd, 2005, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) sponsored a Citizens Informational Workshop in New Bern. This memorandum
summarizes the public outreach efforts and public comments associated with the Workshop.
Event: Citizens Informational Workshop
Date: September 22nd, 2005
Location: The Berne Room, New Bern Riverfront Convention Center
Time: 2:OOpm -Presentation of project to the New Bern Board of Aldermen and the Craven
County Board of Commissioners
4:OOpm-7:30pm -Public Workshop
Summary of public notification efforts:
- HNTB mailed approximately 4700 newsletters to residents and businesses in the vicinity
of the Alfred Cunningham Bridge. The mailing list was based on Craven County tax
records and a database of renters developed by Hill-Donnelly Corporation. The mailing
list also included other known stakeholders that were identified throughout the course of
the project.
- HNTB mailed 36 packets to churches in three predominately minority neighborhoods
(James City, Duffeyfield and Pembroke) in the project vicinity. Packets were also mailed
to minority churches in downtown New Bern, as well as several churches that offer
Spanish services. Each packet contained a letter from NCDOT requesting that
announcements be made during church service about the upcoming workshop. Each
packet contained 25 newsletters to be distributed to church members.
- NCDOT posted advertisements in the following local newspapers:
The New Bern Sun Journal
The Havelock News
The Daily Drum
The Shonner
- HNTB sent notices of the Workshop to the New Bern Public Housing Authority to be
placed in their administrative offices.
- HNTB emailed the newsletter and notification of the Workshop to approximately 80
recipients. Recipients included local officials, residents and members of various
stakeholder groups.
- NCDOT advertised the Workshop on the project website:
www. ncdot. org/projects / alfredcunningham /
According to responses indicated on comment cards (37 were completed), participants were
made aware of the Workshop by the following methods (some respondents checked more than
onej:
- Newsletter: 21
- Newspaper Advertisement: 6
- Friend/Relative:2
- Email: 3
P:\37685 Cunningham Bridge\Public Involvement\09-22-05 Citizens Informational WoricshoplWorkshop Summary Memo (final).doc

- Website:3
- TV/Radio: 1
- Other: 7 (through contact with elected- officials, Division 2 Engineer, Historic
Downtown Residents Association, etc)
Summary of questions and comments received from local elected officials
during the 2:OOpm presentation:
Attendees:
Lee Kyle Allen -Craven County Board of Commissioners
Mayor Tom Bayliss -New Bern Board of Aldermen
Joseph Mattingly -New Bern Board of Aldermen
William (Bill) Ballenger -New Bern Board of Aldermen
Hazold Blizzard -Craven County Manager
George Sawyer -Craven County Assistant Manager
Don Baumgardner -Craven County Planning Director
Danny Meadows -City of New Bern Public Works Director
John Rouse - NCDOT -Division 2
Neil Lassiter - NCDOT -Division 2
Dwayne Alligood - NCDOT -Division 2
Jason Peterson - NCDOT -Division 2
Cazl Goode - NCDOT - HEU
Vincent Rhea - NCDOT - PDEA
Anne Redmond -HNTB North Carolina, P.C.
Paul Barber -HNTB North Cazolina, P.C.
Tracy Roberts -HNTB North Cazolina, P.C.
Jeffrey Dayton -HNTB North Carolina, P.C.
Peggy Hayes -Hayes Planning Associates
Tracy Roberts, Senior Transportation Planner with HNTB, described the proposed project
using a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Roberts distributed copies of the PowerPoint slideshow
to the meeting attendees. Following the presentation, he opened the meeting to questions
and comments.
• Mayor Bayliss asked about accommodations for bicyclists. Mr. Roberts responded
that the northbound lane would feature a four foot shoulder that could be used by
bicyclists. The southbound lane would offer no additional provisions for bicyclists.
• Mr. Mattingly asked if the bascule leaves operated independently of each other (i.e.
would one leaf be opened while the other remained closed). Mr. Bazber responded
that both leaves would operate simultaneously. Mr. Barber also stated that the
cycle time for a double leaf bascule would be slightly faster than a single leaf
bascule.
• Mayor Bayliss asked whether the clearance under the new bridge (in the closed
position) would be greater than it is today. Mr. Roberts stated that the clearance
under the new bridge would be at least equal to the existing cleazance, with
perhaps another one or two feet being provided.
• Mayor Bayliss stated that there is some concern by the New Bern Convention
Center and others about the noise and vibration associated with installation of
piles. He requested that drilled piers be used if possible. Mr. Roberts. responded
that the substructure type would be dependent on completion of a vessel impact
study and geotechnical investigations.
• Mr. Roberts stated that NCDOT will make the existing swingspan bridge available
for adoption or reuse. Neil Lassiter requested that the notification process begin
as soon as possible so that the bridge's outcome will be known prior to
Workshop Summary Memo Page: 2 of 4

•
construction. Ideally, the contractor could dismantle the bridge and transport it to
anew site, which would eliminate the need for storage in an NCDOT maintenance
yard.
Mr. Roberts stated that the New Bern Historic Preservation Commission requested
that pedestrian scale lighting be provided on the new bridge. While NCDOT will
provide conduit for such lighting, the funding and installation would need to be
provided by the City of New Bern or some other entity. Mr. Roberts stated that
NCDOT would need to know the lighting details (i.e. type, location, number, etc) by
January 2006 so that final design could account for future lighting installation.
Mr. Blizzard questioned the need for a three yeaz construction period. He stated
that the Neuse River Bridge was built in four yeazs and it was a much larger bridge
that the Alfred Cunningham Bridge. Mr. Bazber responded that the Neuse River
Bridge was on new location and thus removal of the old bridge did not affect the
schedule. In the case of the Alfred Cunningham Bridge, removal of the existing
bridge must occur before construction of the new bridge can begin. Mr. Barber also
stated that the bascule span is a specialized bridge that requires the fabrication of
mechanical parts that was not applicable on the Neuse River Bridge. Mr. Roberts
stated that a major factor in the need for a three year construction period is the
moratorium on in-water work from February 15th through June 30th of each year
(due to the presence of migratory fish).
Mayor Bayliss requested that construction of the Alfred Cunningham Bridge and
the proposed Broad Street enhancements be staged so as to minimize disruption in
downtown New Bern. The goal is to have both projects completed prior to New
Bern's 300th Anniversary in 2010.
Mr. Allen expressed concern about the rattling effect on his vehicle caused by
expansion joints on the Never River Bridge. He hoped the new Alfred Cunningham
Bridge would not have similaz joints. Mr. Bazber stated that, due to a lower speed
limit and fewer expansion joints, this should not be a major problem on the new
bridge.
Mayor Bayliss expressed his appreciation to the project team for their hard work
and diligence in getting the project completed on schedule. He felt the new bridge
would be an excellent addition to the New Bern community.
Summary of comments received from the general public during the 4:OOpm-
7:30pm Workshop:
48 attendees signed in. Each person was offered a comment card, a fact sheet, and a copy of
the September 2005 newsletter. Attendees were asked to place a sticky dot on a map that
indicated the location of their residence. Three stations were set up that offered attendees an
opportunity to discuss the project with HNTB and NCDOT staff. Attendees were encouraged
to write comments and questions on posters placed on the wall.
The following comments reflect those made verbally to HNTB and NCDOT staff, those
provided on comment cards and those provided on comment posters. In general, most
attendees were supportive of the project and felt the new bridge would be an attractive
addition to the New Bern community.
Summary of Comments
Aesthetics
• The proposed bridge is a great choice, one that is azchitecturally pleasing and that fits
the character of New Bern. The design is appropriately simple and will function well.
• Amore old fashioned bridge tender's house (especially the roof) would be appropriate.
• The proposed control tower looks like a guard house at a prison. Would prefer a more
classical look.
• The City of New Bern should commit to pedestrian lighting consistent with existing
street lights on E. Front Street.
r
Workshop Summary Memo Page: 3 of 4

• Consider low level lights to illuminate the sidewalk that would be unobtrusive and
safer. Avoid the use of tall light poles.
• The proposed height of rail (3' 6") is too high.
Navigation
• Potential disruption /closure of navigational channel during construction should be
avoided.
• The proposed navigational channel should be wider with longer piers at each end.
• NCDOT should maximize vertical clearance of the new bridge (in the closed position)
at the navigational channel to minimize bridge closures, particularly for medium sized
boats and pleasure yachts.
Environmental
• Proper treatment of stonnwater prior to discharge into the Trent River should be
provided.
• Proper safeguards to minimize disruption of the river bed during construction should
be considered.
Operations
• Need reasonable and fair rules for bridge openings. Openings for marine vessels
should be on a schedule, not on demand.
• The bridge could be made automatic similar to a garage-door opener. There would
have to be safety interlocks similar to a garage-door opener or an automatic elevator.
This would render the need for a bridge tender unnecessary.
• Bridge openings may be slower because of the proposed single channel when boats
have to pass in opposite directions.
• The high wind limit for restricted openings is currently 40 MPH. Please consider
increasing this as we often have to evacuate on short notice.
• Please consider bicyclists in both directions (i.e. northbound and southbound).
• The single 5.5 foot sidewalk and double leaf bascule are good choices.
Construction
• Provide a sign saying "Downtown New Bern" along US 70 at the Pembroke Avenue Exit
from both east and west directions.
• Need to ensure downtown remains accessible during construction.
• Consider installing a traffic signal at ls~ St/Queen St. There will be more traffic at that
intersection. Even now, it is a dangerous cross-street area. Other traffic flow
adjustments may need to be addressed.
• Attempt to complete the project as soon as possible.
• Potential disruption /closure of navigational channel during construction should be
avoided.
General
• The present structure should be retained, which is perfectly useful.
• Proper removal of existing bridge is important.
• Ensure the control house will provide a comfortable environment for bridge operator.
• Consider incorporating wave protection for the inner harbor.
Workshop Summary Memo Page: 4 of 4

