20051120 Ver 1_Complete File_20000508

r
STA7t

„3TE '?ItOll,1tli, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ?- - -

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 4, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: SR 1223, Edgecombe County, Replacement of Bridge No. 60
over Cokey Swamp, State Project 8.2291001, F. A. Project
BRZ-1223(3), B-3639
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on November 16, 1999.
The following people were in attendance:
Tom Tarleton Location Surveys Lanette Ingham Programming & TIP
John Lansford Roadway Design Jim Speer Roadway Design
David Moodie Hydraulics Jerome Nix Hydraulics
Raymond Goodman Right of Way April Alperin SHPO
GENERAL PROJECT INFORINIATION
Current Schedule: Right of Way:
Construction:
March 2002
March 2003
Bridge No. 60
[Built in 1964] [96 feet long] [25-foot wide deck] [24 feet bridge roadway width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 19 feet]
[Posted 13 tons for SV, 17 tons for TTST's]
[Sufficiency Rating 38.9]
Traffic Information
SR 1223 is a Rural Local Route with no posted speed limit in the vicinity.
Current ADT: less than 400 vpd, Projected 2025 ADT: 1000 VPD, I% Duals, 4% TTST
Accidents: Three accidents have been reported in the last three years. One the result of a
deer crossing the road. A second due to exceeding a safe speed on a curve 900 feet north

