20060041 Ver 1_Application_20060106

.~:'
s„a siwg
~ f~o ~~~
`'~ ~
.Q~~. ~0
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ~ ~:~'
DEPARTN~NT OF TRANSPORTATIOl~'~4~~~s oRh'QU,~,~~0~°
~~~77~~rr,,~,,ry~~
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDCS'~~'~,J'~,c,TT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY'
December 29, 2005
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
ATTN: Mr. William Wescott
NCDOT Coordinator
060041
i
`~
~;
Dear Sir:
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application and Buffer Authorization for the ~ ;;°
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 296 on SR 1222 over Neuse River Cut-off
(Overflow) in Wayne County, Federal Aid Project: BRZ-1222(4), State Project
No. 8.2331301, WBS Element 33145.1.1, TIP B-3538
.~
Please find enclosed a copy of the Buffer Drawings, FHWA Right of Way Consultation,
Planning Document, and half-size plan sheets, for the above referenced project. The North ''
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace existing Bridge No. 296
on SR 1222 (Bryan Boulevard) over Neuse River Cut-Off (DWQ Index # 27-59) in Wayne ~~'~`~'
County. The FHWA Right of Way Consultation dated June 30, 2002 reverses the preferred
alternative (see FHWA Right of Way Consultation). The project involves replacement of the
existing 161-foot structure with a new structure at the same location. The proposed replacement
structure is a 176-foot-3/-inch long bridge with a 29-foot-l0-inch clear roadway width. During
construction, traffic will be maintained with an on-site detour that utilizes a temporary bridge
located approximately 40 feet north of the existing bridge. The total buffer impact is 11,706 ft2.
Less than 0.001 acre of surface water impacts will occur from construction of the bridge bents.
IlVIPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: The project is located in the United States Geologic Survey (USGS)
Hydrologic Unit 03020201 of the Neuse River Basin and in the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) sub-basin 03-04-12. Neuse River Cut-Off joins with the Neuse River
approximately 0.6 miles downstream from Bridge No. 296. A Best Usage Classification of "C
NSW" has been assigned to Neuse River Cut-Off. Approximately 0.6 miles upstream of Bridge
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

• ~~ ~
No. 296 lies a water supply protected area classified a WS-IV. Wetlands are not present within
the project area.
Permanent Impacts: Less than 0.001 acre of surface water impacts from construction of the
bridge bents will occur. There are no permanent stream impacts expected to Neuse River Cut-Off
from the construction of the new bridge.
Temporary Impacts: Temporary impacts to surface waters from installation of the temporary
detour bridge bents are expected to be less than 0.001 acre. There are no temporary stream
impacts expected to Neuse River Cut-Off from the construction of the new bridge.
After construction activities are completed, the temporary bridge will be removed and disturbed
upland areas will be revegetated and returned to preconstruction elevation.
BUFFER IMPACTS
NEUSE RIVER BASIN BUFFER RULES
This project is located in the Neuse River Basin; therefore, the regulations pertaining to the
buffer rules apply. There will be a total of 11,706 ft2 of impacts to riparian buffers, 6,830 ft2 in
Zone 1 and 4,876 ftZ in Zone 2, due to the detour and construction of the new bridge. All
practicable measures to minimize impacts within buffer zones were followed. 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 of Water
Quality. Therefore, NCDOT requests that the NC Division of Water Quality review this
application and issue a written authorization for a Neuse River Riparian Buffer Certification.
UTILITY IlVIPACTS
Southern Bell Telephone Company owns underground telephone cables along SR 1222, which
become aerial over the Neuse River Cut-Off. Along the south side of SR 1222, Southern Wayne
Sanitary District owns a water line, which is suspended on timber pilings over the Neuse River
Cut-Off next to the existing bridge. No utility impacts to surface waters are expected from the
proposed project.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
The existing bridge has four spans totaling 161 feet. It is composed entirely of timber and steel.
These components are slated for removal in a manner that will avoid dropping any bridge
components into Neuse River Cut-Off. Because the Neuse River Cut-Off is known to support
anadromous fish, "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage" will be followed
and no in-stream work will be allowed between February 15 and June 15. There are no other
special restrictions beyond those outlined in the BMPs for Protection of Surface Waters and
BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal. Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition
and Removal will be followed to avoid any temporary fill from entering Waters of the United
States.
Schedule: The project schedule calls for a January 16, 2007 Let date, with a Let Review date of
November 28, 2006.
NCDOT TIP B-3538 Page 2 of 4

~,
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION
Avoidance and Minimization:
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to "Waters
of the United States". Because of the presence of surface waters within the project study area,
avoidance of all impacts is not practicable. The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all
reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to
providing full compensatory mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional impacts.
Because avoidance of all impacts was not possible, minimization measures were incorporated as
part of the project design. As part of this commitment, impacts to Neuse River Cut-Off were
minimized by replacing the bridge in the same location. - ~ -- - -
Mitigation:
No mitigation is proposed for this project.
FEDERAL 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 US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) lists one federally protected species for Wayne County; the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), which is listed as Endangered. No species have been added to or
deleted from this list since the completion of the CE (September 2000).
Field surveys conducted in 2001 determined that the project area does not contain habitat for the
red-cockaded woodpecker. Therefore, a biological conclusion of "No Effect" has been given for
this species and remains valid.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: All aspects of this project are 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 Water Quality Certification number 3403 will
apply to this project. All general conditions of the Water Quality Certifications will be met.
Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and 15A NCAC 2B.0200, we are
providing copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality for their review.
A copy of this application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http: //www.doh.dot. state.nc.us/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.html
NCDOT T!P B-3538
Page 3 of 4

r
Thank you for your time and assistance with this project. Please contact Tyler Stanton at
[e-mail] or [phone] if you have any questions or need any additional
information. ,
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
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
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Richard E. Greene, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Jamie Shern, Division 4 Environmental Officer
W/o attachment
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Maj ed Alghandour, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Hank Schwab, P.E., PDEA Project Planning Engineer
NCDOT TIP 8-3538 Page 4 of 4

RECEIVED
JUL ~ 2004
North Carolina Department of Transportation ~lV~SiC~ ~~ HiGI~~,"BAYS
PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION FO EA-0~~t~.~i==~iA.,r1f41v#~~'~~
TIP No. B-3538
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Consultation Phase: Revised Right of Way Consultation
b. Project Description: Replacement of Bridge No. 296 on SR 1222 over Neuse
River Cutoff in Wayne County
c. State Project: 8.2331301
WBS Project: 33145.1.1
Federal Project: BRZ-1222 (4)
d. Document Type: Right of Way Consultation 6-30-02
Categorical Exclusion 9-27-00
II. ACTION PROPOSED IN RIGHT OF WAY CONSULTATION
This project proposed to replace Bridge No. 296 with a new 175-foot long bridge on new
alignment approxunately 40 feet north (upstream) of the existing structure. Traffic would be
maintained on the existing structure during construction.
III. CONCLUSIONS
The Categorical Exclusion and Right of Way Consultation have been reevaluated as required by
23 CFR 771. It was determined that the current proposed action is not the same as the action
proposed in the previous documents. Proposed changes, aze noted below in Section IV. It has
been determined that anticipated social, economic, and environmental impacts were accurately
described in the Categorical Exclusion unless noted otherwise herein.
IV. CHANGES IN PROPOSED ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The original Categorical Exclusion (CE) proposed two alternatives. Alternate One recommended
replacing the existing bridge with a new bridge at approximately the same location and elevation
and maintaining traffic onsite using a temporary detour bridge to the north. Alternate Two
recommended replacing the bridge on new location to the north and maintaining traffic along the
existing alignment. Alternate Two was the recommended alternate in the CE Document.
Since that time, Humcane Floyd caused a lot of flood damage to eastern North Carolina. The
vicinity of this bridge project was flooded and FEMA bought most of the surrounding houses and
property. FEMA regulations declare no new impervious surface (includes pavement) is allowed
to be placed on land acquired using Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)/Supplemental
funding. NCDOT's Roadway Design Unit has been coordinating with FEMA as well as the NC
Division of Emergency Management (NCDEM). These agencies have conditionally approved
the replacement of Bridge No. 296 utilizing Alternate One. These conditions are stated on the
Green Sheet.
'~_ j5",? O,PV'S~~{ R,flt?,` ,-,,~[1Si;itZtinr,,
PaoP ! of?

Therefore, the recommended alternate will change from Alternate Two, to Alternate One (onsite
detour to the north). The previously attained Total Cost Estimate (Construction and Right of
Way Cost) for Alternate One is $1,668,000. The new recommended Alternate will not affect any
houses, nor result in any relocatees because the properties surrounding the project have been
purchased by FEMA resulting from flooding caused by Hurricane Floyd.
According to the February 2003 updated list for Wayne County, the only listed Threatened and
Endangered Species is the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. As stated in the Categorical Exclusion,
the Biological Conclusion of No Effect remains valid.
V. COORDINATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch personnel have discussed
current project proposals with others as follows:
Design Engineer: Greg Brew 6-9-04
Date
Permits Section: Tyler Stanton 5-17-04
ate e
VI. NCDOT CONCURRENCE
Robin Y. Hancock, PE, Project Development Engineer Date
~.~ ~ ~L~ ~ - ~v- v~
Teresa Hart, PE, CPM, Assistant Branch Manager Date
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
VII. FHWA CONCURRENCE
-~~1- John F. ivan, III, PE Date
g Division Administrator, FHWA
B-3538 Revised ROW Consultation Page 2 of 2

~.
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Wayne County
Bridge No. 296 on SR 1222
over Neuse River Cutoff
Federal-Aid No. BRZ-1222(4)
State Project No. 8.2331301
WBS 33145.1.1
TIP No. B-3538
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Division 4 Construction, Roadside Environmental Unit, Structure Design Unit
Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will
be implemented. The existing bridge is constructed entirely of timber and steel.
Therefore, Bridge No. 296 will be removed without dropping any component into Waters
of the United States during construction.
Hydraulics Unit, Roadway Design Unit
As recommended by the Wildlife Resources Commission, NCDOT will consider using
measures to avoid bridge deck drainage directly into the Neuse River Overflow during
the hydraulic analysis of the proposed bridge replacement.
Roadside Environmental Unit, Hydraulics Unit, Division 4 Construction Office
NCDOT will adhere to construction guidelines outlined in "NCDOT Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage" during the construction of Bridge No. 296 in
Wayne County. No in-water work will occur from February 15 to June 15.
Roadside Environmental Unit, Division 4 Construction Office
Once construction of the new bridge and approaches are complete, the detour bridge will
be removed. The approach fill for the detour will be removed to natural grade and the
area will be revegetated with appropriate plant species.
Roadside Environmental Unit, Division 4 Construction Office, Roadway Design Unit
The following conditions are required through FEMA and the Division of Emergency
Management:
1. The time required for the temporary roadway and bridge is not to exceed 18 months
from the date of earth moving startup.
2. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Property must be returned to pre-
construction state.
3. NCDOT will maintain HMGP Property; keeping it free of storm debris.
4. NCDOT will publish a public notice in the local newspaper and provide FEMA with
a copy
5. NCDOT will provide FEMA with a detailed engineering site plan for review.
Green Sheet
CE Revised ROW Consultation Page 1 of I
~I1T1P 7nnQ

Wayne County
Bridge No. 296 on SR 1222
Over Neuse River Overflow
Federal Project BRZ-1222 (4)
State Project 8.2331301
TIP No. B-3538
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
~' 2 ,S-Oo ~ ~ lT
Date William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development nd Environmental Analysis Branch
Date ~~ Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

Wayne County
Bridge No. 296 on SR 1222
Over Neuse River Overflow
Federal Project BRZ-1222 (4)
State Project 8.2331301
TIP No. B-3538
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
September 2000
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
- iz-oo i
Date area T. Orthner
Project Development Engineer

Date Wayne Elliott ~~,~.~~~~~~~~~~,,,~
Bridge Project Development Engineer, Unit Head ~~•~~~H CARp~~%,
~.
`~~ _ SEAL '; -
q-ZS-a~ ~
6976 -
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager r•~.. : '~ a
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch%,G~~//•~~b.:INEE?•~ ~~ ,;:°
~{~ VV PPRR~ S

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 296
on SR 1222 over Neuse River
Wayne County
Federal-Aid No. BRZ-1222(4)
State Project No. 8.2331301
T.I.P. No. B-3538
Commitments Developed 'I`hrou~h Proiect Development and Desi
Hydraulics Unit, Roadway Design Unit
As recommended by the Wildlife Resources Commission, NCDOT will
consider using measures to avoid bridge deck drainage directly into the Neuse
River Overflow during the hydraulic analysis of the proposed bridge
replacement.
Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Four Construction, Structure Design
Unit
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for "Bridge
Demolition and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 296 in Wayne
County.
Roadside Environmental Unit, Hydraulics Unit, Division Four Construction
Office
NCDOT will adhere to construction guidelines outlined in "NCDOT
Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage" during the
construction of $rid e No. 296 in Wayne County. No in-water work will occur
from February 15 togJune 15.
Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Four Construction Office
Once construction of the new bridge and approaches are complete, the
existing bridge will be removed. The existing approach fill will be removed to
natural grade and the area will be planted with native grasses and/or tree
species as appropriate.
Green Sheet
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
September 26, 2000

Wayne County
Bridge No. 296 on SR 1222
Over Neuse River Overflow
Federal Project BRZ-1222 (4)
State Project 8.2331301
TIP No. B-3538
Bridge No. 296 is located in Wayne County over the Neuse River Overflow. It is
programmed in the Draft 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a
bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Highway Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) and has been classified as a
"Categorical Exclusion". No substantial environmental impacts are expected.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No.296 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new bridge
on new alignment approximately 40 feet (12.2 m) north (upstream) of the existing
structure (see Figure 2). The new structure will be approximately 175 feet (53.3 m) long
and 30 feet (9.2 m) wide. The cross section of the new bridge will include two 12-foot
(3.6-m) lanes with 3-foot (1.0-m) offsets on each side of the bridge. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing structure during construction.
There will be approximately 1250 feet (381 m) of new approach work to the east
of and 850 feet (260 m) of new approach work to the west of the new bridge, The
pavement width of the roadway approaches will be 24 feet (7.2 m). Additionally, there
will be 8-foot (2.4-m) grass shoulders. The design speed will be 25 mph (40 km/h).
The estimated cost of the project is $1,365,000 including $1,272,000 in
construction costs and $93,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the
Draft 2002-2008 TIP is $1,800,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
Based on preliminary analysis, a design exception will not be required for this
project.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1222 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. The dead-end road is located approximately one mile southwest of
Goldsboro, N. C. Currently the traffic volume is 800 vehicles per day (VPD) and
projected at 1300 VPD for the year 2025. There is a 20 mph (30 km/h) posted speed limit
in the vicinity of the bridge. The road serves primarily local residential and industrial
traffic.
The existing bridge was completed in 1953_ It is composed of a four-span timber
and steel superstructure. The deck is 161 feet (49 m) long and 19 feet (6 m) wide. The
substructure is composed of timber bents with timber caps. There are approximately
28 feet (8.5 m) of vertical clearance between the floorbeams of the bridge deck and
streambed. There is one lane of traffic on the bridge.

According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 5.0 out of a possible 100. Presently, the bridge is posted with weight
restrictions of 14 tons for single vehicles and 17 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Vertical alignment is good in the project vicinity. The existing bridge lies in a