,,
~;;
TIP B-2532 Alfred Cunningham Bridge
James City Community Meeting
November 21, 2005
Memorandum
To: Vince Rhea, NCDOT PDEA Date: Nov 21, 2005
From: Tracy Roberts, AICP HNTB Job Number
37685
Subject: James City Community Meeting Summary Memo
James City Community Meeting
September 29, 2005
7:OOpm
James City Community Center
408 Plum Street, New Bern NC
At the request of Clarence Spellman, Chairman of the James City Community Organization, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) held a community meeting in James City
to discuss the proposed Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Project. NCDOT sent Mr.
Spellman copies of the September 2005 newsletter, including announcements of the September
29th meeting. Mr. Spellman stated that he distributed this information throughout the James City
community, including local churches.
Copies of the newsletter, comments card and a fact sheet were distributed to all meeting
attendees. Attendees were encouraged to take extra copies of the newsletter and comment card
home for distribution to their neighbors and others interested in the project.
Attendees:
Bill Harper, Craven County Board of Commissioners
Vincent Rhea, NCDOT -PDEA
Tracy Roberts, HNTB
Jeffrey Dayton, HNTB
Peggy Hayes, Hayes Planning Associates (HPA)
9 James City residents
Tracy Roberts, Senior Transportation Planner with HNTB, introduced the team members that
were present.
Mr. Roberts explained that the purpose of the meeting was to provide an update of what had
occurred on the project since the last meeting in James City (December 9, 2004), as well as to
answer questions and receive comments. Mr. Roberts utilized a Power Point presentation to
provide an overview of the project. Following the presentation, he opened the meeting to
discussion.
Question: How does the safety of the Alfred Cunningham Bridge compare with other bridges in
the area?
Mr. Roberts stated that the Cunningham Bridge has a sufficiency rating of 8 out of a possible 100
points. Although the sufficiency rating is low, the bridge is not unsafe and has approximately 10
years of service remaining. Vince Rhea, Project Manager with NCDOT, stated that NCDOT
periodically inspects bridges and rates them based on a number of criteria. Bridges are then
programmed to be replaced or rehabilitated depending on need. Bridge rehabilitation and
P:\37685 Cunningham Bridge\Public lnvolvementUames City meetingsVames City meeting 2Vames City
Community Meeting Summary Memo (final) for CE.doc _ 1 _

,. .. r •
~~~ TIP B-2532 Abed Cunningham Bridge
James City Community Meeting
November 21, 2005
replacements projects are published in NCDOT's Transportation Improvement Program (the
Cunningham Bridge has been in the TIP for several years).
Question: Why wasn't the Cunningham Bridge replaced when the Neuse River Bridge was built?
Mr. Rhea explained that the Cunningham Bridge was studied when the environmental studies
were done for the Neuse River Bridge in 1994. Although the bridge was recommended for
rehabilitation at that time, there was no immediate need for action. Mr. Roberts explained that the
bridge still had several years of service when the 1994 study was completed. The Neuse River
Bridge was a very expensive project, and there was no need for immediate rehabilitation or
replacement of the Cunningham Bridge.
The new Cunningham Bridge will be an expensive project and NCDOT is currently exploring
ways to generate the necessary funds, including delaying other projects in the area. Recent
budget cuts and slow downs in the economy have made funding a major challenge.
Question: Why is the Cunningham Bridge not being properly maintained? No one is ever seen
performing maintenance on the bridge.
Mr. Roberts explained that NCDOT does perform routine maintenance, such as periodic greasing
of the gears. Additionally, the lead paint on the truss span is difficult and costly to remove due to
environmental concerns. Mr. Rhea added that federal monies are not available for bridge
maintenance, only new construction. Thus, NCDOT has to assume full financial responsibility for
bridge maintenance and operation. However, with the agreement being prepared between
NCDOT and the City of New Bern, maintenance of the new bridge would likely become the City's
responsibility.
Question: Who is paying for the Broad Street improvements and the new Cunningham Bridge?
Mr. Roberts stated that funding of the new Cunningham Bridge would involve a combination of
federal and state money. He was unsure of the funding source for the Broad Street
improvements.
Question: Mr. Roberts asked how many attendees walk or bike across the Cunningham Bridge.
Two attendees responded in the affirmative. They also stated that they cross the bridge to see
friends, get to work and to visit recreational facilities.
Question: Traffic queues at the Pembroke Avenue Interchange when returning to James City and
Bridgeton. There is only one merging lane and there is a curve that makes it hard to see.
While the study team was not familiar with this particular situation, Mr. Rhea stated that NCDOT
was considering adding an additional turn lane on the westbound off-ramp at the Pembroke
Avenue / US 70 Interchange. Signal modifications would also be considered in conjunction with
the lane additions.
Question: How many companies will bid on the new bridge?
Mr. Roberts stated that this will probably be known sometime in late 2006 when NCDOT
advertises the project for bidding.
Question: The Freedom Memorial Bridge (over the Trent River) can accumulate ice in the winter.
When this happens, some people use the Cunningham Bridge instead. Is there a way to keep the
existing bridge in place until the new one is constructed?
P:\37685 Cunningham Bridge\Public InvolvementUames City meetingsVames City meeting 2Vames City
Community Meeting Summary Memo (final) for CE.doc - 2 -

• ~ ~.
y~ ~ r
,~ .
TIP 8-2532 Alfred Cunningham Bridge
James City Community Meeting
November 21, 2005
Mr. Roberts explained that due to Union Point Park and the urbanized nature of the area, there is
no location to put a temporary bridge. The only practical solution is to remove the existing bridge
and construct the new bridge in the same location. Mr. Roberts reiterated that during the
anticipated three year construction period, an off-site detour would be needed. The detour route
would take users down the US 70/17 Bypass to the Pembroke Avenue exit and then down First
Street to Broad Street.
Question: What is going to happen to Union Point Park?
Mr. Roberts responded that Union Point Park would be avoided. All improvements will occur
within the existing right of way.
Question: When the Neuse River Bridge was built, NCDOT eliminated many of the access points
along US 70 through James City. Due to the resultant elimination of left-hand turns and the
inability to cross over US 70 from one side to the other, cars are having to go down to the
McDonald's (at US 70 and Williams Road) to turn around in order to travel back towards
downtown New Bem on US 70. The left turn at the Williams Road intersection also forces you
into McDonald's parking lot. This situation has caused several accidents; pedestrians have also
been hit. NCDOT seems to be more concerned with getting people from Raleigh to the beach
rather than considering the impacts on the local community. What can be done about this?
Mr. Rhea responded that NCDOT keeps records of accidents and would know the relative danger
of that particular intersection. Since this situation is not related to the Cunningham Bridge
replacement, Mr. Rhea suggested that the local community contact their NC Board of
Transportation representative for assistance.
General Comments
One participant recalled memories of the old wooden bridge that existed even before the
Cunningham Bridge was built (in 1955).
Mr. Roberts commented that the City of New Bern is considering adding pedestrian-scale lighting
to the new bridge.
Attendees were appreciative of NCDOT's outreach efforts on the Alfred Cunningham Bridge
project and thought the new bridge would be a nice addition to the community.
Conclusion
Mr. Roberts concluded the meeting by expressing appreciation for James City's active
involvement in the project. Mr. Roberts stated that either he or Vince Rhea could be contacted at
anytime throughout the project for questions. Mr. Roberts directed everyone's attention to the
contact information on the newsletter.
The meeting adjourned at 8:10pm.
Comment Cards
Comment cards were distributed to attendees during the meeting. Attendees were also asked to
complete their comment card prior to the end of the meeting. A total of four comment cards were
completed and submitted to the project team. Responses are summarized below:
• Respondents were notified of the James City meeting through the newsletter and church.
P:\376135 Cunningham Bridge\Pubtic InvolvementVames City meetingsVames City meeting 2Vames City
Community Meeting Summary Memo (final) for CE.doc - 3 _

Y 1 ~ .i'
~~~
TIP 8-2532 Alfred Cunningham Bridge
James City Community Meeting
November 21, 2005
• All respondents drive across the bridge, while two indicated that they also walk and bike
across the bridge.
• Two respondents indicated that they use the bridge on a weekly basis and the other two
indicated that they use it on a monthly basis.
• The most common purpose for crossing the Cunningham Bridge was to get to work.
Respondents indicated that they cross the bridge to access Union Point Park, Trent Court,
and government offices.
• One respondent indicated that they use a boat to pass through the Cunningham Bridge
navigational channel
P:~37685 Cunningham Bridge~Public InvolvementVames City meetingsVames City meeting 2Vames City
Community Meeting Summary Memo (final) for CE.doc - 4 -

Alfred Cunningham Bridge Replacement Categorical Exch~sion
_.__...._..-........__..w...~.,.._~._.....,..~....~.w,._..-w,~._.~.~._....,...~.~.~._~..._......w._..._.~__~....,...._...w Project B-2532