of the bridge. The third due to floodwaters crossing, the approach immediately south of
the bridge.
SCOPING COMMENTS
Jerome Nix of Hydraulics recommended a new 130 foot long bridge for the new
structure. The new roadway should be at the same grade as the existing. If an onsite
detour is considered, it will require an 80 foot temporary bridge placed just downstream
(east) of the existing bridge. From a hydraulic standpoint, the onsite detour can be 3-feet
lower than the existing bridge.
Emergency Services of Edgecombe County has written in to state that temporary
road closure would not pose an "unworkable" situation for Fire and Rescue Operations.
The Edgecombe County Schools Transportation Department has commented that
there are three school buses that travel over this bridge twice a day. Temporary road
closure would not pose a particular burden.
John Hennessy of NCDENR had no particular concerns about this project.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resource Commission wrote in comments stating that
Cokey Swamp is know to support anadramous fish including striped bass and American
shad. NCDOT should follow Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage.
A bridge is strongly recommended at this site.
April Alperin of SHPO indicated that neither an architectural nor archaeological
survey would be required.
Wendi Oglesby, Division Construction Engineer, recommends using an off-site
detour via SR 1006, NC 43, and SR 1224. She notes that this route is in good shape and
should require no work to be utilized.
T. E. Tarleton of Location Surveys noted no utilities in the project vicinity.
ALTERNATES FOR EVALUATION
Only one build alternate will be evaluated for this project.
Bridge No. 60 will be replaced on the existing location. Traffic to be detoured
offsite during construction.
Jim Speer of Roadway Design has indicated that construction estimates will be
available at the end of June 2000.
,?°? ? QS[lZb
?IN2 !SQ
3 O
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA wFr?NOSq osrTFROUq?006
DEPARTWNT OF TRANSPORTATION °R""t'A?Re
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS LYNDOiETf
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 22, 2006
VMS Element: 33187.3.2 (B-3639)
Contract No. C201470
F. A. Number: BRZ-1223 (6)
County: Edgecombe
Description: Bridge over Cokey Swamp and Approaches on SR 1223
MEMORANDUM TO: Ellis C. Powell, Jr., PE
State Construction Engineer
FROM: Wendi O. Johnson, PE
Division Construction Engineer
SUBJECT: Approved Preconstruction Conference & Permit Meeting Minutes
We are transmitting an approved copy of the minutes covering the Preconstruction Conference for
the above project, which was held on June 6, 2006. The minutes were approved by the Contractor,
S. W. Wooten Corporation, as recorded.
Attachment
c: Ron Lucas (FHWA)
Gary Jordan (US Fish & Wildlife)
Nicole Thomson (NCDENR, Division of Water Quality)
John Holley (NCDENR, Land Quality Section)
Travis Wilson (NCWRC)
David Cox (NCWRC)
Ron Sechler (National Marine Fisheries)
Bill Biddlecome (US Army Corps of Engineers)
Ernie James (Edgecombe-Martin EMC)
Joan Waruszcak (Sprint)
Post Office Box 3165, Wilson, North Carolina 27895-3165
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Ellis C. Powell, Jr., PE
June 22, 2006
Page 2
ec: Cecil Jones, PE
Donald Pearson, EI, CPESC
Robert Simpson
Andy Brown, PE
Bobby Lewis, PE
Mike Robinson, PE
Andy Pridgen
Shannon Sweitzer, PE
Lloyd Johnston, Jr.
Eddie Bunn, PE
Keith Honeycutt, PE
Charles W. Brown, PE, PLS
Kevin Lacy, PE
Victor Barbour, PE
Don G. Lee
Jimmy Marler
Jamie Guerrero
Warren Walker, PE
Haywood Daughtry, PE
John Williamson
Chris Kreider, PE
Stephen M. Worthy
David R. Henderson, PE
Jermery Armstrong
Ronnie Moore
Ronnie Keeter, PE
Kenny Baines
PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE AND PERMIT MEETING MINUTES
It
WBS Element: 33187.3.2 (B-3639)
Federal Aid No.: BRZ-1223 (6)
Contract No.: C201470
County: Edgecombe
Description: Bridge over Cokey Swamp and Approaches on SR 1223
The Preconstruction Conference for the above project was held in the Wilson Division Office Conference
Room on June 6, 2006 with the following persons in attendance:
NAME REPRESENTING
Andy Pridgen NCDOT - QA Lab
Mickey Renfrow NCDOT - Right of Way
Jimmy Long NCDOT - Construction
Cordell Lyons NCDOT - Construction
Jimmy Lewis NCDOT - Construction
Jimmy Deal NCDOT - Construction
Eddie Bunn NCDOT - Construction
Michael Alford S. T. Wooten Corp.
Jeffery Thompson S. T. Wooten Corp.
Erick Frazier S. T. Wooten Corp.
Rick Poythress NCDOT - Location & Surveys
Mike Robinson NCDOT - Construction Unit
Katie Simmons NCDOT - Roadside Environmental Unit
Stephen Jones NCDOT - Roadside Environmental Unit
Wendi Johnson, Division Construction Engineer, presided over the conference. She asked everyone present to
introduce themselves and their company affiliation.
The Contractor presented his letter naming persons authorized to sign Supplemental Agreements.
Jeffery Thompson will act as Project Superintendent for the Contractor. Michael Alford is the Project
Manager.
Jimmy Lewis will act as Project Inspector and Traffic Control Coordinator for the Division of Highways.
Todd Berrier will be the assistant.
The Contractor advised they plan to begin work July 5, 2006.
The Contractor presented his progress schedule. He was advised that it would be checked, and he would
be advised if satisfactory. By copy of these minutes, we are advising the Contractor that his progress
schedule has been checked and is approved as corrected.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3639
Page 2
RIGHT OF WAY
Mickey Renfrow covered this portion of the contract.
All of the right of way necessary for this project has been acquired.
There are no 200 Series Items on this project.
There is no known asbestos contamination, underground storage tanks, or any known soil contamination
within the right of way of the project.
The Contractor is advised not to exceed the right of way or easement areas during construction without
written permission from the property owner.
LOCATION & SURVEYS
Rick Poythress advised that the surveying for this project was done in 2000. Should you have any
questions, please contact his office (252-234-1118).
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS
Mr. Andy Pridgen, Division QA Supervisor, asked the Contractor if he had any questions of the Special
Provisions outlined on pages 41 thru 59.
Mr. Pridgen advised that the Special Provisions in this contract are dated 05/17/05.
The Contractor advised that Barnhill Contracting would perform paving on this project.
Attention was called to page 44 of the contract, FIELD COMPACTION QUALITY CONTROL.
Page 6-15, Subarticle 609-5 (D) I
In the last sentence of the third paragraph of this subarticle, insert the wording "and wedging as shown in
the HMA/QMS Manual", after the wording "temporary pavements".
The Contractor, under the supervision of the Department's QA personnel, will perform retesting for mix
deficiencies.
Density testing will be required for wedging (cores will be used).
The use of a separator medium beneath the layer to be tested is prohibited. It is the Contractor's
responsibility to separate the layers.
This is a lump sum project. May need original bid calculations if price adjustments become necessary.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3639
Page 3
QUALITY ASSURANCE
Page 6-18, Article 609-6
In Item 1, under Plant Mix Quality Assurance, substitute 5 percent for 10 percent.
Page 6-19, Article 609-6
Insert the following after Item 4 under Density Quality Assurance:
By periodically directing the recalculation of random numbers for the Quality Control
core or nuclear density test locations. The original QC test locations may be tested by
QA and evaluated as verification tests.
If QA verification sample test results exceed the allowable retesting tolerances, retesting may be needed,
and price adjustments may be required.
The Contractor will repair any damage caused by hauling equipment across structures, at no additional cost
to the Department.
The Contractor will have approximately 1,235 sq. yds. of existing pavement to be recycled. If it is taken
back to the plant, please refer to Section 1012-1 of the Specifications concerning its use.
UTILITY CONFLICTS
Edgecombe-Martin EMC - All conflicts have been cleared.
Sprint - All conflicts have been cleared.
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS
GENERAL
Contract Time and Liquidated Damages - The date of availability for this contract is June 19, 2006.
The completion date for this contract is October 3, 2006, based on a beginning construction date of July 5,
2006.
When observation periods are required by the Special Provisions, they are not a part of the work to be
completed by the completion date and/or intermediate contract times stated in the contract.
The completion date for this project will be determined by adding the number of calendar days entered by the
bidder into the itemized electronic bid to the date the road is closed, except that in no case shall the final
completion date extend beyond November 15, 2006. In no case shall the bidder bid more than 135 consecutive
calendar days.
The daily cost for this contract time is $500.00 per calendar day.
The liquidated damages for this contract are $500.00 per calendar day.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3639
Page 4
Construction Moratorium - No in-water work shall be allowed from February 15 to June 30 of any year.
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
It is the policy of the North Carolina Department of Transportation that Disadvantaged Business
Enterprises shall have the opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts financed in whole or in
part by federal funds in order to create a level playing field.
The Contractor is also encouraged to give every opportunity to allow DBE participation in Supplemental
Agreements.
The Contractor's EEO Officer is George Strickland and the Minority Liaison Officer is Richard Vick.
The Contractor shall exercise all necessary and reasonable steps to insure that Disadvantaged Business
Enterprises participate in at least 8% of the contract.
The Resident Engineer furnished the Contractor with required posters for his bulletin board. The Contractor's
EEO Policy Statement is to be posted on the project's bulletin board, which should be weatherproof, along
with the following posters:
1. Davis-Bacon Minimum Prevailing Wage Rate Schedule
2. Wage-Rate Information - F/A Project, Form PR-1495
3. Notice Relating to False Statements, Form PR-1022
4. EEO Poster - Discrimination is Prohibited
The Contractor is urged to document, in writing, all actions taken in complying with Equal Opportunity of
Employment Provisions, Training Provision, and Minority Business Enterprise Provision. This includes
applicant referrals, meetings with employees, on-site inspections, wage evaluations, etc.
All subcontractors and suppliers are responsible for meeting the same requirements as the prime contractor,
and it is the prime contractor's responsibility to oversee that both are in compliance.
All alleged discriminatory violations should be brought to the attention of the Resident Engineer.
The State and/or FHWA will conduct a Contract Compliance Review sometime during the life of this contract.
Therefore, fair employment practice should be maintained at all times. Women should not be discriminated
against in any way.
Reporting Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Participation - When payments are made to Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise firms, including material suppliers, contractors at all levels shall provide the Engineer with
an accounting of said payments.
Retainage and Prompt Payment - Contractor at all levels, prime, subcontractor, or second tier contractor,
shall within 7 calendar days of receipt of monies resulting from work performed on the project or services
rendered, pay subcontractors, second tier subcontractors, or material suppliers, as appropriate.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3639
Page 5
The Contractor's requested estimate period for this project will be the last day of the month.
The Contractor was reminded that all DBE reporting should be done on line.
Domestic Steel and Iron Products - All steel and iron products which are permanently incorporated into this
project shall be produced in the United States except minimal amounts of foreign steel and iron products may
be used, provided the combined project cost of the bid items involved does not exceed one-tenth of one
percent (0.1 percent) of the total amount bid for the entire project or $2,500.00, whichever is greater. This
minimal amount of foreign produced steel and iron products permitted for use by this Special Provision is not
applicable to fasteners. Domestically produced fasteners are required for this project.