tangent section of roadway that curves sharply on both the east and west approaches to
the bridge. The pavement width on the approaches to the bridge is 19 feet (6 m).
Shoulders on the approaches of the bridge are approximately 4 feet (1.2 m) wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have been reported
during a recent three-yeaz period in the vicinity of the project.
There are six daily school bus crossings over the studied bridge. Because
SR 1222 is a dead-end road, there is no alternate route available for the school buses in
the case of road closure.
Southern Bell Telephone Company owns underground telephone cables along
SR 1222, which become aerial over the Neuse River Overflow. CP&L owns power lines
along SR 1247 with a service drop at the intersection of SR 1222. No power lines cross the
Neuse River Overflow. Along the south side of SR 1222, Southern Wayne Sanitary District
owns a water line, which is suspended on timber pilings over the Neuse River Overflow next
to the bridge.
IV. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There aze two "build" options considered in this document as follows:
Alternate 1: Bridge No. 296 would be replaced with a new 175-foot (53 m) long bridge
at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. Traffic would be maintained on-site using a temporary detour
north of the existing bridge. The design speed would be 25 mph
(40 km/h).
Alternate 2: (Recommended) Bridge No. 296 will be replaced with a new 175-foot
(53 m) long bridge on new location approximately 40 feet (12.2 m) north
(upstream) of the existing structure. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction. The design speed will be 25 mph
(40 km/h).
Both alternates were evaluated on the north side of the bridge in order to avoid a
water line suspended on timber pilings along the south side of the bridge.
Bridge No. 296 is the only access in and out of a residential and industrial
community northeast of the Neuse River Overflow on SR 1222. Therefore, closing the
road during construction is not an option, as access to this community would be cut off.
"Do-nothing" is not practical; requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating
bridge is neither practical nor economical.

V. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)

COMPONENT
ALTERNATE 1 Recommended
ALTERNATE 2
New Bridge
Existing Bridge Removal
Roadway & Approaches
Detour Brid a and A roaches 383,000
28,000
198,000
322,000 383,000
28,000
345,000
N/A
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 371,000 316,000
En ineerin & Contin encies 220,000 200,000
Total Construction $1,522,000 $1,272,000
Ri t of Wa $146,000 $93,000
Total Cost $1,668,000 $1,365,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No.296 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new bridge
on new alignment approximately 40 feet (12.2 m) north (upstream) of the existing
structure (see Figure 2). The new structure will be approximately 175 feet (53.3 m) long
and 30 feet (9.2 m) wide. The cross section of the new bridge will include two 12-foot
(3.6-m) lanes with 3-foot (1.0-m) offsets on each side of the bridge. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing structure during construction.
There will be approximately 1250 feet (381 m) of new approach work to the east
of and 850 feet (260 m) of new approach work to the west of the new bridge. The
pavement width of the roadway approaches will be 24 feet (7.2 m). Additionally, there
will be 8-foot (2.4-m) grass shoulders. The design speed will be 25 mph (40 km/h).
Once construction of the new bridge and approaches are complete, the existing
bridge will be removed. The existing approach fill will be removed to natural grade and
the area will be planted with native grasses and/or tree species as appropriate.
Alternate 2 is recommended due to lower cost. Each alternate would provide a
25 mph (40 km/h) design speed. Each alternate maintains traffic on site, since there are
no alternate routes available in the area. In addition, the environmental consequences are
essentially the same for both alternates.

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in the "Project Commitments" (green) sheet of this document. In addition, the use
of current NCDOT standards and specifications will be implemented.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of--way
acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
This project will not impact any resource protected by Section 4(f) of the U. S.
Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are considered to be low for the proposed project.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Wayne County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
In the vicinity of this project, Wayne County has no zoning. This project will
impact no soils considered to be prime or important farmland.

D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated that there are no known
architectural or archaeological sites in the project area and no unknown sites are likely to
be found. Therefore, the SHPO recommended no architectural or archaeological surveys
be conducted in connection with this project. (See attachment.)
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
I. PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below.
Soils and the availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora
and fauna in any biotic community.
The project lies in the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province.
Topography within the project region can be described as smooth, but short, sloping to
moderately steep breaks occurring along the floodplain of permanent streams.
Topography in the project area is flat with steep slopes occurring on the waters edge.
Primary land use is agriculture, but it includes urban areas around Goldsboro. Project
elevation is approximately 60.0 ft (18.3 m) above mean sea level (msl).
SOILS
Two soil phases occur within project boundaries. Wickham loamy sands (WhA)
are well-drained soils found on broad stream terraces. These soils formed in stream
sediments. Permeability is moderate and the seasonal high water table remains below a
depth of 5.0 ft (1.5 m). The slopes of this Wickham loamy sand are 0-2 percent.
Infiltration is moderate, and surface runoff is slow. Major hazards include flooding for
short periods of time and erosion for the steeper sloped areas. Wickham loamy sands are
listed asnon-hydric.
Wickham sandy loam (WkB2) is awell-drained soil on smooth, low ridges on
stream terraces, which formed in stream sediments. Permeability is moderate and the
seasonal high water table remains below a depth of 5.0 ft (1.5 m). Slopes range from 2-6
percent. Infiltration is moderately slow, and surface runoff is medium. Erosion is a
moderate hazard because of the steep slope's. Wickham sandy loam is listed as non-
hydric.
Wickham soils are low in natural fertility and organic matter content. They are
important for farming and well suited to locally grown crops.
WATER RESOURCES
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality
of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means
to minimize those impacts.

Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Neuse River Overflow will be the only surface water resource directly impacted by the
proposed project (Figure 2). Neuse River Overflow is located in sub-basin 03-04-12 of the
Neuse River Basin, and has its confluence with the Neuse River approximately 0.6 mi (1.0 km
stream channel distance) downstream of Bridge No. 296, The Neuse River Overflow is not
considered a navigable waterway.
At Bridge No. 296, the channel of Neuse River Overflow is approximately 90.0 ft
(27.4 m) wide and has a depth of 10.0 ft (3.1 m). The average baseflow width is 40.0 ft (12.2 m)
and the average baseflow depth is 4.0 f t (1.2 m). Rip-rap is located under both sides of the
bridge to stabilize the banks. The streambanks are steep, but stable. On July 29, 1999, very little
flow was observed in this portion of Neuse River Overflow. Approximately 0.1 mi (0.2 km)
downstream of the bridge is a riffle area comprised of clay, sand, cobbles, and boulders.
Upstream of the bridge, rock ledges are visible and the substrate consists of clay and sand.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). The DWQ identifies Neuse River Overflow as Neuse River Cut-Off. In
this report, I will address it as Neuse River Overflow. The classification of Neuse River
Overflow (Cut-Off) [index no. 27-59] is C NSW. The "C" classification denotes
freshwaters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture. The supplemental classification of NSW denotes Nutrient
Sensitive Waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
Within the project region lies the Neuse River Water Supply Watershed.
Approximately 0.6 mi (1.0 km) west of Bridge No. 2961ies a water supply protected area.
A protected area is only located within WS-IV watersheds. WS-IV refers to those waters
used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing
purposes for those users where a WS-I, WS-II, or WS-III classification is not
feasible. WS-IV waters are generally located within moderately to highly developed
watersheds. A protected area is defined as land within five miles and draining to the
normal pool elevation of water supplies, or within ten miles upstream and draining to a
river intake.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds, or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area.
Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for
the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological,
chemical and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All
basins are reassessed every five years. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide
approach to water quality management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(managed by the DEM) assessed water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate
organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. Biological monitoring is now
performed as part of the basinwide assessment program.
Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can last from
six months to a year; therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be overcome
6

until the next generation. Different taxa of macroinvertebrates have different tolerances
to pollution; therefore, long term changes in water quality conditions can be identified by
population shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms (and vice versa).
Overall, the species present, the population diversity and the biomass are reflections of
long term water quality conditions. There is a biological sampling station located on the
Neuse River at NC 117, within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the project corridor. This site was last
sampled in August 1995 and received a rating of Good-Fair.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and
estuarine water quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of
physical and chemical water quality data. The type of water quality data or parameters
that are collected aze determined by the waterbody's freshwater or saltwater classification
and corresponding water quality standards. Class C waters are sampled at a minimum
frequency of once per month. There is one AMS station located within 3.0 mi (4.8 km)
downstream of Bridge No. 296. A review of the monitoring information obtained from
this location indicated no significant water quality problems.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Dischazge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any dischazger
is required to register for a permit. Two permitted dischargers are located within
1.0 mi (1.6 km) of Bridge No. 296.
Table 2. Maior Dischargers Within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of Bride No. 296
Desi ' Av .Flow
Facility NPDES # :.~ Flow. .-fxom I99I Location
,

,. . _
_ (MGD ,..
IGD ,
. .
Wayne County Genoa Industrial N00030392 0.4000 0.0882 Neuse R.
Pazk WWTP *downstream
Celotex Corporation N00050695 N/A 0.0000 Neuse R. Ut
*downstream
"MGD" Quantifies the flow in millions of gallons per day (MGD).
"*" Denotes if the discharger is located upstream or downstream of Bridge No. 296.
"Ut" Unnamed Tributary
Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater or snowmelt. Agricultural activities may serve as a source for various forms
of nonpoint source pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturb soils to a degree where
they are- susceptible to erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is
the most widespread cause of nonpoint source pollution in North Cazolina. Pesticides,
chemical fertilizers, and land application of animal wastes can be transported via runoff
to receiving streams and potentially elevate concentrations of toxic compounds and
nutrients. Animal wastes can also be a source of bacterial contamination and elevate
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Drainage ditches on poorly drained soils enhances
the transportation of stormwater into surface waters.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Surface waters present in the project area include the Neuse River Overflow.
Estimated linear impacts are derived using the combined ROW width of 90.0 feet
(27.4 m) for Alternate 1 and 80.0 feet (24.4 m) for Alternate 2. Anticipated impacts to
the Neuse River Overflow will be 90.0 feet (27.4 m) for Alternate 1 and 80.0 feet
(24.4 m) for Alternate 2. Usually, project construction does not require the entire ROW;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.

Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal.
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
4. Changes in water temperature due to removal of streamside vegetation.
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction, toxic spills,
and increased vehicular use.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study
azea. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. Guidelines for these BMPs
include, but are not limited to: minimizing built upon area and diversion of stormwater
away from surface water supply waters as much as possible. In addition, measures to
avoid deck drainage directly into the stream will be considered in the hydraulic analysis
of this project. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances during the
construction interval must also be strictly enforced.
II. BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial communities. This section
describes those communities encountered in the study azea as well as the relationships
between fauna and flora within these communities. Composition and distribution of
biotic communities throughout the project azea aze reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences and past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial
systems aze presented in the context of plant community classifications and follow
descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora
and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et
al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhinick (1991), Potter, et
al. (1980), Webster, et al. (1985), Glassberg (1999), and Borror, et al (1970). Subsequent
references to the same organism will include the common name only. Fauna observed
during the site visit aze denoted with an asterisk (*). Spoor evidence equates to
observation of the species. Published range distributions and habitat analysis aze used in
estimating fauna expected to be present within the project area.
TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Two distinct terrestrial communities aze identified in the project study area: mixed
pine hardwood forest and maintained/disturbed. Community boundaries within the study
area are generally well defined without a significant transition zone between them. Many
faunal species likely to occur within the study area may exploit all communities for
shelter and foraging opportunities, or as movement corridors.

Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest
The mixed pine hardwood forest is present in the upland areas adjacent to Neuse
River Overflow. The transition from mixed pine hazdwood forest to the surrounding
communities is abrupt due to the change in vegetation and road shoulder and agricultural
maintenance activities.
On the southwest corner of the bridge, the azea adjacent to the mixed pine
hardwood forest appeazs to have been previously inhabited and maintained. The forest
community is littered with debris including concrete and trash. The other three corners of
the bridge are relatively undisturbed mixed pine hazdwood forest. The canopy is
primarily composed of sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), water oak (Quercus nigra),
southern red oak (Q. falcata), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), laurel oak (Q.
laurifolia), river birch (Betula nigra), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), and eastern
redcedaz (Juniperus virginiana). The shrub layer consists of saplings of the canopy trees,
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and sassafras (Sassafras albidum). Herbs within the
forest consist of river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium) and Japanese grass (Microstegium
virmineum). Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia) comprise the vine layer of this
community.
Maintained/Disturbed
The maintained/disturbed community includes road shoulders along SR 1222 that
are present along the entire length of the project, a utility corridor, and an agricultural
field. Road shoulders and utility corridors aze irregulazly maintained, receiving only
periodic mowing and herbicide applications. The portion of the agricultural field that
will be impacted is less maintained; therefore, vegetation occurring along the utility
corridor would be similaz to, but denser than that in the agricultural field.
Road shoulders act as buffers between the roadway and surrounding communities
by filtering storm water run-off and reducing run-off velocities. The width of the road
shoulder is approximately 10.0 ft (3.1 m). Vegetation occurring within frequently
maintained portions of the road shoulder include low growing species such as: fescue
(Festuca spp.), crab grass (Digitaria sp. ), dwarf dandelion (Krigia virginica), clover
(Trifolium spp.), common chickweed (Stellaria media), and buckhom plantain (Plantago
lanceolata). Areas receiving less frequent maintenance, such as utility corridors are
occupied by Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), chrysanthemum
(Chrysanthemum sp.), dog-fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), ragweed (Ambrosia sp.),
pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), dayflower (Commelina sp.), greenbrier, morning
glory (Ipomoea sp.), curly dock (Rumex crispus), horse nettle (Solanum carolinensis),
grape (Vitis sp.), sneeze-weed (Helenium sp.), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans)
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Chinese wistena (Wisteria sinensis), passion-flower