1
Appendix E

1 PROGRAMMATIC 4(F) FOR HISTORIC BRIDGES
1
1
1
'

anuary 18, 2006
J Y

.. ~
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FIDERALLY-AIDID HIGHWAY PROJECTS
THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES
F. A. Project BRSTP-070B(4)
State Project 8.1172401
T. I. P. No. B-2532
Description: Replacement of Bridge No. 60 (Alfred Cunningham Bridge) on US 70
Business over the Trent River in New Bern (Craven County). Project proposes to replace
the existing swingspan bridge and related approaches with adouble-leaf bascule bridge.
Yes No
1. Is the bridge to be replaced or ^
rehabilitated with Federal funds? X
2. Does the project require the use of
a historic bridge structure which is ^
on or eligible for listing on the X
National Register of Historic Places?
3. Is the bridge a National Historic
Landmark? ~ X
4. Has agreement been reached among the
FHWA, the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council X
on Historic Preservation (ACHP) through
procedures pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE
AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found
not to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
1. Do nothing X ^
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct the problem situation that
caused the bridge to be considered ~ X
deficient?
(b) pose serious and unacceptable safety
hazards? X ^

y ! ~
Yes No
2. Build a new structure at a different
location without affectina the historic X
integtrity of the structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
The present bridge has already
been located at the only feasible
and prudent site
and/ (i' Adverse social, environmental,
or economic impacts were noted
and/or (iii) Cost and engineering difficulties
reach extraordinary magnitude
and/o (i )The existing bridge cannot be
preserved due to the extent of
rehabilitation, because no
responsible party will maintain
and preserve the historic bridge,
or the permitting authority
requires removal or demolition.
3. Rehabilitate the historic bridgewithout
affecting the historic integrity of the g ^
structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
The bridge is so structurally
deficient that it cannot be
rehabilitated to meet the
acceptable load requirements
and meet National Register
criteria
and/or (ii) The bridge is seriously
deficient geometrically and
cannot be widened to meet the
required capacity and meet
National Register criteria

r
MIlVIlVIIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning X
to minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle, as appropriate)
a. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated, the historic
integrity of the bridge is preserved
to the greatest extent possible,
consistent with unavoidable transpor-
tation needs, safety, and load
requirements.
b. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated to the point that the
historic integrity is affected or that
are to be removed or demolished, the
FHWA ensures that, in accordance with
the Historic American Engineering
Record (HAER) standards, or other
suitable means developed through
consultation, fully adequate records
are made of the bridge.
Oc For bridges that are to be replaced,
the existing bridge is made available
for an alternative use, provided a
responsible party agrees to maintain
and preserve the bridge.
® For bridges that are adversely affected,
agreement among the SHPO, ACHP, and
FHWA is reached through the Section
106 process of the NHPA on measures
to minimize harm and those measures
are incorporated into the project.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
discussed below:
The architectural treatment of the replacement bridge has been developed in
coordination with SHPO and the New Bern Historic Preservation Commission (NBHPC).
Architectural treatment of the control house, railing, retaining walls, sidewalks, traffic
control devices and general materials and colors have been agreed upon by SHPO and
NBHPC. The NBHPC issued a Certificate of Appropriateness on August 23`x, 2005.
Other measures to minimize harm include 1) Creation of a written record of the existing
bridge prior to removal; 2) Bridge design consultations between SHPO, NCDOT and
NBHPC; and 3) Relocation and reuse of the existing bridge.

a ~'
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer X
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation X
c. LocaUState/Federal Agencies X
d. US Coast Guazd X
(for bridges requiring bridge permits) X
SUNIlVIARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
July 5,1983.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made aze clearly applicable
to this project.
There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic bridge. The
project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that the
measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
/ 23 ou
ate ~d~Manager, Planning & nvironmental Branch
NCDOT
;'Z
.~ ivision mstrator,
U

M u i A
-+ e~~~4,
OWM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Teter B. sandbeck, Aaninanamr
Ivfichael F. Easley, Governor Of6oe of Archives and I~iismty
Lisbeth G Evans, Secretary Division of Fiiamrical Resotuces
J~yJ. crow, Deputy secretary ~ ~r~~~~: David snook, Direcmr
~~ c ~.
Map 13, 2005 f, +
MEMORANDUM ~. ~. '~. ~'
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director ~°
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highwayys
FROM: Peter B. Sandbeck~ `~
SUBJECT: Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report, Replace Bridge No. 60 (Alfred A.
Cunningham Bridge) on US Highway 70 Business over the Trent River, New Bern, B-2532,
Craven County, ER90-8222
Thank you for pour letter of March 14, 2005, concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following property is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under the criterion cited:
• Alfred A. Cunningham Bridge, (Bridge No. 60), New Bern, is eligible for the National.Register of
Historic Places under Criterion A: Transportation, for its association with the development of North
Carolina's coastal military bases. The bridge facilitated a major corridor for Cherry Point and Camp
Lejeune. The bridge also enabled the reconstruction and restoration of Tryon Palace and Gardens
in Neav Bern.
The Cunningham Bridge has been altered and no longer retains sufficient integrity to be eligible for the
National Register under Criterion C: Architecture. Furthermore, building demolition and recent in-fill have
compromised the bridge's immediate setting, eliminating the consideration of the bridge as a contributing
structure to the New Bem National Register Historic District.
We concur with the proposed National Register historic boundaries as defined and delineated in the survey
report.
For purposes. of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following property remains eligible and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places:
• New Bern Historic District
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fox
AIINI5TRA3TON 507 N. BlountStreet, Raleigh NC 4617 Mal Service Center, Raleigh NC 27b99-1617 (91~733~4763/733-8653
iTORATION 515 N. Blount Stmt, Raleigh NC 4617 Mal Scrvicc Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 (91733-G547/715~801
tVEY do PLANNING 515 N. Bount SemS Raleigh, NC 4617 Mal Service Curter, Raleigh NC 27699-4677 (979)733-G545/715~807

~. •
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 codifted at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for pour cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Matt' Pope Furr, NCDOT
Trary Roberts, HNTB

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ~~~~`~
AMONG
THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
FOR
T1P No. B-2532
ALFRED A. CuNNnvGHAM BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
CITY OF NEW BERN, CRAVEN COUNTY, NC
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (F~iWA) has determined that the
Alfred A. Cunningham Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 60) on US 70 Business over the
Trent River, City of New Bern, in Craven County, North Carolina (the Undertaking) will
have an effect upon the Alfred A. Cunningham Bridge, a structure determined eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places, and on the New Bern National Register Historic
District, a property listed to the National Register of Historic Places, and has consulted
with the North Cazolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR
Part 800, regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(16 U.S.C. 470f); and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), and the City
of New Bern Historic Preservation Commission (New Bern HPC) participated in the
consultation and have been invited to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA and the SHPO agree that the Undertaking shall be
implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account
the effect of the Undertaking on the historic properties.
STIPULATIONS
FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carried out:
I. Alfred A. Cunningham Bridge
A. Recordation: Prior to the demolition of the Alfred A. Cunningham, NCDOT
shall record the existing condition of the bridge and its surroundings in
accordance with the attached Historic Structures and Landscape Recordation
Plan [Appendix A].
B. ReRlacement Brid eg_Desi n: NCDOT shall consult with the SHPO on the
design for the replacement bridge and any other improvements that are part of
the Undertaking andprovide the SHPO an opportunity to comment upon each
phase of the design plans for the replacement bridge and any other
improvements.

~ 1 y ~.
C. Relocation and Reuse of Bridge: The Alfred A. Cunningham Bridge (Bridge
No. 60) will not be demolished. Instead, the bridge will be documented,
dismantled, and relocated as per the guidelines of the NCDOT Bridge
Relocation and Reuse Program. NCDOT's 1988 agreement with the North
Carolina Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) affords the opportunity for the relocation and reuse
of historic truss bridges. Bridge No. 60 has been identified as a candidate for
this program. Should a bridge recipient not be identified prior to construction
of the replacement bridge, Bridge No. 60 will be stored at a local NCDOT
facility until a recipient can be found, as per the guidelines of the NCDOT
Bridge Relocation and Reuse Program.
II. New Bern NRHD
A. Vibration Monitoring: NCDOT shall install vibration monitoring equipment
at especially significant buildings in the historic district prior to the
construction of the bridge. Potential vibration effects in the New Bem NRI-ID
are to be monitored throughout the construction of the bridge by Geotech. If
vibration levels rise to a level that could cause structural damage to the
building or if structural damages are discovered during this period, work shall
immediately cease and NCDOT shall contact the SHPO and property owners
immediately to determine what steps should be taken to address the damage.
III. Dispute Resolution: Should the North Carolina SHPO or any other party to this
Agreement object within (30) days to any plans or documentation provided for
review pursuant to this Agreement, FOVHA shall consult with the North Carolina
SHPO to resolve the objection. If FHWA or the North Carolina SHPO
determines that the objection cannot be resolved, FHWA shall forward all
documentation relevant to the dispute to the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (Council). Within thirty (30) days after receipt of all pertinent
documentation, the Council will either:
A. Provide FHWA with recommendations which FHWA will take into account in
reaching a final decision regarding the dispute, or
B. Notify FHWA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Section 800.7(c) and
proceed to comment. Any Council comment provided in response to such a
request will be taken into account by FHR7A in accordance with 36 CFR Section
800.7 {c) (4) with reference to the subject of the dispute.
Any recommendation or comment provided by the Council will be understood to pertain
only to the subject of the dispute; FHWA's responsibility to carry out all the actions
under this Agreement that are not the subject of the dispute will remain unchanged.
2

s s ~' t,~
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO,
its subsequent filing with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and
implementation of its terms evidence that FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity
to comment on the Alfred A. Cunningham Bridge Replacement on US 70 Business over
the Trent River, City of New Bem, in Craven County, North Cazolina and its effects on
the Alfred A. Cunningham Bridge and the New Bem NR~ID, and that FHWA has taken
into account the effects of the Undertaking on the historic properties.
AGREE:
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADNIINISTRATION DATE
NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER DATE
CONCUR:
CITY OF NEW BERN
CONCUR:
DATE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTNIIrT1T OF TRANSPORTATION DATE
FILED BY:
3