Submission of Records - Federal Aid Projects -- Payroll records are not required on this project nor is
federal form FHWA-47.
Contractor Borrow Source - If the Contractor proposes a borrow source, the environmental assessment
shall include wetlands and stream delineation extending 400 feet beyond the proposed borrow source limits.
Contractor stated they would probably use a commercial pit.
Borrow and Waste Site Reclamation Procedures - The Department's Borrow and Waste Site Reclamation
Procedures for Contracted Projects have been revised and are available on the web site at:
hI(I? /ANm .doh dot.si?ilc nc.us!prcc?i?strucllhi?Im:n'ds(t snc/contractsilel I ing-.lUin
Plant and Pest Quarantines - Edgecombe County is regulated for fire ants. If the project or any part of the
Contractor's operation is located within a quarantined area, Contractor should thoroughly clean all equipment
prior to moving out of the quarantined area. Comply with federal/state regulations by obtaining a certificate or
limited permit for any regulated article moving from the quarantined area. Review information on web site
relating to Plant and Pest Quarantines. Contractor should be familiar with this.
Safety Vests - All Contractor's personnel, all subcontractors and their personnel, and any material suppliers
and their personnel must wear an OSHA approved, reflective vest or outer garment at all times while on the
project. Ms. Johnson advised that non-reflective orange shirts are acceptable for all project personnel except
flaggers.
Erosion & Sediment Control/Storm Water Certification - Schedule and conduct construction activities in a
manner that will minimize soil erosion and the resulting sedimentation and turbidity of surface waters.
Certified Supervisor - Provide a certified Erosion & Sediment Control Storm Water Supervisor to direct the
Contractor and subcontractor's operations, insure compliance with federal, state and local ordinances and
regulations and the Quality Control Program. Certified supervisors will be required on all projects let after
December 31, 2005.
Certified Foreman - Provide a certified, trained foreman for each construction operation that increases the
potential for soil erosion or the possible sedimentation and turbidity of surface waters. Certified foremen will
be required on all projects let after December 31, 2005.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3639
Page 6
Certified Installer - Provide a certified installer to install or direct the installation for erosion or sediment/storm
water control practices. Certified installers will be required on all projects let after December 31, 2006.
The Contractor shall notify the Engineer of changes in certified personnel over the life of the contract within
two days of change.
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS
ROADWAY
Roadway Construction - The Contractor shall perform all construction in accordance with the applicable
requirements of the Standard Specifications, except as otherwise specified in the contract.
Clearing and Grubbing - Perform clearing on this project to the limits established by Method II shown on
Standard No. 200.02 of the Roadway Standards. The property owner will have no right to use or reserve
for his use any timber on the project. All timber cut during the clearing operation is to become the property
of the Contractor and shalt be either removed from the project by him or else shall be satisfactorily disposed
of.
Shoulder and Fill Slope Material - Required shoulder and slope construction for this project shall be
performed in accordance with the requirements of Section 226 of the Standard Specifications except as
follows:
Construct the top 6" (150mm) of shoulder and fill slopes with soils capable of supporting vegetation.
Provide soil with P.I. greater than 6 and less than 25 and with a pH ranging from 5.5 to 6.8. Remove
stones and other foreign material 2" (50mm) or larger in diameter. All soil is subject to testing and
acceptance or rejection by the Engineer.
Material shall be obtained from within the project limits or an approved borrow source.
Reinforced Bridge Approach Fills - Must be constructed in accordance with the plans and as directed by
the Engineer. Contractor must compact the top 8 inches (200mm) of select material to a density of at least
100% of that obtained by compacting a sample of the material in accordance with AASHTO T99 as
modified by the Department. No density testing is required to be performed if Class V material is utilized
to construct the approach fills. The Contractor must perform four passes with low ground pressure
equipment if using Class V material.
EROSION CONTROL
Katie Simmons advised that basins on this project are very large. Contractor should contact her if he
encounters any problems. He should also watch for weirs in check dams.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas -- This project is located in an "Environmentally Sensitive Area". This
designation requires special procedures to be used for clearing and grubbing, temporary stream crossings
and grading operations within the area identified on the plans. This also requires special procedures to be
used for seeding and mulching and stage seeding within the project.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3639
Page 7
Clearing and Grubbing - In areas identified on the EC plans as "Environmentally Sensitive Areas", the
Contractor may perform clearing operations but not grubbing operations until immediately prior to
beginning grading operations as described in Section 200, Article 200-1, of the Standard Specifications.
The "Environmentally Sensitive Area" shall be defined as a 50 ft. (16 meter) buffer zone on both sides of
the stream (or depression) measured from top of stream bank (or center of depression). Only clearing
operations (not grubbing) shall be allowed in this buffer zone until immediately prior to beginning grading
operations. Erosion control devices shall be installed immediately following the clearing operation. Only
remove vegetation in the buffer that is absolutely necessary.
Grading - Once grading operations begin in "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" work will progress in a
continuous manner until complete. All construction within these areas must progress in a continuous
manner such that each phase is complete and areas permanently stabilized prior to beginning of next phase.
Failure on the part of the Contractor to complete any phase of construction in a continuous manner in
"Environmentally Sensitive Areas" as specified will be just cause for the Engineer to direct the suspension
of work in accordance with Section 108-7 of the Standard Specifications.
PERMITS
Mrs. Johnson advised that the US Army Corps of Engineers and NCDENR have issued a permit for this
project. The Contractor shall comply with all applicable permit conditions during construction of this project.
Agents of the permitting authority will periodically inspect the project for adherence to the permits.
Should the Contractor propose to utilize construction methods (such as temporary structures or fill in waters
and/or wetlands for haul roads, work platforms, cofferdams, etc.) not specifically identified in the permit
(individual, general or nationwide) authorizing the project, it shall be the Contractor's responsibility to
coordinate with the appropriate permit agency to determine what, if any, additional permit action is required.
The Contractor shall also be responsible for initiating the request for the authorization of such construction
method by the permitting agency. The request shall be submitted through the Engineer. The Contractor shall
not utilize the construction method until it is approved by the permitting agency. The request normally takes
approximately 60 days to process; however, no extensions of time or additional compensation will be granted
for delays resulting from the Contractor's request for approval of construction methods not specifically
identified in the permit.
Where construction moratoriums are contained in a permit condition which restricts the Contractor's activities
to certain times of the year, those moratoriums will apply only to the portions of the work taking place in the
waters or wetlands, provided that activities outside those areas are done in such a manner as to not affect the
waters or wetlands.
All storm water runoff shall be directed to sheet flow through stream buffers at non-erosive velocities, unless
approved otherwise by this certification.
During construction of the project, no staging of equipment of any kind is permitted in waters of the U. S. or
protected riparian buffers.
Preconstruction Conference Minutes
B-3639
Page S
The dimension, pattern and profile of the stream above and below the crossing should not be modified by
widening the stream channel or reducing the depth of the stream. Disturbed flood plains and streams should be
restored to natural geomorphic conditions.
The outside buffer, wetlands or water boundary located within the construction corridor approved by this
authorization shall be clearly marked by highly visible fencing prior to any land disturbing activities. Impacts to
areas within the fencing are prohibited unless otherwise authorized by this certification.
Heavy equipment must be operated from the banks rather than in the stream channel in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream.
Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact with waters of the state
until the concrete has hardened.
The Certificate of Completion must be returned to DWQ when the project has been completed.
All standard procedures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
All measures will be taken to avoid any temporary fill from entering into Cokey Swamp from bridge
demolition. Bridge demolition shall follow NCDOT Best Management Practices for Construction and
Maintenance Activities, dated August 2003, and incorporate NCDOT policy entitled Bridge Demolition and
Removal in Waters of the United States, dated September 20, 1999.
All in-water work must be completed outside an in-water work moratorium from February 15 through June 30.
The permittee will follow NCDOT Adopted Anadromous Fish Stream Crossing Guidelines.
Buffer impacts are shown on page 142 of the contract. The Resident Engineer will flag wetlands for the
Contractor before he begins work.
Contractor was advised that he could stage equipment on mats anywhere he has allowable impacts.
Katie Simmons advised the Contractor that he could install basins just before he disturbs the area.
The Contractor presented a letter advising names of persons authorized to sign Supplemental Agreements in
conjunction with this project.
There were no further questions and/or comments and the meeting was adjourned.
S. T. WOOTEN CORPORATION
DATE APPROVED N ME AND TI LE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA R 0 5 '20,06'
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION OF I-HGHWAYS 1,?7pp rr
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 4, 2006
WBS Element: 33187.3.2 (B-3639)
Contract No.: C201470
F. A. No.: BRZ-1223 (6)
County: Edgecombe
Description: Bridge over Cokey Swamp & Approaches on SR 1223
SUBJECT: PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE AND PERMIT MEETING
Mr. Erick Frazier
S. T. Wooten Corporation
P. O. Box 2408
Wilson, North Carolina 27894-2408
Dear Mr. Frazier:
Per our conversation, the Preconstruction Conference and Permit Meeting for this project is being
scheduled for Tuesday, June 6, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. The Preconstruction Conference is contingent
upon the award of the project by the Board of Transportation. The conference will be held in the
Conference Room of the Wilson Division Office. Our office is located at 509 Ward Boulevard in
Wilson, N. C.
Please be prepared to present the following documents at this conference: progress schedule, letter
naming persons authorized to sign Supplemental Agreements, and letter naming your Company
EEO Officer and Minority Liaison Officer.
We look forward to meeting with you at the above time.
Cordially yours,
Wendi O. Johnson, PE
Division Construction Engineer
Post Office Box 3165, Wilson, North Carolina 27895-3165
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Mr. Erick Frazier
April 4, 2006
Page 2
c: Ron Lucas (FHWA)
Gary Jordan (US Fish & Wildlife)
Nicole Thomson (NCDENR, Division of Water Quality)
John Holley (NCDENR, Land Quality Section)
Travis Wilson (NCWRC)
David Cox (NCWRC)
Ron Sechler (National Marine Fisheries)
Bill Biddlecome (US Army Corps of Engineers)
Ernie James (Edgecombe-Martin EMC)
Joan Waruszcak (Sprint)
ec: Cecil L. Jones, PE
Donald Pearson, EI, CPESC
Robert Simpson
Andy Brown, PE
Bobby Lewis, PE
Mike Robinson, PE
Andy Pridgen
Shannon Sweitzer, PE
Lloyd Johnston, Jr.
Eddie Bunn, PE
Keith Honeycutt, PE
Charles W. Brown, PE, PLS