(Passijlora sp.), and saplings of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), water oak (Quercus
nigra), mimosa-tree (Albizia julibrissin), and redbud (Cercis canadensis).
Wildlife '
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate or exploit the entire
range of biotic communities discussed. Generally, community boundaries are abrupt,
with little transitional azea between them. Forested tracts and drainageways provide
habitat for species requiring a forest community, and also provide shelter and movement

corridors for other species of wildlife within the project vicinity.
Mammals that commonly exploit habitats found within the project azea include:
the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway rat
(Rattus norvegicus), and least shrew (Cryptotis parva). The hispid cotton rat thrives in
dense vegetation associated with field edges. The Virginia oppossum (Didelphis
virginiana) and raccoon (Procyon lotor) are very adaptive mammals which frequent areas
of human settlement. The gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) preys heavily on
cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus) and other rodents which can be found in abundance in
this type of habitat.
Birds found foraging within the project azea include: brown thrasher* (Toxostoma
rufum), Cazolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias),
common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), eastern bluebird
(Sialia sialis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), and killdeer (Charadrius vociferus).
Insects observed utilizing the azea were cicadas* (Family Cicadidae), Horace's
duskywing* (Erynnis horatius), and least skipper* (Ancyloxypha numitor). An orb-
weaver spider* (Order Araneida) was also observed in the project area.
Reptiles that can be expected to utilize the terrestrial communities within the
project area include: redbelly snake (Storeria occipitomaculata), rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis),
five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos),
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), and eastern fence
lizazd (Sceloporus undulatus). The diet of the rat snake consist pnmarily of rats and mice.
The forest communities near surface water provide excellent habitat for
amphibians such as Cazolina mudpuppy (Necturus lewisi), dwazf salamander (Eurycea
quadridigitata), Fowler's toad* (Bufo woodhousei), little grass frog (Limnaoedus
ocularis), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), and Brimley's chorus frog (Pseudacris brimleyi).
Brimley's chorus frog occurs along streams flowing through hazdwood forests, with
females depositing eggs on plant stems and other submerged objects.
AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
One aquatic community, Neuse River Overflow, will be impacted by the proposed
project. Fauna present within the project area aze dependent upon physical chazactenstics
of the water body and overall condition of the water resource. Terrestrial communities
adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence aquatic communities. Fauna associated
with the aquatic communities include various invertebrate and vertebrate species.
The streambank along this portion of Neuse River Overflow is steep, yet stable.
Vegetation along the streambank includes various mosses (Musci), liverwort (Hepaticae),
and Japanese grass.
Fish species likely to occur in Neuse River Overflow include mosquitofish*
(Gambusia holbrooki), sunfish* (Family Centrazchidae), creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), and margined madtom (Noturus insignis). Invertebrates that would be
present include: crayfish* (Cambaridae), dragonflies* and damselflies* (Odonata),
nymphal and larval stages of caddisflies* (Trichoptera) and stoneflies* (Plecoptera),
whirligig beetles* (Gynnidae), and water striders* (Aquarius sp.). Mollusks identified in
Neuse River Overflow include two types of freshwater mussels, including four specimens
of Elliptio spp.* and three eastern floaters* (Pyganodon cataracta), as well as asiatic
clams* (Corbicula fluminea) and snails* (Gastropoda).
]0

The Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) indicated this section of Neuse River
Overflow is known to support anadromous fish. WRC has requested that NCDOT
comply with the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage" and that no
in-water work occur from February 15 to June 15.
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts
to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to biotic resources reflects the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 3 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts
for Alternate 1 and Alternate 2 are derived using the proposed ROW of 80.0 feet (24.4 m)
for the Replacement Bridge. In addition, Alternate 1 involves a detour bridge with a
ROW of 60.0 feet (18.3 m), for a combined width of 90.0 feet (27.4 m), excluding
overlap. The paved roadway width of 19.0 ft (5.8 m) has been excluded from the impact
calculations. Usually, project construction does not require the use of the entire ROW or
study area width, therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. Surface water
impacts are presented in "Water Resources" section of this document.
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community Alternate 1 * Alternate 2
Mixed, Pine Hardwood .0.39 (0.16) 0.65 (0.26)
Maintained/Disturbed 2.27 (0.92) 2.39 (0.97)
Total 2.66 (1.08) 3.04 (1.23)
Note: Values cited are in acres (hectares).
*Approximately 30% of Alternate 1 involve temporary impacts.
Plant communities found along the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Replacing Bridge No. 296 will reduce habitat for
faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers„ Habitat reduction concentrates
wildlife into smaller areas of refuge, thus causing some species to become more
susceptible to disease, predation and starvation.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and
early successional habitat. Increased traffic noise and reduced habitat will displace some
wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of more
early successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will
repopulate areas suitable for the species. This temporary displacement of animals may
result in an increase of competition for the remaining resources.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to small changes in their environment. Stream
channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction- related
work would effect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct impacts
may be temporary, environmental impacts from these construction processes may result
in long term or irreversible effects.

In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and may remove streamside
vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will destroy aquatic vegetation and
produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms
(sessile filter-feeders and deposit- feeders), fish and amphibian species. Benthic
organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These organisms are
slow to recover or repopulate a stream. Turbidity reduces light penetration thus '
decreasing the growth of aquatic vegetation.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the
construction site alters the terrain. Alterations of the streambank enhances the likelihood
of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating
these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other
materials into aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes magnify
turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbazs at the site and downstream, thereby
altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to
more direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures which may
impact many species.
III. JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
-This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues--Waters of the United States, and rare and protected species.
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) promulgated the definition of
"Waters of the United States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Waters of the United States
include most interstate and intrastate surface waters, tributazies, and wetlands. Areas that
are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions are considered "wetlands"
under 33 CFR §328.3(b). Wetlands generally include swamps, mazshes, bogs, and
similar areas. Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill materials into Waters of
the United States falls under the jurisdiction of the USAGE, and must follow the statutory
provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three parameter approach is used where
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic chazacteristics must all be
present for an area to be considered a wetland. Wetlands are not present within the
project area.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Surface waters present in the project area include the Neuse River Overflow.
Estimated linear impacts are derived using the combined ROW width of 90.0 feet
(27.4 m) for Alternate 1 and 80.0 feet (24.4 m) for Alternate 2. Anticipated impacts to
the Neuse River Overflow will be 90.0 feet (27.4 m) for Alternate 1 and 80.0 feet
(24.4 m) for Alternate 2. Usually, project construction does not require the entire ROW;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
12

Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with
provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be
required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States."
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable
for all impacts to Waters of the United States from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in
whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department
has determined that pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act;
(1) that 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) that 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.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 Nationwide
Permit No. 23. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily
impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulations.
Neuse River Buffers
As the project is located in the Neuse River Basin, Riparian Area Rules for
Nutrient Sensitive Waters apply. The rules state that roads, bridges, stormwater
management facilities, ponds, and utilities may be allowed where no practical alternative
exists. They also state that these structures shall be located, designed, constructed, and
maintained to have minimal disturbance, to provide maximum erosion protection, to have
the least adverse effects on aquatic life and habitat, and to protect water quality to the
maximum extent practical through the use of best management practices. Every
reasonable effort will be made to avoid and minimize wetland and stream impacts.
Estimated impacts to the. riparian buffers are derived using the combined ROW
width of 90.0 ft (27.4 m) for Alternate 1 and 80.0 feet (24.4 m) for Alternate 2, and the
required buffer width of 50.0 ft (15.2 m) on each side of the water resource. Anticipated
impacts to riparian buffers are calculated to be 0.21 ac (0.08 ha) for Alternate 1 and 0.18
acres (0.07 ha) for Alternate 2. It is possible the Neuse River Overflow may be exempted
when an on-site determination by the Division of Water Quality is conducted. Therefore,
impacts may be considerably less.
Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),
a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
13

wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating
for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (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.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction of median widths, ROW widths, and/or fill slopes. Other practical mechanisms
to minimize impacts to Waters of the United States crossed by the proposed project
include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface
waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity;
reduction/elimination of direct dischazge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-
establishment of vegetation on exposed azeas, judicious pesticide and herbicide usage;
minimization of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control. In addition, once
construction of the new bridge and approaches are complete as recommended in
Alternate 2, the existing bridge will be removed. The existing approach fill will be
removed to natural grade and the azea will be planted with native grasses and/or tree
species as appropriate.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions should
be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site. Compensatory
mitigation is not usually necessary with a Nationwide Permit No. 23, however the final
decision lies with the COE.
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 296 has four spans totaling 161 feet (49 m) in length. The bridge is
composed entirely of timber and steel. Therefore, Bridge No. 296 will be removed
without dropping any components into Waters of the U.S. during construction.
14

RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified asfederally-protected, be subject
to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of
December 20, 1999, the FWS lists one federally-protected species for Wayne County. A
brief description of the species' characteristics and habitat follows.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 10, 1970
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of
the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker aze white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at
least 50 percent 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 aze greater
than 60 years old and aze contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The
foraging range of the RCW is up to500 acres (200 hectares). This acreage must be
contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that
are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 12.0-100.0 ft (3.6-30.3 m) above the ground and average 30.0-50.0 ft (9.1- 15.2 m)
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 38
days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat, in the form of open old growth stands of southern pines, does not
exist within the project azea. The project azea is dominated by mixed pine hardwood
forest community. Pines within this forested community are interspersed within the
community and represent less than fifty percent of the canopy. A review of the NC
Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats on January 19,
2000 revealed that there are no known occurrences of the red-cockaded woodpecker
within 2.0 mi (3.2 km) of the project study azea. Therefore, project construction will not
affect the red-cockaded woodpecker.
IS

Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are five Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Wayne County.
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern aze defined as those
species which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formally
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there was
insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Significantly Raze (SR) or Special Concern (SC) by the North Cazolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of rare species and unique habitats are afforded
state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists Federal Species of Concern and State listed species, the species state
status and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study azea. This species
list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in
the future.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of
these species observed. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique
habitats on January 19, 2000 revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
species in or near the project study azea.
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Wayne County
Scienttific Name Common Name'> States = Habits ''
Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eazed bat SC*
PT Yes
Heterodon simus southern hognose snake SR
PSC Yes
L thrurus matutinus inewoods shiner SR Yes
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T
PE Yes
Litsea aestivalis Ponds ice C No
"*" ----- Historic record (Last observed in Wayne County more than twenty years ago.)
"E"------An Endangered species is any native or once-native species of wild animal whose continued
existence as a viable component of the State's fauna is determined by the Wildlife Resources Commission
to be in jeopardy or any species of wild animal determined to bean "endangered species" pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act.
"SC"---- A Special Concern species is any species of wild animal native or once-native to North Carolina
which is determined by the Wildlife Resources Commission to require monitoring but which may be taken
under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes;
1987.
"SR"-----A Significantly Rare species is one which has not been listed by the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission as an Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species, but which exists in the state in
small numbers and has been determined by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring.
"T"----- A Threatened species is any native or once-native species of wild animal which is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
"C"----- A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations
in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or
disease. The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main
16

range in a different part of the country or the world.
"PE"---- Proposed Endangered
"PT"---- Proposed Threatened
"PSC"---Proposed Special Concern
17

1222
N
O
.~
MAR-MAC
(UNINC.) -
POP. 3,366 (~ ~ ~ ~~
• ~ 2108 ~~
1247 13 `~'~
1222 1248 117 ~.,`
Bridge No. 296 •~
~ ~o
•~ ;
1258 •~ -1247 ~
`~
0 01 .`•'~
1272 '•~
/ o
0~ 1290 gp ~9 Ov O ~•.~ , -
1222
1291 • ~ 1219 ' p~ ..`~ ;
.~~ •Za ~ O /..
I
~ 1262 .~'•,
04
~3 ~ ~ 1263 1926
1219
1130
~,~~ North Carolina
;. Department of Transportation
' ~ 1}ivision of Highways
Planning ~' Environmental Branch
a'ayne County
Replace Bridge No. 296 on SR 1222
(her Neuse River Overflow
B~538
F>lgure 1

r,,
~.
~.
..E~'..~.' .
,e y?
r~'
_J~'Lt<.
;;,y, ¢; ,

.. yr .. . L...
r
i '{~
~ ft.P
~

F
~4y7~~k .
/.~ ~

h
1
~~ j ~ :~
~ ~`
~'
'

~ .
~ . .,r
- ~. , , ~,.
i '
1"
a
r ,F
"~
Rl ~ j~~,
d
i
~, ~~.
~2~~ ~ ~ T
C u N
~ [CS
t. N
N
Y M
/~ ~
L
O
' ~y y
"G Vl pip ~
~ a;
°
ti >'
~ c a~i
3
~ >, o a
\
~ ~~
C
O r n. Q
~ O c5 ~ ~ L
p N yd ckJ

~ d o 01 y ~ ,~ ~ M)
~ j E c ~ G j, a~ ~
ca ~ d
~ :H y
~
L O. ~~
p ~ L Z
Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~
- 6d
7'
U
~~laP
Po' N~<(b
r6o , A
^-~ tr
d
P
~+ ~~
ds
?'•. ~
' 1F".+ W~L ~.._L e2 ~ 'F ~kl~y^•9•. ~ h~iat ..:~~~~' ........ ..._ _
s~
4''i1.
a.
,7.
~~~ ;