., o .,
APPENDIX A
Historic Structures and Landscape Recordation Plan
For the proposed Alfred A. Cunningham Bridge Replacement
New Bern, Craven County, North Carolina
TIP No. B-2532, State Project No. 8.1172401
Federal Aid No. BRSTP-070B (4)
Documentary Research shall include
• A brief history of the bridge:
When built
Type
Designer/Engineer
Plan changes, renovation/repaircecords
Photographic Requirements
• Selected photographic views of the Alfred A. Cunningham Bridge and the New
Bern National Register Historic District as a whole, and views of the structures
and their setting, including:
• Overall views of the structures (elevations and oblique views)
• Overall views of the project area, showing the relationship of the structures to
their setting
Photographic Format
• Color slides {all views)
• 35 mm or larger black and white negatives (all views)
• Two (2) sets of black and white contact sheets (all views)
• All processing to be done to archival standards
• All photographs and negatives to be labeled according to Division of Archives
and History standards
Copies and Curation
One (1) set of all photographic documentation will be deposited with the North
Carolina Division of Archives andHistory/State Historic Preservation Office to be
made a permanent part of the statewide survey and iconographic collection. One
contact sheet shall be deposited in the files of the Historic Architecture Section of
NCDOT.
4

~ ~.
Fc~dc~ral ,•lid # BR51'P-117UB (~) TIP #B-?S3Z Cuturty~: Craven
Properties within the area of potential et~ects tar which there is no etI'ect. Indicate if property is
1\Iational Register-listed (NR) or deternuned eligible (DE).
Properties within the area of potentia[ effects for which there is an effect. Indicate property
status lNR or DE) and describe the effect.
New Bern Historic District (NR) Adverse Effect for Alternative 3
No Adverse Effect for Alternatives 1 & l
Alfred A. Cunningham Bridge (DE) Adverse Effect for Alternatives 1 & 3
No Adverse Effect for Alternative 2
Initially, the project offered seven alternatives and has been reduced to three, with Alternative 3
(replace existing bridge with a bascule bridge) the favored option by the City of New Bern.
Alternative 1(remove existing bridge with no replacement) will not have an adverse effect on
the New Bern National Register Historic District (NRHD), as the bridge is not a contributing
element to the district. Removal of the existing bridge, because the Alfred A. Cunningham
Bridge has been. determined' eligible under Criterion A for Transportation, will have an adverse
effect.
Alternative 2 (rehabilitate existing bridge),will not have an adverse effect on the New Bean
NRFiD, nor upon the Alfred A. Cunningham Bridge. •
Alternative 3 {replace existing bridge with a bascule bridge) will have an adverse effect on the
New Byrn NRIiD. Cvastruction limits at the bridge's northern approach fall within the southern
boundary of the NRHD. Streets that will be directly affected by the altered approach to the
bridge-South Front, East Front, and Pollock streets-contain some of the district's most
important architectural resources, including two exceptional examples of antebellum brick
townhouses, the Justice House and the Thomas Sparrow House (East Front Street), and the circa-
1843-1880 frame Wade-,Yleadows house (South Front Street). Union Point Park at the .
confluence of the Neuse and Trent rivers is also in the district, and the new bridge's north
approach will cut into a small section of the park's southwestern and' western boundaries. •
Another issue that will create a further adverse effect is if the a are driven piles, rather than piers,
~~ ~~~
in the bridge's substructure. The resulting vibration during ~ ng will•impact several histor)c ' ' •
buildin6s, includinb those now outside of the APE yet within the New Bern NRHD, such as the ~ -
circa-1798 Eiarvey Mansion (219 South Front Street), New Bern's oldest masonry mercantile
buildinb. IFdriven piles are approved, the APE will need to be considerably expanded to factoriri ••
potential impact within the district. •
. ~~-,.
tnitialcd: NCDU'(' ' ~`~~~ 1' f I W/l ~ ~ 1lI'U Jc L

'r
Fc•dcra!•~ir!# BRS'CP-070B (~!) TIP# 8-2532 Crrrrrrrl=: Crlvcn
CONCURRENCE FORIv[ FOR t1SSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project description: Replace Bridge No. 60 (Alfred A. Cunningham Bridge) on US Highway 70
$usiness over the Trent River, New Bem .
On August 31, 2006, representatives of the
® 'North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) "
® Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (F•lP0) ••
^ Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed
^ There are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effects and listed on the averse.
^ There are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within ~
the project's area of potential effects and listed on the reverse.
There is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effects. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on
the reverse. •
There is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effects. The property/properties and effect(s) aze listed on the .
reverse.
Signed: ~ ,~

NCDOT .
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
~!~ ~l
Representative, HPO
tale Historic Preservation Uflicer
r
~ ~ ~ ~ d.s'
. Date
~I:~~os. ._ ..• . •. . .
Date ~ • • "
•.. Dat ~ •
8.3~•O.S:~~ _._~ .~~
Date . ' .. -- .
t r

• I ' ~ ~
r~[tcrnntive 3 ti~•r!1 have an adverse ett~ct upon the Alfred A. Cunningham Brids;c, which has
been deternlincd eii;ible under Criterion :\ for Transportation. tiVltile the bridge must be
replaced for safety reasons, its loss will be, with the recently-replaced Nzuse River Bridge,
another vanished postwar resource. Therefore this will have an adverse et~ect on the district and
the bride.

• r•
Lnitialcd: NCDt)'f ~ fi[LWA~N~ LIL'~) `'~ •~ •

r 1 J
~F.
~''~ the
.,~,
Historic Preservation Commission
P. O. Boa 1129
New Bern, North Carolina
(2521 fi39-7583
September 28, 2005

~~~`,~ ~ ~ ~v~~
Property Location: at the southern end of East Front Street, near intersection of South Front
and East Front Streets
Description of Work: replacement of Alfred Cunningham bridge
Dear Property Owner:
Attached please find a copy of the Certificate of Appropriateness that was approved at the
August 23, 2005 meeting of the New Bern Historic Preservation Commission. Tltifs approval is
based on the application you submitted to the Commission and any conditions the
Commission placed upon the project. In addition, you will find a copy of the specific
guidelines ci#ed by the Commission that applies to your project. Please note the comments of
the Chief Building Inspector and Zoning Administrator. If you have any questions .concerning
this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
~ . S-~
Annette D. Stone, AICP
City Planner
Cc: Mr. Tracy Roberts, FiNTB North Carolina, P.C.

:qY ~',4
::h~ *~
.k
.~ r
~OTfFI CGlT0~11/Q BP~Y11S}'LETC
Expires: n/a

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Property Owner: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Property Location: at the southern'end of East Front Street, near intersection
of South Front and East Front Streets
Description of Work: replacement of the Alfred Cunningham Bridge
This application is for a Mi or / 'or work project. (Circle one)
Comments/Signature/Date:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
CHIEF BUII,DING INSPECTOR:
The New Bern Historic Preservation Commission/Administrator of the Historic Preservation
Commission reviewed the application on 08/23/05 and
approved
disapproved
approved (with conditions listed below) X
the request in accordance with the New Bern Historic Ordinance and Design Guidelines.
Conditions:
• Use "Scheme B" operator's house with hipped roof and terra cotta side
panels.
• Use `Texas"-style railing
• Incorporate railing from Union Point Park above the tapering retaining
wall coming off the bridge on the New Bern side
• DOT to return to Commission with a more patterned tapered retaining
wall
• Commission recommends DOT provide for pedestrian lighting on the
bridge
• Suspension poles for traffic lights shall remain silver
• Use "London walkway' for sidewalk pattern to match existing E. Front
Street sidewalk
Administrator: Date:

CE~.TIFICATE OF
APP~oP.~ATENESs
APP~IC~iTION
Fee: hione
w
~'~~`y,;,~ ~~~/~ ~ Annette Stone, City planner
~~ (ZSZ) 639-7583
stoneaQa newbern-nc.o~g
Faa: (ZSZ) b36-ZI46
CITY OF NEW BERN ~E~~~~~..~~51~~1
APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE Of APPROPRIATENESS
APPLICANT: _ i~~ ~~h ~..r~'t , ham- ~ Parr~ert„"r a -~ T~'4+~- spy r•"~'~~ i olv
PROJECT ADDRESS: U..l~ ~~ ~ - nGs~ bfT2 r ~ 16~+~-~' ~if~~~"~ 1Uets.• ~!'~
MAILIN G AD DRESS: _/U~~~~' ~ 1.~G ~ I f S 7 ~ /La. ~ ` S~-`V' ~ ~~ C~.c~~Cl- ~ ~Ie i ~~ ~C,
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (`~~~) X33` ~-$~ytt~~=~.~ HOMES ~f'~ ) 733-~'g~~~~-~~'!) WORK~~~ ~~
FAX: (~~~t /~J" I~'`~ EMAIL: Vt"~24,~p~a''F•S~~e~~1C~"'U
PROPERTY OWNER: /V~ r~ CQ~? fxc~ _ ~e P c~..r~~~ -~~" 0 ~ `~~Spb ~a-~-i d,~(.J
OWNER'S MAILING ADDRESS: ~al'`'~~ ~'S P'la- + f' i
~~
r,
INDICATE !F PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 15 NEEDED: YES NO X ~
{Pre-application review is required for all projects exceeding a cost of $10,000 and/or involving new construction projects
with a minimum square footage of 1,000 sq.ft.) '
IF FEDERAL OR STATE PERMITS, LICENSING, OR MONIES ARE INCLUDED 1N THE PROJECT, A REVIEW
BYTHE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE (SHPO) MAYBE REQUIRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH
CITY REVIEW. IF APPLICABLE, ATTACH A LIST OF FEDERAL OR STATE PERMITS, LICENSING, OR
FUNDS INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT.
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. In-the space provided or on additional sheets, describe the nature and extent of the proposed
work. Include a listing of materials and dimensions when applicable. Provide sufficient detail
to allow the Historic Preserva#ion Commission {HPC) to make an informed decision regarding
appropriateness.
2. Por each specific type of activity, attach the following materials: (Check the applicable
category).
EXTERIOR ALTERATION: Photograph(s) and sketches) .showing existing conditions and
proposed changes for each affected area.
NEW CONSTRUCTION: a) Plot plan showing all new construction on proposed site;
b) preliminary orfrnal drawings showing proposed design of new construction or new addition
(Elevation required); c) descriptions, samples, and specifications indicating materials and
textures used on exteriorconstruc#ion; and d) statement by owner of how proposed new
construction meetsthe intent of the FIPC'sdesign guidelinesforprojects involving newbuildings
with mare than 1,~ square feet.
.~ ~_

~ ~ ~ ~
HHTB
TIP B-2532.4 fed Cunningham Bridge
Replacement of Bridge #60 ovea• the Trent River in Craven Caunty
Application for Certificate ofApprapriateness
Vicinity Map
Bilchal°r i
!o• 'f Ballalr
5 ~
° ° us ~° ~•
Hyman Corks
°• Washington
• Nt'~ Foiks
N,t
r 70
Pa37585 Cunningham 8ridge\Architectura[~NCoA~CaA application.doc
Project
Location
Page I oft

E~cisting Alfred Cunningham Bridge (to be removed)

r + ~ ~-
CITY OF NEW BERN
New.
Construction
Awell-designed new buildirg, structure, or addition can be an attractive element of the His-
• toric District. New construction affords the opportunity to eliminate vacant lots and tnissing
~~~ gaps in the urban fabric, thus reestablishing the streetscape and contributing to a community's
sense of cohesiveness. New construction also provides an opportunity to participate in the ar=
chitectural evolution of a community. By reflecting the period•in which it is•built, a new building or addition
becomes part of a continuum of building design, style, and technology that demonstrates the ongoing
growth of the Cityand the Historic District.
In evaluating rie~v construction, the Historic Preservation Commission shall take into account the im-
pact ofsuch construction on the character of the immediate area and the overall District. Thepurpose of the
new construction guidelines is not to prevent change, but rather to guide change in a manner that protects
the distinguishing elements thatgive the Historic District its character Some of the elements that impact the
character of an area and district include placement of structures, building scale height, materials, details,
texture, form, and rhythm. Specific guidelines have been established below for each design element.
Due to the complexity of most •
new construttionpcojects, consulta-
tionwith the Historic Preservation
Commission early on in the process is
encouraged. Apre-application re-
vie~v of the newconstruction by the
HPC may be required. See page 7 for
Further information an the pre-appli-
cationreview process.
PLACEMEI~IT OF
STRUCTURES:
The way buildings are situated on
their lots plays an imporrant role in
helping to define the ch:ir:icter of:i
streetscape or district. Cemsistency in
placementcan serve as a unifying ele-
ment ofthe srreetscape char helps to
visually tie together o~~er nvc~ hun-
dred years ~of architectilre. In Nrrv
l ~
I
I
j I
•r---t,
YEg
~__.ul I r----t
1- I I No ~
I ~ I I I
I x I L.._J
y~ I
I I
BTP~i~.GK
..... ~ ~.
..:.fOL Y
r--y
'Yes I•-- ~ ::~
I r--- .
( No ~ ' ~ ~
~ I u t No j
~~/~ I ~ L,.Jt
.:•l~
~I
1: ....
I
ORIEHTJ~TIDN ~~NTI~NcE
3