Kevin Lacy, PE
Victor Barbour, PE
Ellis C. Powell, Jr., PE
Don G. Lee
Jimmy Mader
Jamie Guerrero
Warren Walker, PE
Haywood Daughtry, PE
John Williamson
Chris Kreider
Stephen M. Worthy
D. R. Henderson, PE
Jermery Armstrong
Ronnie Moore
Ronnie Keeter, PE
Kenny Baines
?s liz?
y M STATE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
A#(??,
9yO ?
s 9?F? <%O O
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDOPETT
GOVERNOR SECREfARY
July 11, 2005
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Attn: Mr. Bill Biddlecome
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Corrections to Nationwide 23 Permit Application and Buffer
Certification for the replacement of Bridge No. 60 on SR 1223 over
Cokey Swamp, Edgecombe County. Federal Aid Project No. BR7_-
1223(3), State Project No. 8.2291001, TIP Project No. B-3639.
Reference: Nationwide 23 Permit Application and Buffer Certification Dated June 16, 2005
It has come to the attention of the NCDOT that several typographical errors were made in the
referenced permit application. Please note the following:
Paragraph 3, Bridge Construction, sentence one, the replacement structure for Bridge No.
60 is actually proposed to be 105 feet in length, which will include 3 spans (1 @ 30 feet, 1
35 feet, and 1 a) 40 feet).
• Paragraph 4, Impacts to Waters of The United States, Permanent Impacts, sentence one,
Stony Creek, should be replaced with Cokey Swamp.
Paragraph 6, Tar-Pamlico Basin Buffer Rules, Sentence one, actual subbasin is 03-03-03,
TAR3 03020103.
In addition, an incorrect Buffer Legend was provided with the Buffer Drawings, please replace
with attached.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please Tyler Stanton at [e-mail] or [phone].
Sincerely,
dGregory . Thorpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment:
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (7 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Jim Trogdon, PE, Division Engineer
Mr. Jamie Shern, DEO
w/o attachment:
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. John Williams, P.E., PDEA
B-3639 Pagc 2
I
I BUFFER LEGEND I
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
'WWETLAND
E XxX\x`: ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
® MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
- BZ - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE
- BZI - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 1
30 f t (9.2m)
- BZ2 - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 2
20 f t (6.1m)
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTING STRUC TURES) 54' PIPES
0 SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
& ABOVE
DRAINAGE INLET
-? ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
FLOW DIRECTION
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
TB TOP OF BANK 5 OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
- WE EDGE OF WATER
C-- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-? PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
--EL-- PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- - EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - - - - - WATER SURFACE
XX XXX X X LIVE STAKES
C) BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
? PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
GRASS SWALE
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2291001 (B-3639)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE X60
SR 1223 OVER COKEY SWAMP
I I SHEET 3 OF 6-- 2/5/02
0?0? WA T 11?RPG
6 r
O ? 'C
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
June 28, 2005
Edgecombe County
DWQ Project No. 051120
Tip No. B-3639
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and TAR PAMLICO RIVER RIPARIAN BUFFER
AUTHORIZATION
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
You have our approval, in accordance with the conditions listed below, for the following impacts for the purpose of
replacement of Bridge No. 60 on SR 1223 (Antioch Road) over Cokey Swamp.
Impact Locations Buffer Impacts
Zone 1 (s q. ft.) Buffer Impacts
Zone 2 (s q. ft.) Stream Impacts - Permanent
Fill (acres)
1 3,659 2,352 <0.001
The project shall be constructed in accordance with your application dated received June 20, 2005. After reviewing
your application, we have decided that the stream impacts and riparian buffer impacts described are covered by
General Water Quality Certification Number 3403. This certification corresponds to the Nationwide Permit 23
issued by the Corps of Engineers. This approval is also valid for the Tar-Pamlico River Buffer Rules (15A NCAC
2B .0259). In addition, you should acquire any other federal, state or local permits before you proceed with your
project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations. This approval will expire with the accompanying 404 permit, unless otherwise specified in the Water
Quality Certification.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified below).
Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the property is sold, the
new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying
with all the conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, or of total
impacts to streams (now or in the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you must adhere to the
conditions listed in the attached certification.
1.) Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form"- to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been completed. The
responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the Division of
Water Quality upon completion of the project.
2.) All stormwater runoff shall be directed to sheetflow through stream buffers at nonerosive velocities, unless
approved otherwise by this certification.
3.) During the construction of the project, no staging of equipment of any kind is permitted in waters of the U.S., or
protected riparian buffers.
]Npr`thCarolina
Transportation Permitting Unit N atura !y
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Eaual Oooortunity/Affirmative Action Em0lover - 50% Recvcled/10% Post Consumer Paoer
4.) Riparian vegetation must be reestablished, within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing
season following completion of construction.
5.) The dimension, pattern and profile of the stream above and below the crossing should not be modified by
widening the stream channel or reducing the depth of the stream. Disturbed floodplains and streams should be
restored to natural geomorphic conditions.
6.) Any riprap used must not interfere with thalweg performance and aquatic life passage during low flow
conditions.
7.) All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters must be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
8.) Discharging hydroseed mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment in or adjacent to surface
waters is prohibited.
9.) The outside buffer, wetland or water boundary located within the construction corridor approved by this
authorization shall be clearly marked Eby highly visible fencing prior to any land disturbing activities. Impacts
to areas within the fencing are prohibi't'ed unless otherwise authorized by this certification.
10.) There shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated with this
permit without appropriate modification of this permit. Should waste or borrow sites be located in wetlands or
stream, compensatory mitigation will be required since it is a direct,impact from road construction activities.
11.) Pursuant to NCACI5A 2B.0259(6), sediment and erosion control devices shall not be placed in Zone 1 of any
Tar-Pamlico River Buffer without prior approval by the NCDWQ. At this time, the NCDWQ has approved no
sediment and erosion control devices in Zone 1, outside of the approved project impacts, anywhere on this
project. Moreover, sediment and erosion control devices shall be allowed in Zone 2 of the buffers provided that
Zone 1 is not compromised and that discharge is released as diffuse flow.
12.) Heavy equipment must be operated from the banks rather than in the stream channel in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream.
13.) Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands must be placed below the elevation
of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20 percent of the
culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow passage of water and
aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures including temporary erosion control
measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or stream beds or
banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide
evidence that the equilibrium shall be maintained if requested in writing by DWQ.
14.) The NCDOT will need to adhere to all appropriate in-water work moratoriums (including the use of pile driving
or vibration techniques) prescribed by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, the US Fish and Wildlife
Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service. No in-water work is permitted between February 15 and June
30 of any year, without prior approval from the NC Division of Water Quality and the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission. In addition, NCDOT shall conform to the NCDOT policy entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines
for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997) at all times.
15.) No live or fresh concrete shall come into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has hardened
16.) The presence of equipment in the channels must be minimized. Under no circumstances must rock, sand or
other materials be dredged from the wetted stream channel under authorization of this permit, except in the
immediate vicinity of culverts.
17.) All work shall be performed during low or normal flow conditions.
18.) All fill slopes located in jurisdictional wetlands shall be placed at slopes no flatter than 3:1.
19.) A copy of this Water Quality Certification shall be posted on the construction site at all times. In addition, the
Water Quality Certification and all subsequent modifications, if any, shall be maintained with the 'Division
Engineer and the on-site project manager.
20.) All protected riparian buffers impacted by the placement of temporary fill or clearing activities shall be restored
to the preconstruction contours and revegetated with native woody species upon completion of the project
construction. A post-construction as-built with the restoration activities included shall be submitted to the
DWQ no later than 60 days after the project is closed out by the Department of Transportation.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that conforms
to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447,
Raleigh, N.C. 276 1 1-7447.,,This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please contact Christina Breen at [phone];
Sincerely,
1? Aln ?anW W. . K l
limek,
JEH/cmb
Attachment
cc: Bill Biddlecome, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Jamie Shern, Division 4 Environmental Officer, 509 Ward Blvd. Wilson, NC 27895
NC DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
c:\Correspondence\2005 Bridge Projects\DWQ051120\062805wgc.doc
r -
A
dA STAiEo?
y ?"
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 16, 2005
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Attn: Mr. Bill Biddlecome
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
0
?v ? OV
of G . n
1 D
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
051120
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application
replacement of Bridge No. 60 on
Edgecombe County. Federal Aid
Project No. 8.229 TIP Project No
and Buffer Certification for the
SR 1223 over Cokey Swamp,
Project No. BRZ-1223(3), State
. B-3639.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace existing Bridge
No. 60 on SR 1223 over Cokey Swamp (DWQ Index # 28-83-3, Class "C; NSW") in Edgecombe
County. The project involves replacing Bridge No. 60 approximately on the existing alignment.
Traffic, during construction, will be maintained with an offsite detour, which will include SR
1224 and SR 1006.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
Bridge No. 60 is currently a 96-foot, 3-span structure, that consists of a timber deck on steel I-
beams. The end bents and interior bents are composed of timber caps on timber piles. Removal
of the bridge superstructure and timber piles will occur without dropping any of the components
into Waters of the United States.
The NCDOT will adhere to appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition and removal including
those presented in "Pre-Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal", "Policy:
Bridge Demolition and Removal in Waters of the United States", "Best Management Practices
for Bridge Demotion and Removal", and "Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters".
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