~;
xra ~
I ,k.~~,
`! '! " +~!
F f~..f
y~ f R~ ~
1 Y'/
~r
.~~
,
r
,.._ k,
~ ~.
~i ~,~ ,
i~
'' ~,-~
~~ agnaj~
# r,,,I i b 1 ~ Ji
F -0; 1 3 ,~ - W ~ ~ ~ ~
U~ `~~`~b r ~ , ~ , ~r E~€~ ~,,„~.
s f` k t I ~ _F ~y +.}ate #~ ~'
{ 'F s "` ~
~ 4~J9
tits + ~~
t I 1 , B u Itt+ ~ ryro, t F,a , yri #~~~ S ~-
, 9 g°
",~ ~ a~ F I ~l a{~Q ~A~~~ ~ 6 ~i
,' ~
' ` y-2 ryF t ~li'r~~ E ~T
r cc
f Y '3$
nT t,~,YFht x•
F
~ J r k K rr~j! "~~~5j ~r u.
' ~+~' t ~ '~~ ~v6i-.
"' e ~f r ~ ra x zr.~
rs, s , s, s ~g3~d~~Y ~~ i°~ ~s ~`~a;~p
s a ~~ ~~u'~ t,
1 ~,.~ ~ N ~~~*~~rn~~ ~~ ~f ~tl R,ye
s ~~,~!
~9 ~ t ~ ~,C ` ~lwsr L ~-(
L~
~ ss~ ~Lt', ~_ ~rra, b~,,-; r~ y
z '$~
,~ ~ r _ ~,J~.~; ~
,' r
i t.,~.-t z
a s ~ ~~ ;
~~~ ~i a }
i '~,a~,rr ~ k 1 , ~~ "
.ti~~G R. f .. ~n~~:•. s .~.., ,. Y~ ~ .~~~s ,. .~,'.
b ,, r ~ s i ..'fi't"""~~
~""~
_. r
F~ ~ ~ '
k
s ~ ~ ~ I
~ -,,~,I r ~ ~ i 'd ,
,', ~: ~a
I
* ~ .. krk... r
Y~ as nw. s ,;~ys~Y,Y:'
F ~$
® '
-'t"'r~
7 M~u
r ~
i

uF ~
x
~~
"e
~
~
~ ~~~k, P # c
` ' e
~q'~ ~y
f rr ~ ~r,"'+~r~~ I r ~ ..r 9s:
f,~ s 6 a~ Cdr Ys II'
4

~ y ~

.F yt x s )

/~

I ~
~ ~'
r ~P x r r
t
}, ,
,
~ p~
Rp ~".q d.. ~1r d9 J.'4e1 ~,f
`
7 -. i IVY r~1~~~,I '~ri
}
~"
4 F
~
~
~ t.: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~` r
.~5,~~$ ~
f
Y # T q
t'E
A~v i6
~~'
r r2~~k
qq
, `
~ y
Y,
_ r~
y~~~
l t~.f R~r' ~ ~S~y
l1 3
M ` !~ ~` f
r JJ JJ
.
`; ._,i. ~~K :i 3t `w 4. ~''€ ,Rf 7n~. i 5y~ ~3"4ad ,. '{. 4'',
3. ~'~`~ ~

yTy~~ SruF q,~
~y
N ~~~
~~
~. n
~~~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
MAILING ADDRESS
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
August 17, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: Karen Orthner
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David- Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge 296 on SR 1222 over Neuse River
OverIlow, B-3538, Wayne County, ER 99-
8120
LOCATION
507 North Blount Street
Raleigh, NC
State Courier 53-31-31
Thank you for contacting us regarding the above project. We have reviewed our files
and found that our Environmental Review Coordinator, Renee Gledhill-Earley, called
Karen Orthner, North Carolina Department of Transportation, on February 3, 1999,
and advised that no architectural or archaeological surveys were recommended for
this project.
The above comments are made pur-suant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning
the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review
coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB: slw
cc: Nicholas Graf
William D. Gilmore
Division of Archives and History
kffrey J. Crow, Director
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g~~