• NtST~OR-C DISTRICT GUIDELHVES
,.
Bern's commercial downtown district, buildings are traditionally built
immediately adjacent to the public sidewalk with little or rib front yard
setbacks. The uniform placementof buildingscreates a definable build-
ingedge atthe street. Entrances necessarily are located in the front of
the.building directly on the public sidewalk. Institutional uses, particu-
larlyckurches,are often set back from the street, providing a break in
the continuous building line. In residential sections of the Historic Dis-
trict, building setbacks vary with some of the City's oldest residential
structures continuing the tradition of building close to the public right-
of-way. The majority of residential structures, however, are set back an
average of ten (10) to twenty-five (?S) feet from the public sidewalk
with a small grassed lawn area found in front. Most buildings have
their entrances facing the public street.
1. Position the building on the lot in a manner that is consistent with
otherstructures onthe block and's•ideof the street.
2. Orient the building's front entrance in a similarmanner to other
structures on the'block. The incorporation of architectural ele-
ments such as•porches and stoops will help to reinforce the
building's placementon the street.
3. The maximum allowable width or depth of a structure shall be the
same as the ~vidch and depth requirements for lot coverage and set-
backs as established in the New Bern Land Use Ordinance.
r'_y~
'~YK
~._ _.!
.~

~~ ---~
s ND t
L _ _ .-r
~f°arclFtCx of= P~Urw~NQs
~'oticW mN41STSu7 Py.Ti~F{J
IF fT fiKtsTS•
1N CaHMiReI/rr. ASS, PqT~.}-
Fi+.Y tht UTr~E of No st•KF
t'~fYlaHtt sT1~4e7tIFE3)
4. Maintain the pattern of separation between buildings that is found on the block.
S. Place outbuildings and accessory structures in secondary or tertiary areas.
6. Minimize disruption to the site to avoid unnecessary destruction of unknown archaeological re-
sourcesand mature vegetation. '
B ~ILDII~tG SCALE/HEIGHT
spect thatexistingscale.
The scale of a building is determined by the size of the units oFconstruction and architectural details in
relation to the size of man and also by the relltionship of bcli(ding mass to adjoining open space and •
nearby buildings and structures (i.e., proportion). Changes in thesize of an architectural elementsuch as a
window or sidingcan significantly disruptthe harmonyof elements on a building and adversely impact
the character oEthe historic resource. Likewise, newconstcuctionthatoccurs in aneighborhood ofsimilar
scale that ignores tharscale can disrupt the harmony of thesrreetscape in which it is located; Buildings in
the New Bern Historic District are generally sintilar~in scale. Thus, it is importantthat new buildings re-
In the residential areas of the Historic District, buildings ate traditionally 2 to 2-1/2 stories in height. In
commercial areas, while 2 story buildings dominate, there exists a greater variety in height. This is
achieved not only by the presence ofmulti-storied buildings, buralso by the use of racied~cornice andpara-
pettreatments, rowers, cupolas, and other rooftop appurtenances. Generally, buildings in the Historic
Districtshall notexceed a heightof thirty-five (35) Feet, excluding rooftop appurtenances such as spires,
cupolas, and towers. The thirty-five (3~) Feet threshold is measured From ground le~•el to the bottom of the
cornice line ofthe bui{ding. l-Ieight.requirementsore explained in further detail in Article XXiIIoFthe blew
Bern Land Use Ordinance.

'*• ~
HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES
~~
that are found on the City's historic
buildings. This includes, but may not '
be limited to, brick, rusticated and
smooth face concrete block, stucco, -
~ ;,~ ,

and wood. Materials such as a[umi- ,
;
~ .; •;,~:
s ~'::