Bridge No. 60, a 192-foot long structure, will include four 48-foot spans with a cored slab as
superstructure. The substructure will consist of pile end bents and steel pile bents. The Let date is
March 21, 2006 with a review date of January 31, 2005. The NC Wildlife Resources
Commission requests the use of an in-stream work moratorium from February 15 to June 30
TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
MAILING ADDRESS: FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND EwIRONMENTALANALYSIS WEBSITE: WWWDOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
A
during anadromous fish spawning. In addition, NCDOT will implement "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Permanent Impacts: Stony Creek will be impacted by the proposed project. Less than 0.001 acre
of impacts to surface waters will occur from the construction of bridge bents (refer to Buffer
Drawings). No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by construction of the project.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to
avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning
and NEPA compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project
design.
The chosen alternative best minimizes impacts to natural ecosystems in the vicinity of the project
site and provides the most economic design. In addition, NCDOT's guidelines for "Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be enforced throughout the
duration of the project construction.
TAR-PAMLICO BASIN BUFFER RULES
This project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (subbasin 03-03-04, TAR4 03020102),
therefore the regulations pertaining to the Tar-Pamlico River Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 213.0259)
apply. Buffer impacts associated with this project total 3,659 sq. ft for Zone 1 and 2,352 sq. ft
for Zone 2. All practicable measures to minimize impacts within buffer zones were followed.
Measures used to minimize impacts to the buffer zone include using the current alignment.
According to the buffer rules, bridges are allowable. Uses designated as allowable may proceed
within the riparian buffer provided that there are no practical alternatives to the requested use
pursuant to Item (8) of this Rule. These uses require written authorization from the Division or
the delegated local authority. Therefore, NCDOT requests written authorization for a Buffer
Certification from the Division of Water Quality.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two federally protected species for Edgecombe County (Table
1). Following endangered species surveys of the project site, Biological Conclusions of "No
Effect" were rendered for the red-cockaded woodpecker and Tar River spinymussel due to the
lack of suitable habitat within the project area.
Table 1. Federally arotected species of Edgecombe Countv.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Biolo ical Conclusion
Elli do steinstansana Tar Rivers in ussel E No Effect
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E No Effect
Endangered (E) - is defined as a taxon that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
B-3639
Page 2
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that
these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages 2020-2095;
January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3403 will apply to this
project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing seven copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality (DWQ), for their records.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a), NCDOT is providing seven copies of this
application to the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, DWQ for review and
issuance of a Tar-Pamlico Buffer Certification for impacts to Tar-Pamlico Buffers in compliance
with the Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.nedot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/Pennit.html. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Tyler Stanton at [e-mail] or (919) 715-
1439.
Sincerely,
Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment:
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (7 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J im Trogdon, PE, Division Engineer
Mr. Jamie Shern, DEO
w/o attachment:
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. John Williams, P.E., PDEA
B-3639 Page 3
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Edgecombe County
Bridge No. 53 on NC 102
Over Cokey Swamp
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1223(3)
State Project No. 8.2291001
W.B.S. No. 33187
T.I.P. No. B-3639
All Design Groups/Division Resident Engineer - Anadramous Fish
NCDOT will implement Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadramous Fish Crossinga.
A moratorium from February 15 to June 30 of any given year will be applicable.
To the extent practical, construction should be accomplished without the use of construction pads
in the water.
To the extent practical, bridge demolition should occur without getting into the water.
To the extent practical, the footprint of the proposed project should be minimized.
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
January 2004
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
A.
B.
C.
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
W.B.S. No.
Federal Project No.
Project Description:
B-3639
8.2291001
33187
BRZ-1223(3)
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 60 on SR 1223 over Cokey Swamp in
Edgecombe County. The replacement structure will consist of a 135-foot long
bridge on approximately the same grade and location. The bridge will be of
sufficient width to provide for two 11-foot lanes, a three-foot outside offset and a
five-foot inside offset to accommodate curve widening. Traffic will be detoured
offsite during construction.
The approaches to the new bridge will be widened to include 22 feet of pavement
and five-foot grass shoulders on each side (eight feet where guardrail is required).
The approach work will extend 340 feet to the north of the new bridge and
385 feet to the south of the new bridge. This roadway will be designed as a local
route with a 55 mile per hour design speed.
Purpose and Need:
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of
32.6 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered
structurally deficient due to a structure appraisal of 2 out of 9 according to
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards and therefore eligible for
FHWA's Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The bridge
has a timber substructure. Timber substructures are not good candidates for
rehabilitation. Replacement of this structurally deficient bridge will result in
safer traffic operations and lower maintenance costs.
Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
instal lation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
£ Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making mmor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
0
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shins in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil
or groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation
guidelines.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 725,000
Right of Way $ 24,000
Total $ 749,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 400
Year 2025 - 1000
TTST - 1%
Dual - 3%
Accidents: In a check of a recent three-year period, three accidents were reported: one
due to a flood, a second due to a deer, and a third the result of a car naming off a nearby
curve in the road. In this latter case the driver was charged with exceeding a safe speed
limit.
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
School Busses: The School Transportation Director for Edgecombe County has indicated
that there are three school busses traveling this road each morning and afternoon during
the school year. A temporary offsite detour does not pose a concern for the school
system.
Dwision Office Comments: The Division concurs with the proposed alternate.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 60's superstructure is composed a timber deck on steel I-
beams. The substructure is composed of timber caps and timber piles. Conventional
practices generally permit the removal of the structure without any resulting debris or fill
in the water.
Studied Offsite Detour: The studied offsite detour includes SR 1224, NC 43, SR 1006
and back to SR 1223. The detour would result in 6.3 miles additional travel and
approximately 7.5 minutes delay relative to normal travel time. This delay falls just into
range where the Department begins to consider an onsite detour. However, in order to
minimize impacts to wetlands and project costs, and from written correspondence, there
being no objection from Division, Emergency Services, or the county schools, an offsite
detour is appropriate for this project.
Design Exception: There will be no design exceptions for this project.
4