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission®
X12 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Karen Orthner, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coor ' ,
Habitat Conservation Program ~~/
DATE: February 25, 1999
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects in Wayne County, North Carolina.
TIP Nos. B-3378, B-3538 and B-3539.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.

Bridge Replacement Memo 2 February 25, 1999
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
project. Disturbed azeas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the azea should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the azea with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
azea to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A cleaz bank (riprap free) azea of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge:
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. 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 aze used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In 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 aze required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms aze at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.'
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to

Bridge Replacement Memo 3 February 25, 1999
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-yeaz
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3378 -Wayne County -Bridge # 34 is located over Nahunta Swamp. With the
recent dam removal in the Neuse River this site now may support anadromous fish.
NCDOT should follow the officially adopted document "Stream Crossing Guidelines
for Anadromous Fish Passage". No in-water work should be conducted between
February 15 and June 15.
2. B-3538 -Wayne County -Bridge # 296 is over the Neuse River overflow. This site
is known to support anadromous fish. NCDOT should follow the officially adopted
document "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". No in-water
work should be conducted between February 15 and June 15.
3. B-3539 -Wayne County -Bridge # 164 is over Stony Creek. This site is known to
support anadromous fish. NCDOT should follow the officially adopted document
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Aadromous Fish Passage". No in-water work
should be conducted between February 15 and June 15.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambazilcs, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regazding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thanl: you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects.

~,~.
~„ r
~ r ..
r
a?,
r , r
_ ,~ A ~ _
~~'kw, ~ n ~la~

.1
; ~, ~'
~
~,
,
yh Z
,

~~1
~ ~ ~
,, ~
~
54 ~ ~:
' I f
~
r,', YID
.~~
A p.

{,. v
~-'t~
i' ~ '.~
` ~~ ~
14
1
"ex

~.,
€ .. ~ '
~
~ :
{
j
! .r
,,, ~
.
t
..
~
.` -....
~ .f ~
~rN
r h~
~ _~,
I
~
~
~
y K _ ___
,
~
, ;
,
~
jY
Y
r' ~
.
'
+
~~ ~
~f ~ ~, I

~r
~~
~"'
~
~ ~
^ti,
~~
i
~ r
~y ~. p~+ ~ ~' ~ ~
~
f ~.
~
m~ ,
k~3~ ~" .. ~ ""..
i,Fl_ i .... f hip` `~"...

~~~~
r ,,=
~ ~` I - '_ tl
~1 J ~
i _ r
w.i , a ;I.
~ 'y~ ~; ~ F 4 ~ PG
~~. ~ ~
4 t a~
~d
~ •, s ''
4 - ~,,
~F ~
~ ~ ~ ~ i r ~`~~"'~~~ ~ r'', ~'~ ' ' hl2a S -s ~~
s
_ a f+TM ,
f
~ ~{ud ~ ~ ~ k i t
~~~~~ ik~~ , +~'"~~~ q~ } is
~ , ~f.,.
= k ti .~,v ~ ~ ~ r
~TM1 ~ ~
1' -'~ 'h d' ~`
7C ~
f" _
~ ~ ti `~~
6~~ 4f _ ~
r! ~, ,~.
+ ~Y
,~~ ~ ~
=_ ~~ ~ ~ f
,'~`~t~14"8J ' ~tF ~ I tr, nr c
i ~ c ~ -S 3j`~a~a ~ 9•
NEUSE R~ER BUFFER
~~~®~
®IVISI®1*I ®F ]EIIGFIWA'~S
W.~~1!*TE C®1TNTY
Y~Ia®J1ECT:33fl~5.1.1 (~-353~D
I~Efl~I~~CE ~I$IDGE ~ 296 ~VEIE~
N]EflISE I$IV1ElE~ ~IJT-~~FF
A1L~91~1s 5I8 1222
SHEET ~OF
~(% 5 % X05

.,
PR
~~~~~~~~
~~ll~~~
NEUSE R DER BUFFER
~~~®~
DIVISI®N ®F HIGHWr~YS
WAYNE C®UNTY
PR®JECT:331~5.1.1 (B-3538)
REPL.iCE BRIDGE ~ 296 ®VER
NEUSE RIVER CUT-®FF
PAL®NG SR 1222
SHEET oZ ®F ~~ x/5/05

m
M
V
W

[~i
v
0
v
See Sheet 1-A For InOex of Sheets
See Sheet 1-8 For Conventlorrol Symbols

FER

racc~u~uNeRY PLANS
w xor oa roa mear,vcnoa

GRAPIffC SCALES
gp g gp ~
DESIGN DATA
ADT 2005 = 400
PROJECT LENGTH
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 6538 = 0.31 MILE Prepore0ln mt Office d:

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1000 Ahe1 Rld~a Dr„ lt~btOA KC, 11610 EYDRAi1Lt;CS ffiYGDr88R DIVISION OF ffiGFlWAYS
sTATa o,~ xoxTS cAaoruvA
ADT 2025 = 1300 LENGTH STRUCNRE TIP PROJECT 63538 = 0.03 MILE yam
PLANS

g0 5 g0 1 DHV = 10 %

D = 60 % TOTAL LENGTH STATE TiP PROJECT 8-3538 = 0.34 MILE

NGBT OF WAY DA7~

G
E
GREW
PE
ra
~""~'°'

ra
.
.
.
T = 4 % ' FEBRUARY 2@,,2005 >s~Am~ ROADWAY DESIGN
Bfl'GINB88 ~ ~r
'

PROFILE HORIZONTAL)
10 10 20
V 25 MPH
•
'

I.B77~NG 1)A18;

W,T, BEST DSPARTIIffiV7
OP TRANSPORTATION
1~BDBRAL ffiGHWAY ADM!lVilST&!
TT
ST 2% + DUAL 2% r~ r~r ~B°'®`
APRIL 18, 2006
PROFILE
VE
A 1•urvc ~s • tort ~~ ra "'A0D'~
(
RTIC
L)

rtn
rtn wear eeworo ea emr
~ ~~
iwm
.C. Qa~ ~3R 1 3/11

arv IJTIL

nasa meiexe No, a+ar No.
. ~ ~
ansioNS I
N
~ ,~ ~L, W W6T N0.
n tlgN NYDINJIlCi
'~ ALLOWABLE ~ FFER IM• ACTS ZONE I 6 ~"~` "~"~`
EiP DONALD R. SMITH
' a' ALLOW,~3LE BN .FER IMP . TS ZONE 2 DB 1713 PG 477
DB 1539 PG 117
+ , I ~ ~ PC B SLIDE 270
+~ I y U
' ' ~ J. NELSON KORNEGAY ~, CREATE 2' X 4' DEPRESSION
_ PING 14+8 .88 ~ ~ DB 819 PG 20 N w ~ INLET OF 12' CMP BY
00 -L- (3.13 L .) ~ ~ ~ 'EXCAVATING TO PROPOSED INLET INV• 04/10/05
ELEV. 71.4 TO ACHIEVE
- to I ~ ~ : I' MIN. CO TA 13+16HOpEDER p01NT BL-5 IZ+85.38 PING
' N 1 ~ POT 15+10.25 -L- (5.81 LT.) PTSta.17f7~
W
+ +W Z W
+ POCSta.11+94.93-L- _ -:
7 NC ~ ~ POT Sta. i2+17.08 -Y - ,W '~
Pf~C~9. 77 c~ i r 4' X 8' X 2' ~ -l; +10 •' ~ `, -L- +35
~ • + TYPE 'B' BASIN ' MODIFIED CONC. FLUME ~
~ , ~ 100.00' &. + ~ 100.00' ~J
W/ CONC. DITCH
" ' a8 72'00' ` ' & CLASS 'B' RIP RAP
~ ~ z i ' -L-+6.1 + '
' ~ ~ PTSto. ~ •00• SPECIAL CUT DITCH ~
I I 13+18.39 ~ , GRASS LINED SOIL'RD
. ~ ' -tt +68 ' SEE DETAIL A PCSt4,16+88.47 , +
~ ~ 80.00' ~ • WOODS ' ' ~ ~
I I w D '~ S -L- +88.47 ~ ; ~ +73.26
+ -L- +85. b i 1 E E ~ . ~ -L- +,12 ~ ~ 30.00 &
41.21' ~ I 2' X 4' ~ ~ ~ 48.00' ' '
I I + i
- , 1.
I + i
+ CMP C B RIPRAP
•F
+60.9 I 5 F ~ E
GRAVES 14.71' , , '~ C
a Q a o o I I ~ ~-.~- EXISI
N Y + ,
v= ~~
C F ~ o B N
--- _ ~ t
_ ~--~'~j 0 ~ WOOD HW w
b ..._- _ ~ ` , ' ~ I 6' DLJCTI E PILINGS 0 l~ TY E ~5~ F F
w ~ 50•07r " C I WAT ,~INF QISTIIR'R71Y-~' s"- ~-
® 2 ' -.~ 9.65 6953` B RAP ~~ C C C ~ EXISTING Ri
~.~ 3 TON .-._~..x x
C GRA a8" CN D 3 -L-~+75 ~~ W x
N
C @ 113 - X ~ W ~ 24' RCP ~ ~ 37.~ & ,
W/~IETER~ ~ ~ o FLAP GATE ~ SPECIAL CUT DITCH 5 X 10 5 X 10
~ F -L +31 +1 39 m MIN. SLOPE s GRASS LINED CLASS 'B' RIP RAP CLASS 'B' RIP F
TCH -~- +37 ~ 55, ~ •~: SEE DETAIL 'A' PAD EST. 3 TONS PAD EST. 3 TO
' bb. PROPOSED ~^
65.00'
- m ~ z ~ SPECIAL CU ~ ITCH m ~ I '' ~ ~ MODIFIED CONC. FLUME
m w o m GRASS LI ED `21' w/ CONC. DITCH
o C ~ ~ SEE DETAI , A' C SLAB & CLASS 'B' RIP RAP PTSta. l6+ I T
a ~ F I ~ ~ waoos ; ~ PCSta,15+46J3
~, ~ x o PASruaE GARLAND D. JOYS
° ~ a z I II ~ DB 1028 PG 197
C ~; a ~ I ml COUNTY OF WAY'NE 5 ~ 7 ~09
I~- F ~, p8 1716 PG 574 ~ ~ 5®9
~~ ~ ~- ~ m X o = GARLAND D. JOYNER
°N _ _ _ _ I~~`~ la Y- +7~ ~ m~1 •w DB 1028 PG 197 /J~ /~ A A ~1
N'= _ S_O1L OR I~ Im ~ 40.00' 8~ r c~ o
°~a _ ~, 29.74' ~ °•'
~ REM E~ ~ z N N]E~T~IE ~ VAR ~ITIFF]EI$ ,!~
N°~ I I m
r'0 °
aFm
.E~1 1
~`q

V i P

A r
5
6cF5Er
~I'D~E RE1.arnN ro PaEYENr ac
I.
~ OAND 6,rARREH
~~, pe 160196 t72
~ we p7 90 4f
Ff.
crAr
9+20.05
-L- 120.37 Li.l
w
i37,4P
5-8232'9M
Gt,eERT 0. r
s>e nt7 9D w o
"'
W oP
~
.
.

I.
3
4
'
III O I

t
I Iwo
I I ~ $
I I'" wrw i

O
Pe1C H+86.88
POC 4+12.00 •L- 13J.T'Lra IJI
I &I • ~ De to PoPo2~oCAY
I I ~ t
. a' if
~
I I ~
pAy(I~ rARREH I •~~,., ~~ W
+ I ~~roM 11
!r I i
I I ~~
~ : 1 1
I I I ~~~
I I ~ i +e cw< I I TYPE ti'x a
I

ro~ ~
ar
^
t e
I I oe
e
I 1 uu»E rAINTTI
~ ! I
~~
S I
I I k +fl
IDAD'
I I 200 Y.tltll m l IWCwwm cuvE 1
$1
~
~
~ ~
G! 4131'
i
l PaIN(i
II J ~ + I I 750 PE n

wram 0wwE5 ~ '

~;
~
a aaoooaoooaoa I
~
1 ~ EP u~ccavc uva~ ( p' x._.~ _ n
CBEAT dOVEleiw 41 - . a i~ DDu~~ n
a Rr90 SH ~', ~ ac M'EST. - . , 'fib ~ GfG SS O
~..,.,. ~.., ~ e x 2
C C C C
E ycR~yF~ ~ c c ~ _E ~gr .~~Tea P F +>n +Iu
- ~- + .11 07C a IlrAT1E CQM1Y1 ~ ? 6TA0'~ ~SDECI~T~TCH + +!/ 16,q
6
~' LLLE E. D-YIS ~ e -T- +75~ A' W $ ~ A~~i CH
-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O oe uw m Ira .ua ReECnETt 44.00'6 ` ~ ~' , A•
I ~ nAT ET t°OilH~n ~ ~sr ~ ~ XII ~ soaps
coca I `~'Ti~E•~, C ~.~ I CW11TV 09 u>iEO
~ ~ r I`F OetIKV6ST~l
~~ ~ 8' i • END & ~ x
ESSE R oulptTRr . , Y- I _ _ _ n I I I - - +16
~, 4oaa a
00 S6t PO Sq ~ ax ~ g ~ AL~EIE m L-MgHH -~ . ~ i I 179.1 ~ x ® '•
~ ~ ~ $ ~ I I I ~ x~~~
I ~ ~ rQX~ -BL- ST0.15+42.0
_ xcosc'rE Ke.4roP ro caw 2)7A70P r0 COR 246.4 ar
I 560Yrwri ~ ELEV=67.46'
°LCd" I °Y PAIR. a AROYAIe)D ~ -
c'" ios.a. _~ De a7 w u ~}
5~'+srr. ~ ~~ ~
~~ I r I ~ w ~ TO OP
I ~ 9 •>rt
vi
I ~ .s a~ o Et1ZABETM o.snrEu
is ew o De feT ro Soo ,„
~ ~ ~~
z I~ ~ ( ww H~'« ® ~ ALLOWABLE BUFFER IMPACTS ZONE I
_~ ( ~+ © I
caa -"- © I 63 r ®ALLOWABLE BUFFER IMPACTS ZONE 2
j ~ is ew o EtIEL A6RAHTNW ~ q .,
lJ8 I t~f De WO 4G 7k
aw b .; NEUSE RIVER
';~ ~ ~ ~ , ~,~ ~~* BUFFER Z®NE
s+oo.oo r PERMIT
-L- 42.46 LTd ~"
g~
8~
~~~,
HORIZONTAL SCALE
NEUSE RIVER BUFFER