~ , r
num and vinyl siding, asbestos '°!~~'• t, ~.. ~
. ~; ~~ .;~
shin les artificial brick and stone ~,~~ k~•r
~~~ ~~
sheathin and other imitation sidings
g, b ~~ ~`.~ L~
>;~ ~ ~ ~~ •~. .
~•
shall not be used as the principal
ildi
b
i
l
h
hi ~ .,~`~`"'-•
ngs.
s on new
u
eat
a
ng mater
s
Limited use of such materials maybe ,
~,..~,~
~ ~`~.,`.,~;
~
:~ ..
.deemed appropriate for cornice and c,r,~.r ., ~..~
:: ti , ---_..•,
other decorative architectural.rreat- + ~ •
meats and for new window units. Usc ''~• _,,,~ :--~
of modern materials in limited applica- •
t1~e tl'7fhdl,i
l~rick• sG-te, cuu/err, a-r,l «•und ,lrN -,rasrrr/irlh• cantGi,re~l in
rions.is acceptable as a means oEco11' hLrJcs flunk, 6(l? r4lid,flc Srrrrt. -
timing the evolution'oEarchitecture
rhrou~h time: Howeve>; said materials
ace not appropriate in large applications clue to their potential co ert~de the historic charactet• of tl~e District.
, ~1 ~~!'
Y. Keep the predominant material of
the new building within-the paletrr
of materials traditionally found in
the Historic District. These include,
but are not limited to, brick, rusti-
cated and smooth face concrete
block, stucco, and wood.
2. Materials such as aluminum and
vinyl siding, asbestos shingles, arti-
ficial brick and stone sheathing;,
and other imitation sidings sh:111
not be used as the principal she:itl~-
ingmaterials onnew buildings.
~~.
,~
3. Limit the use of contemporary and Tbc rrsc• r,/•rcd Grirk u•irl, l,l,rt•k brick G,unlinr, rr•irrduu•s u•itl~ ,r rcrriral
synthetic materials. Vinyl, alunti- uricvr&rtiun, acrd t/,rc•c-p,-rr rlir~isiurr try N,e /:rca~le rr•crc d /err r,% for design
num, exterior insulation finch sys- c'/c'rrrc'~rrs «srd tr, rcGdc• tl.~c (;nu•rn Cuu,rrr ~I rurcx tr, the /.~,'sr~,ri< currrt-
tems,fiberglass and other materials L'r,rrsc•,
may be used for windowand door units ;uul trim, nrrhitr~tural c,rnamentaticm,~ornice trearmcnts, etc.
4. Use materials in traditional ways. (\'~~~• materials shuul~ :~ppr:ir as iF thrr were appliec{ in a traditional
manner so as to convey the same visual ap}~earance as hisrerrirall}• used :uui applied building m:irrrials.~
DETAILS
Nesv Bern's two hundred year archire~ruril e~•nlutinn has produced a rich and carird paletrr of building
styles, details, architectural ornament, :~nJ uc„istruction trrhne,lagy. The prrsenre c,f these Fe;uurrs creates a
visullly deiightEul setting for the pedr,rri;ln ;end studrnr:uul ;ulmirrr of nrchirertural history slik~. heweon-
struction shouldcontinue that progres~ir rn, yrr ~4•ur(: within thrr,r;ihlishrd Fram~•~~•c,rl: aF;lrChtr~•~IUr;1J detail-
ing char ch:uacterizes the New Bern Hire u•i~ I )i,n•i~r. t\s r, mrrn,hr,rar•y, ycr rrmr~,arihlr new drsi;~n is rlxour-

+ L
. HISTOttIC DrSTRICT GL-ot:ulVEs
theplacement of windows, doors, andporches on a building's Facade all work too ther toestablish a•cer-
rain pattern thatcharauerizes a building, streetscape, or a district. Variations or repetition of certain
forms and building Features in the streetscape should be carefully evaluated and considered in any new
construction project.
1. Design new construction rhatreFlects the basic shapes and forms Found on the block and in the His-
roricDistrict;
?. Employ roof Forms and pitches that are traditionally found in the Historic District. Flat or lour
sloped roofs arecommonlyfound in New Bern's Downto~~•n Commercial District, while roofs in the
residential sections of the Historic Districtgenerally hate roof pitches of i/1? orgreater. RooFforms
commonly found in residential areas include: gable ~•arieties, hip, gambrel and mansard styles.
3. i`taintain similar percentages of window and door openin~*s to those of neighboring historic srruc-
tures. Openings which varysignificantly from that which exists in die arra surrounding the pro-
posed near construction will tend ro have a disruptive effect .utd draw undue attention to the ne«•
srrutsure. 'a'
• ',
4."Create rhythm and form in new construction through the
use of details. Elements found on neighboring historic
structures such as columns, shutters, and decorati~•e.
sa«•nwork when viewed collectively help establish a leer(
of rhythm and form thatshould be emulated in new con-
struc~ion.

/'~`
\\
a
Q Q D Q p D fl U C.~ t~.. p
I~~
No
.'~ ^~~
.g.
oan afl o a ~QU~~ m ~
~ a o n I ~ r; ~ I ~
~-.~
Yes '
i
~~NESTP~TIOu
TNa W~uooWg f-NO GboFs IN NE-`I guu~INas gHOUto PEE
coMFa.T~~~~ IN •~Isc, sH+~IE,pFopbrc~oN,kNo Ix~.TrcN WITH ~
c•
Tt1aSE Cf NEpFltcyyHa co~lbtr(INa ST'FUC7Llp-ES. c'
i
~, .r
j'.
.~
.-

r
I1 ` ~~ 4
t tT. }:

~..
.,
~..••.r
+•4 , ~.
r
%~,' rc~pc7itiun n/•Grrilclin~~~ /rr,rr~ nnc/ detril;
~Arl,li~l~rs,r rl.~t•tlan iu ,rrrhitcc•turr,rs
ri,hvrc•c•J I,~~ tl.•c•_c strrc•hc•,rpr tdru•s a~tGe
I!tt llnik r,~Alc•R~rl% Stnc•t (~rbur•t'1 nnrl tl~r
UU I+G,c~ u% i~i,-~ Strc•rt (l,~•h,rr•1.
a~

W ~-
H-$TOR-C DISTRICT GU-DELIh1E$
q • •
• Landscape elements, both natural and•man-made, play an imporrantrote in helping to define the
..:.
' total "cultural environment" of the New Bern Historic District. Mature trees, hedge rows, foun-
dationplantings, formal and informal gardens, grassy lawns, patios, fences, walls, curbingand
walkway treatments, public parks, lighting, art and statuary, and streetscape furniture all con-
tribute to the character of a specific site and the Historic District as a whole. Importantly, these fearurespro-
vide acontext for and enhance the historic built environment. Equally as important, theyhelp to further com-
municateman's interaction with his surroundings.
The public areas of the residential sections of the Historic District are characterized by tree-lined streets.
Street trees are generally located in a planting strip located between the public sidewalk and the streetcurb.
The consistent treatment of uniformly spaced canopy trees set in a linear grass strip serves as a unifying ele-
ment of the streetscape.and shall be preserved. When tree replacement is warranted, new trees shall be of a de-
ciduous, Large canopy variety that will help to establish a definable urban forest•"edge" at the street. Smaller
tree species may be permitted in areas where utility wires and other site features cause overhead obstruction.
Grass areas in the planting strip shall
remain intact..
Residential~areas of the Historic
District are also characterized bysmall
private lawn and garden areas. Gar-
dens are generally located in .rear
yards, but larger lots also have side
yards with gardens. These lush land-
scapes, both formal and informal in
their presentation, are characterized by
a variety of indigenous plantings rang-
ingfrom man-re canopy trees to Flow-
eringshrubs to perennial bulbs. The
preservation and propagation of these
native plant species is encouraged,
New plantings should consist of plant
species that are indigenous to the argil
and complement the existing vegeta-
tion onthe sire.
i'r~tertion oEmature rues is prUVidetl fcn• undrrrlrticle XL`~ of the New Bern Land Use Ordinance. ingen-
A s~rass planting strip u~itb large sliacle trees along the street ch.•rructerires
~NSicfc~++ticrl sections uf•tl~c Historic District.

H15TORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES •
' ~ 1. Maintain mature street trees. When removal or replacement is warranted, replace with a tree of the
same species or another tree that will achieve a similar canopy and street edge definition at maturity.
Canopy trees suitable for placement along the street include: assorted maple and oak species,
Zelkova, Honey Locust, Sweet Gum, Sycamore, Bald Cypress, Pecan, Beech, Walnut, and Ginko
{male). .
2. Obtain a tree removal permit prior to tree removal in accordance with Section IS-379 of the New
Bern Land Use Ordinance.
3. Plant sr~naller tree species in the planting strip adjacent to the public street only if utility lines or other
overhead obstructions exist.
•4. Preserve the planting strip found, bervveen the public sidewalk and the street curb. This area should
remain predonunatelygrassond trees. Small walkways connecting the curb•to.the pubiic sidewalk
may be permitted, provided they align with the walkway leading to the front entrance of the house
. • and do not exceed a width of six {6) feet. In no case shall trees be removed from the planting strip in
F. .,' '. order to provide for a new walkway installation.
?~-•:~~:5: Useplantmaterialsthatare'itidigenoustotheliistoricDistrict.I~etvplantmaterialsshouldcomple-
~` meat those found on the site and in the Historic District. ~ ~ .
6. Retain and maintain landscape elements that contribute to the characterof the Historic Districtsuch
as mature trees and hedge rows, grassy lawns, foundation plantings, paving materials, ground cov-
ers,fountains, statuary, outbuildings, and gardens.
7. Keep the location of new landscape features consistent with the location of similar elements in the
Historic District.
~, 8. Avoid the use of contemporary plant bed edging materials such as exposed landscape timbers in pri-
mary and secondary areas of visual concern.
9. Maintain the relationship between building mass and open space thatexis~ts on the block or
streetscape.
10. Locate additions and new constructifln, if possible, in areas that do not necessitate the removal of
mature plantings ortause the
disruption of the established 4~;~: ~ `. _ ~ ~,..- ,; 1.R . f a~~'it. ..••
rhythm of building mass and :f:~• ,.-~F ~ ~~~,;~~ ~-.€~ art-. ,.
open space.
11. Undertake commercialstreet-
scape improvements in accor-
dance tivith the 1990 NervBern
Urban Design Plan. For public
improvements, use the family
of streetscape furniture and
pavement treatments recom-
mended bythe Plsn.
1?. Use outbuildings, public art,
statuary, and fountains as fo-
calpoin~s inpublic and private
sp:~res. tlvoid plating such ele-
ments in areas that will ob-
scure hisrflricbuildings ortheir
architerrural features. Due to
tl~e subje<<ivity involved in the
Our a/•tGc fete early Grid outbtrildi~rgs ren~,ti~ring ire Netts $c~rn, tl~e
s~nnl.•rhun~c~ at tFie Attnrnre-Olirer House is d Tarr strrt~ivor i~- a
tc~wusrapr tG,rt u~as rGarcrctcri:eci by large uuruLers o~ "rfepe~ndrucy"
structurrs..tiurb Guildiu{~~ u~rre rypitnlly ~i(.rc'c~~! in rr.rr ya~rcla.

HISTORfC DISTRICT GU(f7ELINES
' / / 1
a- ides . •
One of the greatest challenges in the management of the Historic District is the sensitive
treatmentand integration of utilities into the landscape. Lefc unabated, these features often
~~~ contribute to visua!•clurter. When introducing new mechanical and electrical equipment
and'lines, care must be taken that historic elements of~the building or important landscape
features are not damaged or obscured. Frequently utilities such•as HVAC units that aie located outside
will have to be elevated by virtue of their location in the Eloodplain. Utility equipmentshould be located
in secondary or tertiary areas and •
be sufficently screened from the ~ __ „. .:,~,-.:•, r•~ - u i r~-
public view by means of vegeta- ~> ~• .~ ~ ~~ ~ __ b ~-.
lion, fencing, or other means. (Ap- „ ~ ~ "r : ~ ~~
royal for such installations ma • ' - ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~~ { ~ '~wr~
P Y .. „
be handled through the minor '
works process.) Whenever practi- . '~ ` •~ . ~" ' •,
cably possible, utility lines should '" •,~,,,. •, F .,l,,, ' . ~,;, ." ~ . ~•,,,~.
~belocatedundergrourid. ;~;~~'":`~-a~l~ 7~lililll li~j ~•
'v e ' dividu- ~~ •`£4 r~ ~' ~~ ~ 1
In addition topri at in ~ ~•~ ~ ~•....~,:.,f.~
als and utilityproviders, all public •,; . _ . ~~ ~ •• .;.;.~,. ,
r , ,~ ~„}.
utility companies, including the =~:; ? .- ~• •
=;..
State of North Carolina, its politi- ~,'•'~"~'~- ::-.:. ::.• ;,;
cal subdivisions, agencies, and in- '°`:" "~, r ~-_I '~~' '`~
strumentalities,shail be required kr : ~ ~`±y''' ~~'~`~:' _ "''
to obtain a Certificate oEAppro- ~~ ~•• .. • •- ~~•• ` ` •~"`~
~ y 4
priateness (COA) prior to initiat-
ing any changes in utility installs- This cuoodu, fe,rce at for Jerkins-Ricl,ardsn„ Hn,ue, S?0 Cn-ve„ Street,
,ras recreated Cased on a cu. 1 S63 dor,ruirntary pfiotognrph. Aside from
lions or structures on easements (,eing decorative, c{,e fe,rce of/i~ctivrly~ scrrr„s cin HVAC unit /ra„ p,rblic
or streets located in the Historic ,~ic~,r~.
District or on a landmark prop-
erty. Ucilityinstallations will be evaluated by the Commission on the basis oFdesign, scale, musing,
color, cornpatibiliry with surrounding strertscape Features, and overall visual impact on the Historic
District.
A Certificate of Appropcistenrss is nat required forordin:~ry mainrenanre or repair in-kind ofutiliry
lines and support structures , and ur replacement of street Fi elutes in the ecenr of equipment failure or
damage due to accident or natural c~~rurrenres, such aselectrical storms, torn:-does, and ire sri,rms.