E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water

Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ?
X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? ? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
?
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing

regulatory floodway? a
X
5
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness

and/or land use of adjacent property? ?
X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) 'Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing

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

relating to the environmental aspects of the project? ?
X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? X
F.
fission regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Response to Question 3: The N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission has indicated
the presence of anadramous fish at this site. "Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadramous Fish" are recommended. A moratorium from February 15 to June
30 of any given year will be required.
7
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
W.B.S. No.
Federal Project No.
B-3639
8.2291001
33187
BRZ-1223(3)
Project Description:
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 60 on SR 1223 over Cokey Swamp in
Edgecombe County. The replacement structure will consist of a 130-foot long
bridge on approximately the same grade and location. The bridge will be of
sufficient width to provide for two 11-foot lanes, a three-foot outside offset and a
five-foot inside offset to accommodate curve widening. Traffic will be detoured
offsite during construction.
The approaches to the new bridge will be widened to include 22 feet of pavement
and five-foot grass shoulders on each side (eight feet where guardrail is required).
The approach work will extend 340 feet to the north of the new bridge and
385 feet to the south of the new bridge. This roadway will be designed as a local
route with a 55 mile per hour design speed.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
i 2 y v?
Dat
( /'L4 ? 05
Date
Pibject Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Date
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
21165'_ G
Date John F. Sullivan, III, P.E., ivisil
Federal Highway Administration
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 60 ON SR 1223
OVER COKEY SWAMP
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3639
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2291001
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1223(3)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
ELIZABETH L. LUSK, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
December 31, 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ...............................................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose .................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Methodology .......................................................................................................................1
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator ............................................................................... 2
1.5 Terminology and Definitions ............................................................................................... 2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .....................................................................................................2
2.1 Regional Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Soils ......................................................................................................................................3
2.3 Water Resources .................................................................................................................. 3
2.3.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics ............................................................................3
2.3.2 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Streams ..................................................................... 4
2.3.3 Best Usage Classification .............................................................................................4
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ........................................................ 5
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................................5
3.1 Terrestrial Communities .......................................................................................................5
3.1.1 Bottomland Hardwood Community ..............................................................................6
3.1.2 Swamp hardwood Community .....................................................................................6
3.1.3 Maintained Community ............................................................................................... 6
3.2 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................ 6
3.3 Aquatic Community ............................................................................................................. 6
3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources ........................................................ 7
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .................................................................................................7
4.1 Waters of the United States ..................................................................................................7
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ........................................................ .. 8
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Jurisdictional Impacts ......................................................... .. 8
4.1.3 Permits ........................................................................................................................ .. 8
4.1.3.1 Bridge Demolition ................................................................................................... ..9
4.1.4 Mitigation .................................................................................................................... ..9
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ............................................................................................................... .. 9
4.1.4.2 Minimization ........................................................................................................... .. 9
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ........................................................................................ .. 9
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ................................................................................................ 10
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ........................................................................................ 10
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ................................................. 12
5.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 13
6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................14
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................1-a
Table 1. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities .......................................................7
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Edgecombe County ...................................................10
ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) is submitted to assist in the preparation
of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The project is located in the central Edgecombe
County (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project, crossing Cokey Swamp, calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 60 on SR
1223 in Edgecombe County. The current 96-foot long bridge structure was built in 1964 with a bridge
roadway width of 24 feet and a deck width of 25 feet. The existing two-lane roadway is within a 50-foot
ROW (ditch to ditch). Bridge No. 60 will be replaced with a 130-foot long bridge in the same location
and the same grade as the existing structure. Proposed improvements will include a 22-foot roadway
with 3-foot shoulders utilizing guardrails within an 80-foot right of way. The proposed structure will
have an elevation similar to the existing structure. Project length is 830 feet. Traffic will be detoured
offsite during construction.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to inventory and describe the natural resources which occur within the
proposed right-of-way boundaries and which are likely to be impacted by the proposed action.
Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts to these natural resources are provided, along
with recommendations for measures that will minimize resource impacts. This report identifies areas of
particular environmental concern that may affect the selection of a preferred alignment or may necessitate
changes in design criteria. Such environmental concerns should be addressed during the preliminary
planning stages of the proposed project in order to maintain environmental quality in the most efficient
and effective manner. The analyses contained in this document are relevant only in the context of the
existing preliminary project boundaries and design. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Published resource information pertaining
to the project area was gathered and reviewed. Resources utilized in this preliminary investigation of the
project area include:
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Pinetops).
USDA Soil Conservation Service, currently known as Natural Resource Conservation Service, Soil
Survey of Edgecombe County, North Carolina (1979).
NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental Sensitivity Base Maps of
Edgecombe County (1995).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DENR, 2002). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state
protected species in the study area was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of
protected and candidate species (March 7, 2002) and from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
database of rare species and unique habitats. NCNHP files were reviewed for documented occurrences of
state or federally listed species and locations of significant natural areas.
A study corridor of 80 feet equal to the proposed ROW was chosen for natural resource
investigation. NCDOT Environmental Biologists Elizabeth Lusk and Hal Bain conducted general field
surveys in the proposed project area on November 1, 2001. Water resources were identified and their
physical characteristics were recorded. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were also
identified and described. Terrestrial community classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley
(1990) where possible. and plant ta-:onomy follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows
Martof, et al. (1980), Menhenick (:991), Potter, et al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Vegetative
communities were mapped utilizing aerial photography of the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife
community composition involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative
communities. Wildlife identification involved using a variety of observation techniques: qualitative
habitat assessment based on vegetative communities, active searching, identifying characteristic signs of
wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Cursory surveys of aquatic organisms were conducted and
tactile searches for benthic organisms were administered as well. Organisms captured during these
searches were identified and then released.
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria described in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and rated using the
"Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina" (Division of Environmental
Management 1995). Jurisdictional surface water determinations were performed using guidance provided
by the N.C. Division of Water Quality [(DWQ), formerly known as the Division of Environmental
Management (DEM)], "Field Location of Streams, Ditches, and Ponding" (NCDENR-DWQ 1997) and
DWQ Stream Classification Form (NCDENR-DWQ 1999a).
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Elizabeth L. Lusk
Education: B.A., Davidson College
Master of Forest Management, Duke University
Certification: Registered Forester, #995
Experience: Environmental Biologist, NC DOT, Raleigh, NC, August 1999 to present.
Biologist, CZR En vironmental Consultants, Wilmington, NC, 1994 to 1999.
Service Forester, NC Division of Forest Resources, Charlotte, NC, 1992 to 1993.
Service Forester, MD Forest Service, Baltimore, MD, 1990 to 1992.
Expertise: Bottomland hardwood mitigation, wetland delineation, hydric soil evaluation, biotic,
community mapping and assessment, technical report writing.
1.5 Terminology and Definitions
Definitions for aerial descriptions contained in this report are as follows: Project (Study) Area.
denotes the area bounded by the proposed right-of-way limits along the full length of the project
alignment; Project Vicinity describes an area extending 0.5 miles on all sides of the project study area;
and Project Region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with the
project occupying the central position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below with respect to
possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography significantly influence the potential
for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction limitations or management
concerns. Water resources within the project area present important management limitations due to the
need to regulate water movement and the increased potential for water quality degradation. Excessive
soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the flow and quality of
water resources, limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and the availability of water
directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities, thus
affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2
2.1 Regional Characteristics
The proposed project lies within the coastal plain physiographic region of North Carolina.
Edgecombe County is nearly level with some gentle sloping near the drainageways. The county slopes
very gently eastward and southeastward. The highest elevation is about 140 feet, along the western
boundary, and the lowest is about 10 feet, on the southeastern boundary where the Tar River, the main
drainageway, leaves the county. The elevation of Cokey Swamp in the project area is approximately 20
feet. The project study area is primarily agricultural with some scattered residences. Woods dominate the
floodplain along the swamp.
2.2 Soils
The central/southwestern portion of Edgecombe County is primarily underlain with soils in the
Norfolk-Aycock-Wagram Association. This association is comprised of nearly level to strongly sloping,
well-drained soils that have a loamy subsoil. There are two soil types located in the project area. A brief
description of each soil type is provided.
Bibb series (BB) consists of poorly drained soils typically found on flood plains with slopes
of less than 2 percent. In the project area, this soil is found in a band along both sides of
Cokey Swamp. The surface layer is dark grayish brown loam about 8 inches thick. The
underlying material is a gray loam transitioning to a dark gray sandy loam at 38 inches. The
organic matter of the surface layer is low. Permeability is moderate and available water
capacity is high. Depth to bedrock is more than 5 feet. The seasonal high water table is at a
depth of 0.5 to 1.5 feet. These soils are commonly flooded for brief periods. Use limitations
include wetness and flooding. This soil is listed as a hydric soil in North Carolina (USDA
1989).
• Lumbee series (Lu) consists of poorly drained soils typically found in broad, smooth flats and
in shallow depressions in stream terraces with slopes of 0 to 2 percent. This soil is found in
the southern portion of the project area in the floodplain bordering the Bibb loam. The
surface layer is a dark grayish brown fine sandy loam about 8 inches thick. The underlying
material is sandy clay loam transitioning to white sand at 33 inches. The organic matter of the
surface layer is medium. Permeability and available water capacity are both moderate. Depth
to bedrock is greater than 5 feet. The seasonal high water table is at or near the surface.
Wetness and flooding are the main limitations. This soil is listed as a hydric soil in North
Carolina (USDA 1989).
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical characteristics, best usage standards,
and water quality aspects of the water resources, along with their relationship to major regional drainage
systems. Probable impacts to surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize
impacts.
2.3.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The project study area is located within subbasin 03-03-03 (Mid Tar River from Swift Creek to
Conetoe Creek), Hydrologic Unit 03020103 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. The Tar-Pamilico River
Basin is the fourth largest river basin in North Carolina. This river basin covers an area of 5,440 square
miles, encompassing 16 counties and 51 municipalities, including North Carolina's largest natural lake -
Lake Mattamuskeet. The Mid Tar River subbasin contains approximately 40-river miles of the Tar River
from the confluence of Swift Creek in Edgecombe County to the confluence of Conetoe Creek in Pitt
County. This subbasin also includes the entire catchments of Conetoe Creek, Otter Creek, Town Creek
and Cokey Swamp. Streams in this subbasin are primarily within the coastal plain ecoregion. The area is
characterized by large amounts of agricultural land (41 percent of the land cover is categorized as
3
cultivated cropland). Tarboro is the largest urban area, but parts of Rocky Mount are also in this
subbasin. (NCDENR-DWQ 1999).
Cokey Swamp is the only water resource in the project study area. Although it should be noted
that a small unnamed tributary (UT) to Cokey Swamp comes in from the north just west of the proposed
ROW. This area was historically a swamp with a minimally defined channel. However, in order to
provide additional agricultural area, the swamp was probably channelized and drained. Currently, Cokey
Swamp in the vicinity of SR 1223 is approximately 40 feet wide and ranges in depth from 4 to 6 feet.
The creek has substrate composed primarily of silt. The water clarity was low, most likely due to the
natural tannins in the area. Water flow was slow on the day of the site visit. The stream is wider in the
vicinity of the bridge, where water has scoured around the bents eroding the banks. Streambed and bank
are well defined. The small UT to Cokey Swamp has similar characteristics although it is narrower, only
1 to 2 feet wide at the top of bank. Flow in the UT was slow.
2.3.2 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Streams
The DWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, hereafter referred to as the NC 2000 Section 303(d) list. The list is a
comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that does
not meet water quality standards including designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria and anti-
degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. The standards violation may be due to an individual
pollutant, multiple pollutants, pollution, or an unknown cause of impairment. The source of impairment
could be from point sources, nonpoint sources, and atmospheric deposition. Some sources of impairment
exist across state lines. North Carolina's methodology is strongly based on the aquatic life use support
guidelines available in the Section 305(b) guidelines (EPA-841-B-97-002A and -002B). Those streams
attaining only Partially Supporting (PS) or Not Supporting (NS) status are listed on the NC 2000 Section
303(d) list. Streams are further categorized into one of six parts within the NC 2000 Section 303(d) list,
according to source of impairment and degree of rehabilitation required for the stream to adequately
support aquatic life. Within Parts 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the list, N.C. has developed a priority ranking scheme
(low, medium, high) that reflects the relative value and benefits those waterbodies provide to the State.
Cokey Swamp is not currently listed on the NC 2000 Section 303(d) list. The proposed bridge
replacement will not significantly jeopardize the water quality of the stream. Therefore, an Indirect and
Cumulative Impacts Analysis of the project to the health of this stream is not necessary.
2.3.3 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ),
formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which reflects water quality conditions and
potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries receive the same classification as the streams to which
they flow. The classification for Cokey Swamp [DEM Index No. 28-83-3, 1/1/90] is C NSW. Class C
refers to waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and
survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating,
and other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent,
unorganized, or incidental manner. There are -no restrictions on watershed development activities.
Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) is a supplemental classification intended for waters needing additional
nutrient management due to their being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic
vegetation. In general, management strategies for point and nonpoint source pollution control require no
increase in nutrients over background levels.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-In or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within one mile of the project study area.
4
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated with
project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on streambanks,
riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and
pavement installation. The following impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from the
above mentioned construction activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion in the project
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.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground water
flow from construction.
• 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.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the
construction phase of the project. In addition, the WRC noted that Cokey Swamp is known to
support anadramous fish including striped bass and American shad. NCDOT will follow Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage and will observe an appropriate moratorium for in-
stream work. Limiting instream activities and revegetating stream banks immediately following the
completion of grading can further reduce impacts.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources located in the project area include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This
section describes those communities encountered and the relationships between fauna and flora found
within these communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project
area are reflective of the topography, hydrologic influences, and the project area's past and present land
uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications and follow those presented by Schafale and Weakly (1990) where possible. The dominant
flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and the common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal
and plant species described. The plant taxonomy generally follows Radford et al (1968). Animal
taxonomy follows Bonror et al (1970), Lee et al (1982), Menhenick (1991), Martof et al (1980), Peterson