Fwsor 9sr9e4c~ Ho. aHe1r Ho.
8-3538 6
ew alelr Ha
YCUDIVAT Dglg11 X1gUWtl
ENGM~ eror®1
O
ooRALO R surH
O OB m31G 411
a 43f 9G n
ooHALO R 5111N 9t a SI.rE 7ro
oem7PCm
pe 16,1 PO n
PC B SLIDE t10
~}
iE 4' SS~ION
~
EXCAVA LET Nv. 1 I
'
A
r -N. C S ~
~o1~r BL-5 1T+85.38 P1rC I I
" 1
+
POT 5+10.25 •L- 15.81LTJ I I
I I
1 1 I
+10 ~ I 1
r'e' I ~ ~. +S7 I 1
ri C. ~ 1 1
1
1 1 6 a Ao 1 1
SPE~CIIT WTCH ~ ~ I I
I TuL '"' ~I~ l I ~ YAV~IY(f uuIT~ND
x0005 I 1 +p.N ~ ~ -1. +1536 Iff I ~ ~ Nv (~S
\~ -I.+17 I i ~ 0 ~~~ ~~ ~ r OJ1X EST. ~F~IB C Y~~
C ILDN 1
CIP 1 rI1A9
6 I
E
E
I
c

I«T 5

C~ C
r
~ C C
~
t
2 ~ ~7C~--~ X~_x _
~_ _ .~Jf 7(~~xFp Yt
eb 3
E S
~ g
p
~ c 1 I SPE~ ~~ITCN
E
~ •~' ~ TCH
SP~C
T
'
' g •g
C~
PAN EST. S~i0N5 C~
$ ~g p
p
PAD E T. 3 Td15
S 1 V
iD A
AA. 1 1 a. +K
6
A
D ;1 -R
P
6 Ci ' s O owa~m • ~,
6
~ A
. rASnnC ~"~ o. ~~ TIp1uS R SwLSOH
Oe10P1061 ~
M
~ O ,~ _ De 166H1
+ mAnE touHm
W
C N 6611LA10 0. JOVIER
D0 qt! PO hT
O ~' v
W ~ ~
h ¢,
~
2 I ~ tP + i
ao ror2 ~
5x41.7+n9 -DET- Rr.
a END 20:ITAPER

I
STAN+93]2 -DET- RT. 0
BEG.PAVEMENT WIDENING SfA12+83.41-DET- END IGD' RADfUS STA17+y,69 -DET- U.
BEGIN 20dTAPER END.PAVEMENT WIDENING
'2 STA16+5679 -DET- LT.
G
I
BEG.PAVfMENT WIDENIN
h
Aa15+209 -DET- RT. -!
BEG.PAVEMENT WIDENING
STAl5+8051-DET- END 170'RAD1U5
BEGIN 20GTAPER
STAI6+06B3 -DET- RT.
END 299TAPER
PcSrlwai

• i
AOIIR 1@BFNC N0. 7F~i N0.
B-3538 7
~ew~r o~+ Nroiuuua
e1QNia HiGV~0.
A~-1
INCOMPLE E PLANS
ua tme v~ mx ~~ emnmt~r
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
00 NOT D6E WNR&IIC11®i
20 21 22 23 24 25
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20

~ ~
M
V
W

t
N
ti
U
O
U
T
a
L
M
~u
m
~n
o~
O L~
= ac
00
03
Nn
~~~
aa~
~~i
„a
m L?
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA
50 0 i0 1 0 ADT 2005 = 900
ADT 2025 = 1300
PLANS nHV = to %
50 5 0 5Q ] 0 D = 60 %
T = 4 %'
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL} V = 25 MPH
1p ,~i 0 1 0 ' SST 2% + DUAL 2%
m PUNQQASS • LOCdL Rt~,IL
~°I°~°I°]E c~F i`~T~1[~'1[']EI CAR~LIP7~
DIS~ISd~N 49~ HiItBfj[WA~~
WAYIVE COU11tTY
LOCATION. BRIDGE N0.296 OVER THE NEUSE RIVER OVERFLOW
ON SR 1222
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, AND STRUCTURE
PROJECT LENGTH Preyarea In tre Orriae dr
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-3538 0.310 MILE 749A 8{rcA Rldrr Dr„ Rarrlrw xc, Grua
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT 8.3538 - 0.033 MILE am arn~mun ru~rerrares
TOTAL LENGTIi STATE TIP PROlECi 8-3536 = 0.343 MILE
RIGHT OF IYAY DATE; G. E. BREW, PE
FEBRUARY 28,1005 P0~ ~'~
L8Tl7HG DATE; w. T. BEST
APRIL 18,1006 "tQ~a~r>
am ma r ram,n m °ER 'mo'w
wecrz
.~. B--3 x38 1
am mm~n .„ ~.nm~w rnwa~
93145.11 BRZ-1222 ~ PE
33145.2.2 BR2-1222 8 RM+ tll'IL

HYDRAULICS ExGIlP13FB ~ DIVISION OF ]HGHWAYS
srArs of xoRrli cAROLLVA
ROADWAY DESIGN sr~ mnw a
]01fGABfiR DIIPARTMI{NT OF T1tANSPORTAT70N
P811BRAL HIGHWdY ADMIIYISrR41T0]
See Sleet 1-A For Index of Sixets
See S1~ei 1-B Fa Ca+ventiandl Symbols

~ ,
FINAL PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
C ~ PROP,APPROX, f25" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE TYPE SF9SA
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 140 LBS. PER S0. YD.
C,~ PROP, APPROX. rS"ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE,TYPE SF9SA
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 168 LBS.PER Sp.YD.
C z
J PROP. APPROX. 2S " ASPHALT CANCRETE SURFACE COURSE.TYPE SF45A
aT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 140 LBS.PER SD.YD, IN EACH Of TNO LAYERS
PAOP,VAR,DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE CpURSE.TYPE SF9SA
G`4 AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF f 12 LBS. PER SO.YD. P£R f " DEPTH. TO BE PLACED
IN LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED 1 %?"DEPTH,
E , PROP.APPRQX.4" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE.TYPE 825118,
AT RN AVERAGE RATE OF 456 LBS,PER SQ,YO.
PROP. APPROX. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE. TYPE 825.08,
E`Z AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF i 14 LBS.PER SO.YD.PER 1 "DEPTH TO 8E PLACED
IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 3" IN DEPTH OR GREATER THAN 5%p" IN DEPTH,
R T CONCRETE SHOULDER BERAf GUTTER
T EARTH uarERlAt
GI EXISTING PAVEIXENT
VARIABLE DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEMENT
(SEE STANDARD WEDGING DETAIU
NOTE:PAVEME,Yr EDGE SLOPES ARE 1;1 UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE.
C1 E2
C4
-------
~ ---------- 1.5" 3" ~
L----------_ ~1 MIN.------~_ MIN._~
Wedging Detail For Resurfacing
a
6
b
l
DETAIL SNOWING GUARDRAIL AT 5' OFfSET
USE WITH TY%GLL SECTION NOS. ~ b 4
DITCH CLEAN OUT
TYPICAL SECTION N0.1
~-L-
VARIABLE 3,r
SLOPE 4~
4,~
NOTE: USE B'AT GUARDRAIL LOCATIONS
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.1

~ -L- FRp,Y ST0.7+Og,66 TO STAIO+C10m RIG1fT
-L- FRON STa19+50m TO STA24+6683 LEFT
6'-0'
fSEE NOTE)
~~v
TYPICAL SECTION N0.2
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.2
VARIABLE
SLOPE
• -L- FRDN sraro+a~m ro sraro+20.47
-L- FROM STAA+7327 TO Sra/4+25m
• -L- FROM STAl9+25m TO STA19+67AI
~-L-
XY-0' 6'-d
Exisr.C~ 1SEf NOTEI
VAR,d-dT0 8'~rl
' C N RARE
rNr POr
C3 Ct
vAR1ABLE ,~~ 008 002 002
SLOPE 4J
4.t
65'
T El U
GRADE TO THIS UNE
NOTE: USE 8'AT GUARDRAIL LOCATIONS
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.3
vMrABLE
SLOPE
• -L- FRON SrA10+20,41 TO ST0.10+25,00
-L- FROp sraro+25m ro srarz+se.A7
-L- FRQU STAIS+5417 TO STA11+7327
~~ 0.08
SNlOR. SHCOR
POIA7 .. ~,.T

<!
~;
FINAL PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
C ~ t25" ASPHALT CONCRETE TYPE SF9SA
C'2 1S " ASPNALr CONCRETE TYPE SF9SA
C,3 2S " ASPHALr CONCRETE TYPE SF9.5A
C4 V~.DEPTN ASPNALr CONCRETE TYPE SF9SA
E ~ 4 " ASPNALr CONCRETE rrPE B25A8
E2 VAR.DEPTN ASPHALT CONCRETE TYPE B25A8
T EARTH MATERIAL
(f EXISTING PAVEMENT
W VARIABLE DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEMENT
EOP
dETAII SHOWING GUARQRAII AT 2' OFFSET
USE WITH 1YMGd SECTION N09.7
~o.
~-Y-
~ lSEE NOTE1
3,~
39
NOTE: USE 8'AT GUARDRAIL LfxArrONS
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.6
I OA2 OA2 I
u u
TYPICAL SECTION N0.6
VARIABLE
SLOPE
-Y- FROM STArf+CDA~ TO STar2404.a79
~-DETOUR-
NOrE: USE ~ Ar GDARDRa1 [xarroNS ! Y f'1LAL JtL I I V N NV. /
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.7
-DETOUR- FROM STAB+,~,gO TO STAIl+93,38.rRANSTTrON FROM
ExISrrNG rD lrPrCA1 SECTION N0.8
-DETOUR- FROM $TAlf+9338 TO Srar3+3413(BEC BRIDGE!
-DETOUR- FROM STA14+A?A!(END BRICvE1T0 ST0.16+053!
-DETOUR- FARM STA16+053rTO STAf6+6249 TRANSITION FROM
rYP1CAl SECTION NO.b r0 EXfSTING
OA8
1

y
Y-
].dgn
0
~~
S u g
a ~,
$~an
a
r + ~~
p~ o
a O ~~
~ O
'•~rous~
6•DUCr 91pN

$~
~N
~~
f ~~
W~ ~~ O
a
~~
.~
0
A
~~ s
r
~~
~ti
a~ ~ _? ~~ p
~ ~s a ~
r.,
~~~ o ~~~£
~~~w~~a ~ (~~
~~~N~~a~~ .~~
N
~ '~ ~
;~
+ F I
~~~
~ i
~' ~~
,I
a 'I
€~
~~i gl
~QP ~ "~
n ~ I
~~ ~
1O m
~t ;~ f ~
1/
.w vyq ~y
PrflL.. Il{}
N ~ __
~-;~~~
^t,
Ay''oD b
1 ~ ~ 1 n
$ O
O ~~~~ v
~~~~~~
W ~v
~N
y
A`+'~oDb
M M ~ ~ U („/
l7.~~ 4N tf~ y Q
'Y~~w~$
~~~
.~..
Ay'`OD b
1
D II 11 4 11 ti ',
~Q~~~c40
`~~~~~~
~~~
'•f
4
~-+~oD b
uullu~yl
~N~~~4
~~~~~
~~
~o~~oD~]
}}II If q ~ ~
a~`~4~~+
~ ~~~
Y
`-'^ -;.
~_ ~~ ~_
HS
a x a '~~ ~~
dQ ~~o~n X~ ~~X.
-~i~so X yX^
~~ ~
is
•a o
..
.. 1 A
.~.-ia
.4- NfUSE RN£R
r
I
Q
~~
~~~
~ o V oSj
g b ~~
~ ~
y
a