V

~~
0

~ 1 ~ ~
6: is
CY.:+
~~.~
r_3r:a
.~ .
~~•.
'E'". , ,
'E..~" ~1
-_`~:~:
+`~ .>~L
7 ~rsW
]_ __
• s- ~
..,R,~ I~S t
~ ~ ~;F3 ....~
:,
.1~ ".
~' . ~.. !.
~~.:~
• l Yyf: t
YYI~~:'
1
.
- . Y.'i..f{
lye^~ :
.
- ..
'
. ' ' ~ .
'C'?.' J
~ ~ 'E::

~i~ i~ ~~:
f.••~
.
'+
~~a
~: ~a ~~.
~
..,~:~;
r.;.
~, H t
.
~
,
.
;M4
'
+
f c..
~
~
w'~'` ~~
P, c.... r~~:~
:"
.i
.
W
~ °O

Z y
+
.Ca ~
• rT
. ,; ~;
~. .,
••~ • • '~~
~'.. .. ~ :, ai ~.
t~Jt ~-~ .
~~~fri.' .." ~T
ti:4 '
rm,.iFj:
L't'• \ ~ 4
YY1~'•'~.} v~i1
~,'
P.:
~.
1
~ ,~~~
..,.
'• d
P
r'
~ ~_
'..,
r
'~'
G
0
{N~
4+
tY
s
N
'f
e
T '
/~l
`I
~./`''

-- ~ ! V
V '
~ ` i^
Y _~1`V\
f
J
`J
~:'~ .
'~'.. .' V
i~! ~
~.5 i i ~1.. ;, YY
'~:.fii•~.i .
.'.!
• :~.
::~:a
. =::~u,
,;:. °~
~;::~:p
~~yr+,.'.,. ,'y
... __ .._~...-'- - a
w
n
~nl N F
Z ~
O
S

y 1
~.. ,_,
M
(~
~~
A
7"i ~ ^~
t •~
~..4
1
{~
r O
Z ^
S o

,~ ; .~.~,
n
i,
A p~~ry
.~1~+. . . ~ oHr4:~lfr~ s
_~4~°, ~.
~.
.
.. :
;~ ~~~}4}
i
yl
(~
~ •"
1
t
` '
r~x S.
`
`
~~ f..~ ~+
~ _
~~,~ ~ i
~;iyr

•••
... .'..~L~ L:.^" ~
~=t.
.. ... ..
`'`•
:i~, ,~.~
/F~
W
N

i~
---~
,~
~ '~, a
... ~ -~
~~ ~ ti
`~
n~
v
U
is
"; w
w a~ ~ ~
~1
v ~ .,
~ , Q ~
~ ~ " ~ O
:: ~ as
~~ ~I ! a a
~ ~~
~, .`
~ .1 I .. ti
I. j j :.:;
I '
~ ~ I . ~~ ..,.I
_- -- ~,
s ~
~'. h~ ..
~ ~ ~
CI z z
a

F
S

O N

1TI1

~,, , ~- `,
~,,rl
~~ -,
1 ~'
.~
~~
`~ ,
~~ ~
~~~ °~,
,,:
&i ;4i, .
~^~~ ~. ~.
raj.. +~~:r
r +.<, ..... .

~ g
/t ry
a
a
k
O
N

i~
~~---,
~. ;G,
~, ,
~. ~
~ ,~

~- ~,
;~
~~
~`

,~; ^'
1
~,T~

~ 'C~
1~
r~1
J
~~ ~
4
~'
1'
. ~ ~..
~4_:

..,
~~
~:~ ~~.
n
_..~
~7,
~ ~
V .1 '-~
in
F
Z

/ '~
C~t~~r of ~~kzr ~~rr~
ALDERMAN TOM BAYLISS,111
JULIUS C. PARHAM, JR. MAYOR
ROBERT G. RAYNOR, JR. WALTER B. HARTMAN, JR.
MACK L. "MAX" FREEZE CfiY MANAGER
JOSEPH E. MATTINGLY, JR.
BARBARA LEE VICKIE H. JOHNSON
VNLLIAM H. BALL£NGER _ CITY CLERK
CN.Ilree Cnenturies IIf ~1ur#Il Cnttralinu~.eriftt~e MARY B. MURAGLIA
FOUNDED 1710 CITY TREASURER
Phone: [phone] P.O. Box 1129 ~y
~1efu fern, pfd ,2$553-11,2$ ~ ~~.~+
~. ~e~*I,r.,
MEMO
TO: Tracy Roberts, HNTB North Caroli~na~,,P.C.
FROM: Leigh Anne Friesen, Planner I'1 ~
DATE: November 4, 2005
RE: Amended COA for the Alfred Cunningham Bridge
Attached are the drawings you submitted to satisfy the condition of your Certificate of
Appropriateness that NCDOT return to the Commission with a more patterned tapered
retaining wall. They were approved by the Commission on 10/19/05 with the condition
that NCDOT follow up with Danny Meadows, City of New Bern Director of Public
Works, regarding landscape planting details.
Please don't hesitate to let me know if you need anything more.
A
~trllsing fur ~xrel~nt~

J
,~.k_
-r ~~
d~~s~
~gaw.~.AP
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTIVIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NiicHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
October 4, 2005
MEMORANDUM TO: Vincent J Rhea
PDEA
FROM: Don Idol
Assistant State Bridge Inspection Engineer
SUBJECT: Alfred Cunningham Bridge, TIP B-2532
Bridge #60 Craven County
Rehabilitation of Existing Bridge Comments
The Alfred Cunningham Bridge carrying US 70 Business across the Trent River was built in
1955. The bridge consists of 17 - 2 @ 35' continuous I-beam span units, 2 @ 110' swing span
truss, and 5 - 2 @ 35' continuous I-beam span units. The concrete deck is a 28'-0" clear roadway
with 3'-0" sidewalks each side.
The bridge was designed for HS-15 Live Load. The Live load Design criteria for new bridges is
HS-20.
The bridge is currently Posted for Single Vehicle (SV) = 30 Tons and Truck Tractor Semi-Trailer
(TTST) =Legal Gross Weight. For a number of years, the Legal Gross Weight of trucks in North
Carolina has been 40 Tons for both SV and TTST. The North Cazolina Legislature has passed a
number of exceptions to North Cazolina Weight Laws. These changes are being reviewed and
will be adopted in the next few months. The Legal Gross Vehicle Weights will increase to a
minimum of 42 Tons for both SV and TTST and may increase to 45 Tons for TTST.
The bridge is old, deteriorated, has low load capacity, and is not a good candidate for
rehabilitation.
Numerous Concrete Piles have hairline to 1/32" cracks on random faces. All bents have Concrete
Piles with cracks larger than 1/32" up to'/a" maximum crack width. Piles have surface
deterioration to 38/" in depth and random pitting to 1" deep in Tidal Zone. Numerous Piles have
spalls with exposed reinforcing steel and cracks are observed above high tide mark.
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECR6fARY
Both the swing span and the approach spans would need strengthening to carry today's loads.
MAILING ADDRESS:
BRIDGE MAINTENANCE UNIT
1565 MAIL SERVICE CErn'ER
WLLEICiH NC 27699-1565
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.oOH.DOT.STATE.NC.I/S
LOCATION:
4609 BERYL ROAD
RALEIGH, NC

-' ~ ~,
Bridge #60 Craven County, TIP B-2532
Page 2 of 2
October 4, 2005
All machinery and controls should be replaced. The Fender System should be replaced.
From a Maintenance viewpoint, it is not logical to rehabilitate a 50 year old bridge.
Please advise if I can be of further assistance in this matter.