(1980), Potter et al (1980), and Webster et al (1985). All subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only. Fauna that is observed during the site visit is denoted with an asterisk
(*). Scat evidence or tracks equate to observation of the species. Published range distributions and
habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected to be present within the project area.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Much of the flora and fauna described from terrestrial communities utilize resources from different
communities, making boundaries between contiguous communities difficult to define. Generally,
however, land use defines community boundaries. There are three terrestrial communities located in the
project area: bottomland hardwoods, swamp hardwoods, and maintained areas.
3.1.1 Bottomland Hardwood Community
The bottomland hardwood community, found within the southeastern quadrant of the project on
an elevated floodplain of Cokey Swamp, is composed of several mature tree species including sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), river birch (Betula nigra), winged elm
(Ulmus alata), and laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia). Shrub, herbaceous, and vine species found within the
project area include Chinese privett (Ligustrum sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
blackberry (Rubus sp.), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
3.1.2 Swamp Hardwood Community
This wooded community in the northeastern, northwestern, and southwestern quadrants on
floodplains with a slightly lower elevation than the previous community is composed mainly of species
suited to frequent inundation and saturated soils. The most common mature tree species here include bald
cypress (Taxodium distichum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red maple (Acer rubrum), and sweet
gum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Saplings include regeneration of the previously listed tree species. The
shrub layer is dominated by blackberry. Vines present include greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia) and
Japanese honeysuckle.
3.1.3 Maintained Community
This community is located in the grassed shoulders on both sides of SR 1223 and will be
impacted by the bridge replacement. Because of mowing and the use of herbicides this community is
kept in a constant state of early succession. The dominant species in this community are fescue (Festuca
sp.), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), and wild onion (Allium canadense).
3.2 Wildlife
Maintained/disturbed communities adjacent to forested tracts provide rich ecotones for foraging, while
the forests provide forage and cover. Common mammals and birds associated with this type of habitat are
woodchuck (Marmota monax), least shrew (Crypototis parva), southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina
carolinensis), hispid cottonrat (Sigmodon hispidus), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus),
raccoon* (Procyon lotor), opposum* (Didelphis virginiana), white tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginianus),
mallard ducks* (Anas platyrhynchos), great blue heron* (Ardea herodias), red-bellied woodpecker*
(Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), white-throated sparrow* (Zonotrichia
albicollis), Carolina chickadee* (Parus carolinensis), common yellow throat* (Geothlypis trichas),
Carolina wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Eastern bluebird* (Sialia sialis)), yellow-rumped warbler*
(Dendroica coronata), mockingbird* (Mimus polygottos), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), common
crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos), turkey vulture* (Carthartes aura), and white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta
carolinensis). In addition, a yellowbelly slider* (Chrysemys scripta) was observed and several crickets*
(Gryllus sp.) were heard during the field investigation.
3.3 Aquatic Community
This community is contained within Cokey Swamp. The physical characteristics (size and water
quality) of the stream, as well as the adjacent terrestrial community, directly influence faunal composition
of this aquatic community. The project area's surface water can be expected to provide habitat for a
limited number of aquatic organisms. There were several piles of woody debris, which also provide
habitat, shade, and concealment pockets for several aquatic species. Aquatic invertebrates are a major
component of river ecosystems, as primary and secondary consumers, and as prey items for organisms
higher in the food chain. Insects typically found in this type of community include Mayflies
(Ephemeroptera) and midges (Chinonomidae sp.), whirly-gig beetles (Gyrinus limbatus), dragonflies
(Odonta sp.), and mosquito larvae (Culicidae sp.) Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) and midges (Chinonomidae
sp.) Fish species likely to be found in Cokey Swamp include blue gill (Leponis macrochirus)*,
6
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)*, and mosquito fish (Ganfusia affinis), as well as striped bass
(Morone saxatilis) and American shad (Alosa sapidissima), both anadromous fish. Other species likely to
be found here include Eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentina), and the yellow belly slider* (Chrysemys scripta). Other aquatic wildlife observed includes
the northern cricket frog* (Acris crepitans)), mussels* (Elliptio spp.), Campeloma snail* (Campeloma
decisum), and Asiatic clam* (Corbicula fluminea).
The aquatic community serves as a major food source for many terrestrial organisms such as
raccoons, various species of snakes, birds, turtles, and amphibians. It also serves as a means of predator
avoidance for many animals.
3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic resources and
functions described. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural communities
within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the organisms affected. Temporary and
permanent impacts are considered here as well, along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate
impacts.
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to ROW widening.
Loss of the bottomland hardwood community could result from conversion of this community to
maintained community in order to accommodate the increased ROW width. Table 1 summarizes potential
losses to these communities, resulting from project construction. Calculated impacts to terrestrial
communities reflect the relative abundance of each community present in the study area. Estimated
impacts are derived based on the project lengths described in Section 1.1, and the entire proposed ROW
width of 80 feet for the bridge replacement. However, project construction often does not require the
entire ROW; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 1. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities.
Maintained Roadside 0.3
Swamp Hardwood (wetland) 0.1
Bottomland Hardwood 0.1
Total Impacts 0.5
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant regulatory
issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States"
(Waters of the U.S.), as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3. Any
action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters which have commercial or
recreational value to the public.
7
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated following the 1987 "Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual". The three-parameter approach is used where hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation, and hydrology must all be present for an area to be considered a wetland. There are wetlands
in the project area on both sides of Cokey Swamp. According to Cowardin's classification system, the
Swamp Hardwood Community in the remaining quadrants around the bridge is a PF02C wetland type
(palustrine, forested, needle-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded) (Cowardin et al, 1979). The wetlands
are of medium quality.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Jurisdictional Impacts
Impacts to Waters of the U.S. are calculated based on the acreage of jurisdictional wetlands that
are located within the 80-foot proposed right-of-way and the linear feet of the stream that will be
culverted or piped rather than bridged. Approximately 0.1 acres of wetland may be impacted. The
proposed bridge replacement will span Cokey Swamp. While it may be necessary to install bents in the
streambed, stream impacts are expected to be negligible or nonexistent.
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. are anticipated from the proposed project. As a
result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory agencies in
charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources.
A Nationwide Permit#CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of
the U.S. resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department
where that agency or department has determined, (pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act), that:
(1) The activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and;
(2) The office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency' or
department's application for the Categorical Exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
Under current design, span lengths and superstructure type lend itself to top down construction.
However, in the event that a temporary causeway is required to construct the new bridge, a Nationwide
Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (33) may also be required.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any
federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the U.S. A Section 401
Water Quality Certification (WQC) allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of
the construction or other land manipulation. Corresponding WQC's for NWP 23 and 33 are No. 3361 and
No. 3366, respectively. However, written concurrence from DWQ is not required provided all standard
conditions of this Certification can be met.
Cokey Swamp is subject to the Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules. However, as a Road
Crossing of a stream subject to the Rules that impacts less than 40 linear feet of stream, this project is
exempt. Nevertheless, design and construction should minimize soil disturbance and provide the
maximum water quality protection practicable. A DWQ Buffer Certification will be required from the
NC Division of Water Quality.
4.1.3.1 Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 60, built by NCDOT in 1964, is constructed entirely of timber and steel and will be
removed with no fill resulting from bridge demolition.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The USCE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose
of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of the
U.S., specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include:
avoiding impacts, 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.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters
of the U.S. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset
unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Replacing the existing bridge with another bridge avoids stream impacts. In addition, use of an offske
detour prevents impacts normally resulting from a temporary detour.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to Waters of the U.S.. Implementation of these steps will be required through project
modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the
proposed project through the reduction to median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road
shoulder widths. In order to minimize impacts from the replacement of bridge No. 60, steeper slopes and
guardrails will be utilized to lessen the footprint of the project. To minimize wetland impacts the bridge
will be 34 feet longer than the existing bridge.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters of the
U.S. have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extend possible. It is recognized that "no net
loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in every permit action. Appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all
appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation, and enhancement of Waters of the U.S. Such actions should be undertaken in areas
adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site. Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits that result in
the fill or alteration of-
• More than 0.1 acre (0.04 ha) mU require compensatory mitigation,
• At least 1.0 acre (0.40 ha) of wetlands will require compensatory mitigation, and/or
• At least 150 linear feet (45.7 meters) of streams will require compensatory mitigation.
The impacts from this project will probably not meet the minimum mitigation threshold of 0.1 acre
of wetlands or 150 linear feet of stream. Therefore, no mitigation requirement is anticipated. However,
final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the USACE.
9
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of &',rline either due to
natural forces or their inability to exist with human development. Fedemi law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species
classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 7, 2002, the USFWS lists
two federally protected species for Edgecombe County. The Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) and
the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) are both currently listed as endangered. The following
is a brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements for these species.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for
Elliptio steinstansana Tar spinymussel E Unresolved
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E No Affect
E - denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Tar river spiny mussel (Elliptio steinstansana) Endangered
Listed: 7/29/85 .
Distribution in NC: Previously this mussel was believed to be endemic to the Tar
River system, currently occurring in relatively short stretches of the Tar River and three
creeks (Shocco, Sandy/Swift and Little Fishing) in the Tar drainage. Historically the
TSM was collected in the Tar River from near Louisburg in Franklin County to Falkland
in Pitt County (approximately 78 river miles). Clarke (1983) located TSM in only a 12-
mile stretch of the Tar River in Edgecombe County. Recently (1998) the TSM was found
in the Little River of the Neuse River Basin
Characteristics: The Tar spinymussel (TSM) grows to an average length of 60
millimeters. Short spines are arranged in a radial row anterior to the posterior ridge on
one valve and symmetrical to the other valve. The shell is generally smooth in texture
with as many as 12 spines that project perpendicularly from the surface and curve slightly
ventrally. However, adult specimens tend to lose their spines as they mature (USFWS
1992a). The TSM is distinguished by its shiny periostricum, parallel pseudocardinal
teeth, and the linear ridges on the inside surface of the shell.
Little is known about the reproductive biology of the TSM (USFWS 1992a), however,
nearly all freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies, which involves
a larval stage (glochidium), that becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish.
Many mussel species have specific fish hosts which must be present to complete their life
cycle. Pennak (1989) should be consulted for a general overview of freshwater mussel
reproductive biology.
Habitat Requirements: The preferred habitat of the TSM in Swift Creek was described as
relatively fast flowing, well oxygenated, circumneutral pH water in sites prone to
significant swings in water velocity, with a substrate comprised of relatively silt-free
loose gravel and/or coarse sand.
10
Threats to Species: The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation,
point and non-point discharge, stream modification (impoundment's, channelization etc.),
coupled with the apparent restricted range, have contributed to the decline of this species
throughout its range.
When mussel populations are reduced to a small number of individuals and are restricted
to short reaches of isolated streams, they are extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a
single catastrophic event or activity (Strayer et al. 1996). Catastrophic events may
consist of natural events such as flooding, or drought as well as human influenced events
such as toxic spills associated with highways or railroads.
Siltation resulting from improper erosion control of various land usage, including
agricultural, forestry and development activities has been recognized as a major
contributing factor to degradation of mussel populations (USFWS 1996). Siltation has
been documented to be extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading
substrate and water quality, increasing potential exposure to other pollutants and by direct
smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills 1979). Sediment accumulations of
less than 1 inch have been shown to cause high mortality in most mussel species (Ellis
1936). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project decimated a population of the
Endangered dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), because of accelerated
sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981).
Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the diversity and
abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988) found that
recovery of mussel populations may not occur for up to two miles below points of
chlorinated sewage effluent.
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well documented (USFWS
1992b, Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic habitats,
which results in changes with aquatic community composition. These changes associated
with inundation adversely affect both adult and juvenile mussels as well as fish
community structure, which could eliminate possible fish hosts for glochidia (Fuller
1974). Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River in northern Alabama, once the richest site
for naiads (mussels) in the world, is now at the bottom of Wilson Reservoir and covered
with 19 feet of muck (USFWS 1992c).
The introduction of exotic species such as the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) and
zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats to
native freshwater mussels. The Asiatic clam is now established in most of the major river
systems in the United States (Fuller and Powell 1973), including those streams still
supporting surviving populations of the TSM. Concern has been raised over competitive
interactions for space, food and oxygen with this species and native mussels, possibly at
the juvenile stages (Neves and Widlak 1987, Alderman 1997).
The zebra mussel, native to the drainage basins of the Black, Caspian and Aral Seas, is an
exotic freshwater mussel that was introduced into the Great Lakes in the 1980s and has
rapidly expanded its range into the surrounding river basins, including those of the South
Atlantic slope (O'Neill and MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food resources
and space with native mussels, and is expected to contribute to the extinction of at least
20 freshwater mussel species if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern
United States (USFWS 1992c).
11
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Within the project area, Cokey Swamp does not contain ideal habitat for the Tar
spinymussel. Water flow is relatively slow with a mucky substrate However, NCDOT
biologists are scheduled to survey for this species. Surveys should be conducted within
the two year window prior to bridge replacement.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10113/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret,
Chatham, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Duplin, Forsyth, Gates, Halifax,
Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Montgomery, Moore, Nash,
New Hanover, Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico, Pender, Perquimans, Pitt,
Richmond, Robeson, Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne, Wilson.
Characteristics: The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is
entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male.
The back of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and
underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white
cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
Habitat: The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine Pinus alu tris , for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at
least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are > 60 years
old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the
RCW is up to 200.0 hectares (500.0 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with
suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are
infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 in (30-50 ft) high.
They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The
RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 10 to 12 days
later.
Biological Conclusion No Affect
There is no suitable habitat within the project area. Mature pines do not exist within or
near the proposed construction area. Therefore, construction of the proposed project will
not affect this species.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are six Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed by the USFWS for Edgecombe County.
Federal species of concern 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. However, the status of these species is subject to
change, and so should be included for consideration. A FSC is defined as a species that is under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition,
organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection
under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the !C Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979,
12
as amended. A December 31, 2002 review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats
revealed no occurrence of FSC species within one mile the project study area.
Ammodramus henslowd Henslow's sparrow SR No
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake SR/PSC + No
Lythrurus matutinus Pinewoods shiner SR Yes
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance T/PE Yes
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T/PE Yes
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T/PE Yes
T A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
E An Endangered species is one which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a portion of its range
SR A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the
state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The
species is generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
/P_ denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special
Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
* Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
+ No date of occurrence is available
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project is located in the Tar Pamlico River Basin and is subject to the Tar Pamlico
Riparian Buffer Rules. Within the study area for this project, there are wetlands in three of the fottr
quadrants around the bridge. Jurisdictional wetland impacts may be as high as 0.1 acre, but in all
probability will be less and will not require mitigation. Cokey Swamp may support anadromous fish,
particularly striped bass and American shad. Therefore, an instream moratorium should be in place from
February 15 until June 30, inclusive. There are two federally protected species; one of which, the Tar
spinymussel, carries an Unresolved Biological Conclusion. Surveys for this mussel should be conducted
with two years prior to construction.
13