a
~,
i
r
O
G
N
L
S
~hn
P m
~o ~~M
""^8 O ~ H
~IM,,,~ I ~~D
°OO ~~r
v~Sgp ~~
~ e
~'~ o
r7la
ti-r~ ~ Y33

~}
s~~
e~
~~
n
I
Q
rn
`i
'b
w
- ^ ~-"'s uuKM
;" 4 ~ h26•ps 9J'M ~~
A v
15p4'~+
~. ~$~ ~
~' ~ a ~ ~
~ ~~ ~
m § a~ ~
~- ~ ~; x
$ z ros• .M ~
.. .. ,. .. ,, ~' M~AI.09
nbA ~ ~ a.co.9zzcs
~ GQ •Y2Y 1
00
C
y ~_
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
N
o
O
p ~ Y ~~~
I ~ ~ ~R~
` a~ ~ ~ ~~_
Q
~ ~ oN
8 t
°~
° b ~s
z
o

O g
.~ ~
. +

'- ~,,, "
''".S
y ±
`
~
r4 4 4~` L
Op
' ~ ~ ~ Sp( RD
a ry4
~~ ~

I m

~
`n° ~} ~'

omNA
~
~
~~ ~
a ~x

9a Z
~~

is b•i. O
4A~
N
.
[ ~ n
O O 1
e
0

~".
G m .~-
~ ...~

~ ~y ~ ~ .~--- N£USE RNER cllloFF
~eN ~
om m
,R ~
~ m ..
. f•

•

o ,r
• -
O 00 ~ ~ .. ~•yh/z:
0 0 ~- .. ~~ •~

! /~. o
O ~
~ `t A
- ~ ~ afn. ~ ~ i

r
~ ~y~ ~ I ~ I ~~~ ~ } ~Ig ~
T I ~ • V •~
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 5 STAY, 17+60.
a N~9s,•oz~---- m
R~ q
~j ~ ~hi z
SG t~s 1 ~ ~p ~i
,e ~~ ~ ~"
~' I ~ b~ ~+
-~.- !k .~ 4 MA
8
~--~ ~ ~ a
i cr ~~ o
~,~..
r
~=
9 ~ ry ~ ~ ~
iR /
~~ ~ / ~~~~ I~~
~ a _
~ "'
33 $~ -,
F $ fi F1 I ImO d
s:
b
N
~ aYt S ~~ ~ ~ $3
,~~-
y
~ rn w = t
W
'~ ~r,o
irC
P7" o
-1 ~ '

w '~ ~ o
~ O
~ge~2°
~
~'~ a ~ "A~~
~~ N

Q r
~
,o ~
!5
.~ 1
m
~~ I~
~~ I ID

t I
i I
t I
+ I t
O I 1
Q I I
l I
~ ~ I I
+ I I 1 I
N I I I t
J~I~ I I
Q I I 1 1
E- I I.i...nu Igl
~ I 9a. a6 a«o lal sREGCR~SCUr
I I Ifft $EE pEiAp
V'
/n~ E-~
_ ,i V~~
N N
w I
w '_` '_'
r^ KpIY
V , x~-x_ ~ _ E-
w 1
S PAD EST, 3~TON5 Illl
1
U X It
!- O sx,.2t av
a Aro a ~O7pERN rNDlus R s.xson
OB IOQ6 Po p97 _ DO 996 v0 IN
N ° p#'AYpE COLNTTp
~~ o
f~
m
v
~ ~
Q
~}
G~,
d
N O
DONALD 0. SN1N
oa na vc m
a! 639 PC rt
x e sLa 27D
~~,
.,
~~ ~ ~ ~ If
a /
- - sn m I I~
s
SPEGaE1T( ~r pIiCN - - - - - ~
nor to swu I I
faiu-a ~ .~ <,e~ aspw
t
wW .i U N ~`R I ~ ~ .~
uin D = LS Ft. /
STAA.R~60 T~ 19150 L' LT
s~
STA19+57~?! -L- ENO
PAVINGG lI,GIT$
a 0.37'C SL~Itl~6iE..NOoF~r 19.50 70
~FST.WE=IAC.Y,
-rt-CEE-t---e-
~l_-SL- _ ---
I ! f
b~ ~ ' :I
/~ ~ ;
-I ~ '~
~~ j
I ' .I
)~ SYa,25+86,
I //
k +le ~ ~ .
se.~ ~ ~ ~/

/f \ ! P45TUAf SEEGdRS FAML7
PATIIER6
oa psnro
. ~` ~.
~_~~
_~
Nas
roans DONALD R. SMTN
De iTa ro Nn
PC 8 kDE S70
sssarm

Pa5Ita1E
(CPS 83538-21 PRiC 26~84T4 ~
POC 2403.25 •L- 05.76 RTJ ,~~ ~"
CARLAIO a.areR
w lue roar
-L-
P/ Slo 0+30,88 P!$la 24+8859
O= 3'14'2pJfLT) p= 88'28'264'(L71
D = 3'49'!!Q' D -3009'20.4'
L =8419' L - 227A7'
T = 4241' T - 1P9.30

CARlA10 0.,OYIER
O6 104! P6 H7
~ Na.
BJG4IFB!

~.
REMSIONS
dy_psh6_dat.dgn
+ ~ 1 .' „e ZO• -ter _ _
^^ 1 N26'OS'S3'N
° R I I ~ 190.~ p 1•
P ~ ~ ~ i _~
A~ ~ a s$ ~ ~ / ~ I ~~~ _~
N y~]7( ly
r S ~ ~ $~ $~> i •I I \ Qom. ~ mR m ~~ ~ ~
A ~} ~~~ ( I ~ ~ ~N Y
$ ear ~;^s3 1 ~ .. L ros• ~>r. o• ~' „~
C .. .. .. MN .09
N29'19'O7Y ,~ •• _99.a9'_ e~.m• ! ~ _ ~8m ~ •1Z'LL
Ir~~~~
~~ ~o
~~~w~~
~N~
~~a~
A"snoD Vb
uuuu~~
~~~'~'~~
~a i
`1
~o~nOD
u u'~ n ~v~
~~~~4
~~~a~*
~~~
y
=o" !'" OD b
uu"u~v~
A
ti '~
y
to
~p b~
~ ~' m~
y~ rn~
OA ~~ ~~
~a ~~ ~~
m a ~ L
~~ Q
'~
~ ~~ ~
s ~ A ~a
N
~F ~~
r -~
aQ ~~ ;~./
uB
Y G Y~
~ ~,$ i
° My
a a a~;
~lss
' ~, ~
--~.
' ~s' CP
1, ~ +„~~ ~R 6~ T 01f
+.. .C~i"„~ !7~
/~~~ - ~
~ ~ B ^ ~~
,~' ,~i
Vp
X ~ +~ ° ~ ye
\ 4 a~
a -- -~
a a X,~X„~x_ ~x
to ~ !
a~~
~..
;J
~
I
®®
I
F 4
~, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
r ~C~ Ap
Q an oRR~y
Q ~ g f~
o
{
° ~
a
~~
~

Q
1
~
~y O ~
y '~
N
4
+
~
(~
_`
'

Q ~
~ N
~ V
A

~ IoJ~ ~'._1~

.. . •
~ ~ ~

~ ~x

~ ~

~ ~~
0
~~
~
Lei/--t a g 4
~
~ ~
NEUSE RNER CUC~FF
~- NEUSE ANER CUfOfi
~A
ax
=y

$~
O

~~
~
~ e
p ~O
~ ttO

2
~A ~ O

a

m
~p
x~ 5~
z6~ ~
u
~~

Op
~~
y ^,
~~
~A
~,
~*
~~ oA
~y va
3r
cxi'i m`O
44~~
i
m~
xr-y
~ cxi',

s
~~o
m~
A
3.lf.ZS,LtS y ~~
AO'0~ !
;~ ~~
~~N ~
~~~
,,~
n
I~
~85j~rr
~~g~l
e~~=
I
4
x
~ ~ $ ~$ o .. .. .,r -..-
a,i ~ ~ ~ ~.
w
~ _ _ Q,,. _ ~ ~ /5
a a
"~ ~ ~~
c1 ~ + s
L~ ~ ~ m
ml n ~ ,~
(~ ~' ~ b ~f~~a~fP!
Q~ V
~,
~ w ~'
~S}$~ ~
G -
I~ Ya1 r $'
g~ + c~
,,, '' ~ a
k i~ w ~
a
a a~ a a s
x i
~~ I I ~
,it
Q
~~

R;\Ro e~beyaX ~~~\,~~ 3538 _ Rdy_L _xpl.dgn

~R:\Roa~ e~~~~~±~G3538_Rdy_L_xpl.dgn

}
R;\Roo~i ~f~22~1853538_Rdy_L_xpl.dgn
Besc

02/03/98

abieeiza
u6p•~dx-l'~'P21-6£SEy~~~li S~~OZ-~AtlW-HIS.