i• Commander
~.---•"'"(J.S. Department of United States Coast~Guani
• Homeland Security Fifth Coast Guard District
United States
Coast Guard
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh N.C. 27699-1548 .
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
h
•,c~ „
a;'^,~
o~~slp~~,~~
This is response to your letter of June 22, 2004, regarding the proposed improvements to your
Bridge No. 60 (Alfred Cunningham Bridge) over Trent River.
In response to our previous telephone conversation, you were provided a copy of our Bridge
Permit Application Guide delineating our requirements in obtaining a formal Coast Guard bridge
permit. Upon review of the proposed replacement project, we will proceed with the publication
of our public notice. If you choose to refurbish the bridge in-kind, the following initial
conditions are required: '
You or the contractor must notify us at least 45 days in advance of the rehabilitation, and any
work or structures placed in the water, which may be obstructions to navigation so we can
publish the information in our Local Notice to Mariners. Please advise us of the location and
type of construction plant that will be used in this activity. Plans showing this infozmation as
well as the sequence of operations should be provided to us at the time of the 45-day advance
notification. •
Please call Mr. Gary Heyer, Bridge Management Specialist at the above listed number, if you
have any further questions.
Sincerely,
WAVERLY . G GOR , JR.
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004
Staff Symbol: atx '
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: gheyer(a3lantd5.uscg,,mil
-. ~_ "
16593 N'~
22 Ju104 .;~~ ~E ~ ~/ ~~~,
Copy: MSO Wilmington

_ __~
..
^ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. Signattfre
- item 4 H Restricted Delivery is desired. /j ~ ~AgeM
^ Print your name and address on the reverse ~ ^ Addressee
so that we can return the card to you. g;`~Received bvl~hrinted Name) C. Date of
^ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, ; ~~~!%~ ~ ~`~~ -
or on the front H space permits.
D. Is delivery address different from item 1 T ^ Yes
1. Article Addressed to: - H YES, errter delivery address bebw_ ^ No
w
^^^~
~ ~
~ ~ 3~
- a.
City of New Bern 1 .r ~"~
PO Box 1129 a. Service type
New Bern, NC 28563 ^ CertHied Mall ^
^ Registered ^ Ret M .
^ Insured Mail ^ C.O.D.
4. ResMctexi Delivery? (Extra Fee) ^ Yes
2. Article Number
(TransferlromseMcefabel) 7005 1820 0002 0149 6395
PS Fonn 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 1oasas-o2-nn-lsa
i~
^ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
^ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you. g,
^ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front H space permits. i
D.
1. Article Addressed to:
Shipyard Properties
101 Howell Road
New Bern, NC 28562
c ~ ~ , i r ^ Agent
gecrei{red by ( nfed Name) C. Date of Deliven
Is delivery address different from item 1? ^ Yes
H YES, enter delivery address bebw: ^ No
3. Servke Type
^ Certified Mail ^ Express Mail
^ Registered ^ Return Receipt for Merchandisr
^ Insured Mall ^ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivercy'7 (Extra Fee) ^ yes
2. Artk~ Number
~ (Translerlrom service fae~ 7 0 0 5 ], 8 2 0 0 0 0 2 .014 9 6 418
PS Fonn 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return ecei tatsss-o2~M-1s~
^ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 H Restricted Delivery is desired.
^ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
^ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front H space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
Craven County
406 Craven Street
New Bern, NC 28560
A. Sig !~
!'/ (c ^~M
~, ~! Addresser
by(Prin/~~~c C.b~~l~~l/~
D. Is delivery addrerss different from item 1? ^ Yes
H YES, enter delivery address bebw: ^ No
3. Service Type
^ Certified Mail ^ Express Mail
^ Registered ^ Return Receipt for Merchandis
^ Insured Mail ^ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ^ Yes
2. Article Number 7 0 0 5 18 2 0 0 0 0 2 014 9 6 3 8 8
(Transfer from servke later
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-15

w
.. ~"
~~~
.,..~ . ~.v~ ~ "
~~~ s ~ yaw
xoq siy; w },+d~Z pue
86Si-669LZ ~N `~?aisg
ia3ua0 ao?niaS I?uY~I 86S i
3?ufl 3uauzuonnug Ism3BN
ioa~N
ueut2ag I?ErJ
ppe `aweu ~no~( Ruud asea~d :~apuas
a
.y o
~~~ ~~~~I~~`. 1SQd S31d1$ a311N(~ ~ ~ ~
U~~Z
d
~n°.~a
ttltt~i-r~tsr urt~rr~ftttr-~rrrtcfi~r~~rrtr a rtrtfit~~j~frl~t ` ~ ~ r~ ~~
V~S"~::, ,li.:
5~~~ 6 ~ ~tiYV
a~~«~~~
86SI-669LZ ~N `u$?aIE2i
ia3ua~ ao?niaS I?uY~i 86SI
3?ujl 3uauiuonnug Ivan32rl
.LOQ~I~I
usureag I?ErJ
.xoq siy~ ui ~+d~Z pue 'ssa~ppe `aweu mop( Ruud asea~d :~apuag
"`r-
SAKir iC~ i ;,~,.ii:%i ~(~
9~iZ ~~ J.7W
~/ l~~V~~
86Si-669LZ ~1`I `u8?ai~g
za3ua~ ao?niaS I?EY~i 86S I
3?un 3uauiuoitnug Isin3Qi~i
,LOQ~N
usuieag I?~rJ
I .xoq siy} ui ~+d~Z pue 'ssa~ppe `aweu mo~f Ruud asea~d :~apuas . I
OL-J 'WV 3iuLad
s~sn
qed saa~ ~ a6e3sod .
~iey~ sse~Q-3s~!~ 3~IA2i3$ ltflSOd S31t/ls a311N(I
w
U
w
Q`
a
w
a
0
w
--
z
D
~i
W
o
~°
N v
}
~

rrr

~

~ _
Cam.
1
~:=
/
V
W >-
si
~ `=-'
c
a

~.
~~~
~~
~U "
°~ ~ ~
~o
O ~ N
•~ v~ U
~~
~~W eZ
~ O e ~ a~
~A~o°O,~
~zz~v~

~.
f
f.
z
~Q~ o
C
i
i ~,~
i
iii
ii
ii
I~~ o
i~~ o
~~~ ~
~~ o
\~ ~o JJ
~~ .
~ ~~
~~
m
d
O
B
N
'fl
x
9

r r 1~
~ ~
0 ~ ~
n

S
C~a
N

A
i

3m
i
r
N
A
N

.' '~
G
~1
r
~~
r
ry , ~77
C
r
~r
..1 A
4~
8 8 ~ ~$
D
~z ~~ D C7 ~
~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ P
-t
y ~ m ~
O
O
O

M
4
C

•a. a i
~~
` ~ I
z
- c~
a
! ~„
i n
1
1
~~
?,
2 ~--
`-r~
I
I
I
x
~n
~m
n
x
a
z
z
a
F
~,

~ ~ ~
~~
.n
r
~ ~
Sp
~ C1
Z
Z
Z
a
c~
rn
~o
m
w
r
a
n
m
m
Z
~~~~
~~~
~~~

C ELF
J
0 ~ O Y
N
W I
i
~
C~rM
II II II II
~ N {O N
~
~ V
°
~
g
...
~I °o

O, I
I
V I
I
~ m

i ~ +

/ l.d
\ II it II II
Z
0 ~ N
~ ~ J
41C
VO
O G
O
~
Jl
t
/ O
~
N
~ +
/

N ~ ~

N I
W
I
0
N I

N I

x
N

I
M

N I
V
I
N I
00 I
N '
~O I

W '
O
`\ rn $
~ ~
_ ~
_ - __ x~
`
1
?
~ $
W
\
~ o
~ `".
N

W
1
~
\ ~ C7 r ~
u
` n u u
w
OD O A +
(71 \ ~ •a A
N
~ ~
\ ~
\
W W
W
()1 i 1 \

W o y
~ m z ~
C ~ /
n n
~/ ,~~~~
°
I u n II v
~
\ W
~IVpA

O

p ENO (;RAQE STA~+/3S5
i i
c 0 c 0 0
°~
' ~ A y~'•
~ i~~ c~ ~y
T ~ ~~ .A;
y ~, .`i.. 4'..
j ~ ~
~ a ; 1 ~ Y. Ir ;:, : ~..
r
+,~J~ I~fi
n
r
~ ~Y:1 ~ ~
~:~ o ~;.
Y~ ~,+
,.
..
~_ ..
0 :'
~~
y'
~~.
~~
r~~C~
i-
:~
a
bA
-W
sm
7•
.N
s O7x~
P~~?'" ~Q
r 1,
l~
0
7
r.
.~ t •71/ 0
w
1 ~-',~ . ~ C ~ b
}l
`, , ~ y
~ a
~:; ~. ; ~ ~ "~ ~ ~ ~1
~. yin
i
F o g~ ~~z
y~ ~ N
ro rn~ ~~o
~ o '~
,ate,, , , . ~ ~ i
m

,.,
D
m
'W
D
Z
z
c~
D
s
Z
m
r b
i
~ ~ ~
~ ~• ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~
r. ~ m ~

o ~ ~
c~
`~ ~ d
,
,' Q
~.
~ a tn

~

~
rt ~

~
~
~ '~ ~
~
~_
O
~ y+
~
O .
~' 3
~a
oT r
~~
N m
gv
c
z
z
z
c~
a
3
00
~o
m
~o
m
'v
r
n
m
m
z

i
i
i
i
ii
i
ii
o
III o
II~~ o
~~ o
of
~~~J
m
0
~.
rt
~D
<D
D~~
3
~ ~ ~ ~+ m
~+
°.
H T
~' ...
C
~ ~ u w
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ o

~.

Q

~

O
n

~

n

~

O
A J
H
A

r
n N

00
c~
~D
O
7
.~
n
O
7
~D
_~
O~
n
<D
~D
1

3
N
°~i
of
o~i
~ ° ~i
~;