6.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-List of North American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence,
Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, J.L. 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Borror, D.J., R.E. White. 1970. A Field Guide to Insects: America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin
Company. New York, NY.
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical report Y-
87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDENR. 1999. Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina Streams: Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality, 1983-1990. Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDENR. 2002. Basinwide Information Management System. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, NC.
NCWRC. 1990. Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
Peterson, R.T. 1980. Peterson Field Guides: Eastern Birds. Houghton Mifflin Company. New York,
NY.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of
North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel
Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
14

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina.
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, N.C.
USDA, 1977. Soil Survey of Guilford County North Carolina. US Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service. Raleigh, NC.
USDA, 1989. Hydric Soils of North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service. Raleigh, NC.
15

t
2r
Pendo 1.5
1-?
CSC 1360 4 1225
\ A
\ r.
\ 1223
1 w
t` \
\
•9 _ 1223
1138 ;
1006 ? u ,? 1006
1136 ~` -
?t
0 O
A `
1132
L

1225 1
1.8
N?TM NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIOHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &

am??,! ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.60 ON SR 1223
OVER COKEY SWAMP
B-3639

Figure 1
b ? .
9208 \
1224
1337 sry
1 ? -
12
1 -
1006 1224 Q
.? 0 1130
r
4 12
. • Y
_® North Carolina Wildlife Res, urce-s==_.;??? _ ? __tz
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Williams, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C ator
Habitat Conservation Program(
DATE: December 3, 1999
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Edgecombe and McDowell counties.
TIP Nos. B-3639 and B-3674.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.

Bridge Replacement Memo 2 December 3, 1999
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x 10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to

Bridge Replacement Memo 3 December 3, 1999
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3639 - Edgecombe County - Bridge No. 60 over Cokey Swamp. Cokey Swamp is
known to support runs of anadromous fish including striped bass and American shad.
NCDOT should follow commitments included in the NCDOT officially adopted
document "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". We
specifically request that a bridge be constructed at this site.
2. B-3674 - McDowell County - Bridge No. 13 over Second Broad River. We do not
anticipate any impacts to trout at this location. However, to minimize impacts to
aquatic resources, we recommend the following: 1) Disturbance of the stream
channel must be limited to only what is necessary to construct the bridge. Bridge
replacement should maintain upstream and downstream conditions at preconstruction
widths and depths for bedload transport and aquatic life migration. 2) Use of riprap to
armor the inlet and outlet ends of the bridge should be kept to a minimum. Natural
bank sloping and native plant revegetation should be used to stabilize banks where
possible to minimize thermal impacts.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings:
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at. [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects.

? Nr 1.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
December 2, 1999
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: 'Replacement of Bridge No. 60 on SR 1223, TIP No. B-3639, Edgecombe County,
ER 00-7871
Dear Mr. Graf:
On November 16, 1999, April Alperin of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above project. We
reported our available information on historic architectural and archaeological surveys and
resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and
aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we offer
our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources. we are aware of no historic structures located within
the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for
this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our present
knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project construction.
We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with
this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical Exclusion
or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Location Mailing Address
ADMINISTRATION 507 N Blount St.. Raleigh NC 3617 !Mail Service Center
ARCHAEOLOGI 421 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4611( Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
Raleigh NC 27600-3619
Raleigh N(' 27690-4613
Raleigh NC 27f,00-461S
Telephone/Fax
[phone] 733-8652
[phone] 715-3671
ON) 733-6547 715-480
)019) 733-6i45 715-480
w
page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
rSincer?ely, r?CCx.?David Brook
L Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
cc: W. D. Gilmore c/
B. Church
T. Padgett
w
NOT TO SCALE
TAR PAMLICO BUFFER
LOCATION
MAPS
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2291001 (83639)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE #60
ON SR1223 OVER COKEY SWAMP
SHEET / OF 44 4 / 25 / 05
NORTH CAROLINA
- C?n - Powell
com
/ I 1 ?Llti ? ( I; % -?
Bu(Iu k
It Galilee l Cem It ( _ I U
I J i
1\ It
n /)
h - t it 1223 j.
II ? ? 11 \j? II < ? 1 1
9.0 ; - ?L•`34.0 IV,
?` a c? ? .( ?• 'I %\\ I
PROJECT
SITE.
Pf 71/F I'
X
?-
1, Cem lei \
.per I __?+\ +
4
?( '
.
ck?WT it
36.5 :Cem//
.I1ry . „ 30.0;'
A b• L, _ _ -
111 ' 7?,'?.J . • • ? ?? 1 L ? ~. \
NOT TO SCALE
TAR PAMLICO BUFFER
VICINITY
MAPS
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
EDGECOMBE COUNTY
PROJECT. 8.2291001 (83639)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE X60
ON SR1223 OVER COKEY SWAMP
SHEET e2 OF 4v

-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
L
F--.1111171111111 ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
® MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
-BZ RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE
-BZ1 - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 1
30 f t (9.2m)
- BZ2 - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 2
20 ft (6.1m)
-? -? FLOW DIRECTION
TOP OF BANK
-- WE EDGE OF WATER
?- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-? PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
--EL-- PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- - EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- - EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - -? - - - WATER SURFACE
X XX LIVE STAKES
X X X X
C) BOULDER
--- COIR FIBER ROLLS
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE

WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
?7? LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
DITCH/
I'll GRASS SWALE
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAKE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.24060701 (B-3527)
BRIDGE NO. 437
OVER LOWER BARTONS CREEK
ON SR 1831
SHEET 3 OF 6 4 / 25 / 05

a
z
0
F
?
Lli y M
'
V
N a 0
go
p
u. zz 0
0 C4
Ww
d
F y
9

V M
46
z a

LLI

4 i
C. c
V

w
LL
LL
0

8

IR-

8
C
G

8

2

v
W ? N
W
? U

m 0' Z
v
N
H
?
O

N

t O
?
N

? t
...
O
N

s U ? o
v ? . ?.
` Q m
? N O O,

N;

V
W
O It
a
m
Q N ?i vi
a
c
i J U

? z
m oy x

U

Q J

h LL
m
N
h
W W
? a
H Fy

y
O .J

? F

y M
m

O
U S
?
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
1 W.L. MAYBERRY 940 HILL ST. ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801
2 GEORGE GOFF RT. 2 BOX 286 ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801
26-APR-200
CONTRACT: C201470 TIP PROJECT: B-3639

? ?
II N II II N d '

A ? •

O?
g o
? D
?o
0
zm ? 9
o
°n N
a
sss

x =? ? ?b
w

{?
[? ? N
w

wwpQ m
e ?s
3 ? I R?
? NN
-w I R1 IL
Wn 0 Z ? n ? ? ??
N 'o N
c I I o rn `? ? ?y
I II ? o•
O
II I ?
II
I
II
h ?
y o
W
y o 0.4 ®
z g
Z O a ® ?
0.0
,__
...........
.t. o ?
0
z? G
70
W O
N
? N
? ? ^cru
1 1 ?- m
1 I ?
Ell
(A \fo
o? W

W
r

i
26-AP?111-2005 6i0q h\b363994.pah
O O O O
r
O
r
N
w
A
N
o.
V
O
r
O
N
O
..........................
..........................
11 ? 1? II
..........................
..........................
a":
isQ
................
.............?..........
...
..........................
O I 19 1 to 1 Is
as
?$ aO
4y
O
gal
Q -

va
Igo I
P qj
*?
fit
lip,
i

iJ Q
Q Q
Q
20
1
b
b C
10
' ? as a
;FO
11
I
n
$j