3

0
R: ~oe~T ~D22~1653536_Rdy_L_xpl.dgn 02/03/98
WBest

1
o~alAY~200~~~~~o_~c~o or., i .,._i a_~
:I

S

JBost Al N0223185

pt $T~ 4
p....~°~
Mi
•Q pqM vlo~
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.o. sox 2s2o1, RAr.EiGx, N.C. 27611-s201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
'r $5-res
C
i ss~
C
t5~
January 21, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
W. D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
t5 [b ~ l'1 I~, i ~' ,
~; ! JAN 2 I f999
WETLANDS GROUP' ~•-~
tNi1TER (?U~lITY_5sr~'''
Review of Scoping Sheets for the following projects:
Project T.I.P. County Bridge No. State Route Planning Engineer
B-3435 Chowan No. 4 SR 1207 Bill Goodwin
-3217 Onslow No. 21 SR 1503 Bill Goodwin
B-3378 Wayne No. 34 NC 111 Karen Orthner
-3538 Wayne No. 296 SR 1222 Karen Orthner
B-3539 Wayne No. 164 SR 1571 Karen Orthner
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets and location maps for the
subject projects. The purpose of this information and the related review procedure is to have an
early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the projects. Scoping meetings for these projects are scheduled for
February 18, 1999 in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470).
These scoping meetings will be held back to back beginning at 9:00 A. M. in the order shown
above. You may provide us with your comments at the meeting, mail them to us prior to the
meeting, or e-mail them to [e-mail] prior to the meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meetings or the scoping sheets, please call the indicated Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-3141.
WDG/bg
Attachments
~ ~e e~~A~~~t,~
- -1

~ NS's

BRIDGE PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT: B-3538
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ - 1222(4
STATE PROJECT: 8.2331301
DIVISION: Four
COUNTY: Wayne
ROUTE: SR 1222
DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Bridge No. 296 on SR 1222 over Neuse River Overflow
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace obsolete bride
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Southwest Goldsboro Quad Sheet
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Rrnrte
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .......................................................................... $ 810,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .......................................................................... $ 66>000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................... $ 876,000
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 800 VPD; DESIGN YEAR (2025) 1300 VPD
TTST 2 % DUAL 2
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: Two lane shoulder section, 19 foot
pavement
EXISTING STRUCTURE
LENGTH 49.1 METERS WIDTH 5.9 METERS
161.0 FEET 19.2 FEET
COMMENTS:

SOUTHWEST GOLDSBORO QUADRAhfGLE
SOURCES - NORTH CAROLINA-WAYNE CO.
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) ~G°
~ ",. r rr ~ ~ ~ WILSON 26 Ml. ~ 7$°oOr
68 2 30 69 70 2 290 000 FEET 71 PlKEVILLE 2.5 Ml. 72
\ \` ` Q.I,,\ ~~__ ~ \_. '', .~~ `• .['"I 13oRadio '~• o lla/ 35 22
loos ~:., ~. ~` 0 / !' \ - • • _
_ ~- _ ~` _ ~ -~,~ 1 .iii ~~ • (~ •
' is
~,' _ u \`,-- ~~,/. ! off` .-` / !i. ~ ~l .I I •°,l~~l ~ ;"~
"_ \`_ ,~ 1\~ - ~ ~ ,lam ~~ 1 ~ r ~ ,~ 18
Ilo~~ _~5-" ~, .:--GRAVEL PIT~~ /`"' OLD O O
/ O ~ i - ~ • •
/ ° ~j ~ ~~_ . .' ` ~ ' ~ /:~. ~ .~"• • ~ Park
~ . ti~,=---!~~ ~~x~- .,,~ ,>~~ I ~~J ~ :~ ~, L..... s9o 000
";, `'~~! I\ir J-~___ i I /~•.~• •~ ~ °.~~ ` ---- .... FEET
~~, j\~~ 1 ` ~ Golf
i ~/~ / ~ ^ ~,~°~ '/_ Course
~I ~~~ ~~, ~ .. `t/%// \~ .\ •~i_~ 3917
~~ ~ / ~ ~i ^ ~ c / Emmanuel
_ - ~~ i ~
Allie
~ \ ~~ ~ v, - - `~ ~ South
;~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ 1 ~; ~ ~ ~'- -_ t~ ~ ~: :, :Goldsboro
/~ ~ J - Sandpit-~.,./ •• \~:C`
~Z. 1 ~ ~ ^r / ~I
• \t~ )% ~, ~~ ~ lei, \1 ~' / ~ ~--'\~~ ` • ' ~ / ~ ~~ - J I~ 3916
•r iRamp / D
II / ~' • ~ i
J ~ ~ fl / O ~ ~ °P _ / ~ BM 74
/~ r+ r ~~ ~ / ~.- ~ -' G ` ~
~~~,/ i° `./ •O Trailer • ~ ~ I i~ J P :J ~
~2 ~ 7Z• Park \'~ i 0~", J _ ~ ~ 3915
~: .l ;~ :~ . - ' ~ ~ i A~~\- ~ P = Av ~~ McArthur ~~~ ~~
~~~, ~ _ .Gravel
ri / .Pit
q ,~ a ~ ~' '• _ ~. ~ Sewage i
'';c, /` 'r i~•; Y~ •/: ~. .Disposal
a rr I,;
~~:: ~• Love Memo ~ _ 'Park / \\ ~~~' - • \ \
•j Ch ~ ~
_ i/ ~ _. ~~ 'J .~,~/.llll iii /l ~ -_ - \` I v`~1 / y, 3914
_ ~ 1130 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / . '- ,
~j..~ ~f . f-, - _ ~~ I ~ "_~ ~-- -~ ~ ~ //Sewege'Disposal\. J
~~. / _ Ji _JJ _,.,,~ ~ .J= ~~ ~ -, ,// Ponds
~/ n i ~v ~~~ V~/T _ .. I / i _ _
t~ .. % ;~ y ~ , c
• .-•- ••- - Fairgrounds ~• ~
I - ~ /„- -\. 'Genoa '~, ;; - ~ / ~;, ~ \J~'~ _L\') _~~ ~ r O 3913
Worre ~.. ' •I - r_-~~•~~./ ea na ~-_-.. ~ 1. --- ~ .. ~ .~\i ~`I .. ~\ ~~ ~ 2<
171 - • ([ ~ __ ;~ \ ~ - ~~~\ • - ~ `~"

m
n
m
m
a
a
a

Property Owfcer Cohtlact Report

~
,

N ... -
TIP # B-.~S3R ,
° Urv~nc~rLaxt
'" tYamel U~vner Cantacd Hume Cantuct
~ Basi»r.-s Firc! Nxme Addrts:s Citv7Tawn Stale Zip Code Rcdalronship Pi1O11 a Cu>r/acted BJ+ 1Mle Kow Cunlaeled Cn~rtmen~s
-*~
0 Aromando Paul J. 515 Bryan Blvd. Goldsboro NC 27530 Owner Self H. A. Sorrell 813/00 Persun(Lelter
~ Bell Madle D. 405 Tyndall Drive Goldsboro NC 27530 Owner SeIF H. A. S orrell 813/OD PersanlLeller
N
m
Bennett
Jack R.
1412 Hwy 111
Goldsboro
NC
27530
Owner
Self
H. A. Sorrell
8!3/00
Perscn/Letler
.m
0 South
°~ Bryant Wanda D. 51? Bryan Blvd. Goldstoro NC 27530 Owner Self H. A. Sorrell 81J/00 Pers~cn/Letter
County of P_0. Box 227 Goldsboro NC 27533 Owner Self H. A. Sorrell 813100 Perscn/Letter
Wayne
Dau~lry Jesse R. 516 Bryan Bivd. Goldsboro NC 27530 Owner Self H. A. Sorrell 813/00 PersanlLetier
Davis Lillie E. 519 Bryan Bhrd. Goldstoro NC 27530 Owner Self H. A. Sorrell 8/JJ00 Person/Letler
o r;ranS~am Elhea S. 511 Bryan Blvd. Goldsboro NC 27530 Owner Sel( H_ A. Sorrell 811100 PersonAetter
r
Harris James M. 517 Bryan Bhrd. Goldsboro NC 27530 Owner Self H. A. Sorrell 813/00 PersonlLetter
Joyner Garland D. 107 Lau Drive Goldsboro NC .27530 Owner Self H. A. Sorrell 8!3/00 PersonJLetter
Kornegay J. Nelson 389 Buckhom Rd_ Goldsboro NC 27550 Owner Self H. A_ Sorrell 813/00 Person/Letla~
La~ehorn AlleneH. 1088 Rlll. Carmel Pikevlle P1C 27863 Owner ~ Self H. A. Sorrell 8/3/00 PersonlLetter
Church Rd.
Overman Raberi J. 707 Oki MI.OIYve Dudley tJC 28333 Owner Self H. A. Sorrel! 8/3100 ersonlLeUer
Hy',IY ~
Pale Mcrris C. 508 Bryan Blvd. Goldsboro dJC 27530 Ourner Se!7 H. A. Sorrell B/3/00 Person/Letter
m
o Seegers 743 Lake Goldsboro NC 27534 Owner Se7 H.A. Sorrell 813/00 PersonlLetier
° Family Wackena RD
Limited
PevtnetsFip
Smith Qonald R. 836 Sleepy Creek Dudley NC 28333 Owner Sef H. A_ ::orredl 8/3/fMd Person/Letter
RD
:dlonrlur•..aar110;l. 2003 - ... - - .. 9 a F /l
n.. _... r -~~

r
m
n
m
a
a
v
i
0
A
a
a
0
N
a
a
T
0
a
w
N
m
m
A
0
m
rn
0
w
~i
m
0
0
N
TIP #r? 8-3538
fhvner La.~u
r'Varrre/ Owder
Busiar~s FitsfName ,4ddre~s
S6Avell Elizabeth ~. 513 Bryan BArd
Swinson Thomas R. T23 Bryan Blvd.
Warren Oavid E. 118 Armstrong
Drive
Warren David G. B12 8r)en Blvd.
Warren Gilbert D. EOZ-Bryan Blvd.
~4fnrrda~•, rl pri/ 0;l,1005
Cgrrdicd
C'ity/('anm Slafe 'Lip L'ude Relutiatrkip
Goldsbcro NC 27530. Owner Self
Goldsbcro NC 27530 Owner . Self
Goldsboro NC 27530 Owner Self
Goklsbcro NC 27530 Owner Self
Goldsboro NC 27530 Owner Sell
Hume Cuemct
Phunr C'untucted By Date Hnw Cenfacterf
H. A Sortell 8/3/00 PersonlLeUer
H. A Sorrell 8/3!00 PersonlLeUer
H. A Sorrell 8/2100 Personlleller
H. A 5orreil 813/00 PersonJletter
H. A. Sorrell 8/3!00 PersanlLetter

Camrrrerrls
::/o;. of // .
n___ ~ _r~

BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACT BUFFER
TYPE ALLOWABLE MITIGABLE REPLACEMENT

SITE NO. STRUCTURE SIZE
/TYPE STATION
(FROM/T0) ROAD
CROSSING PARALLEL
IMPACT ZONE 1
(ft2) ZONE 2
(ftZ) TOTAL
(ftZ) ZONE 1
(ftZ) ZONE 2
(ftZ) TOTAL
(ftZ) ZONE 1
(ftZ) ZONE 2
(ftZ)
1 Bride 13+21 TO X 3477 2294 5771
& Det Bride 13+72 -L-

14+69 TO 3353 2582 5935
t 5+30 -L-

0

0

TOTAL: 6830 4876 117os o.o o:o o.o
<- 0.001 acre of impacts will occur ti-um the
placement of bridge bents.