19951005 Ver 1_Complete File_19950918

I
SrA7Z
s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
q 5?oo5

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
September 13, 1995
'
Go I B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
CFq $
jUl
e
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. G. Wayne Wright
Dear Sir:
Subject: Moore County - Replacement of Bridge No. 82 1456 over the
Deep River; State Project No. 8.2561001 T I P No B-2849
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report
for the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal
Highway Administration a '`a "Categorical Exclusion)" in accordance with 23 CFR
771.115(b). Therefore, e do not anticipate__re-questing an Individual Permit
but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR
330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers.
The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will
be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.

R September 13, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone],
Extension 306.
Sincer 1
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
Attachment
cc: David Franklin, COE, Wilmington Field Office
John Dorney, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
F. E. Whitesell, P. E., Division 8 Engineer
Stacy Baldwin, Planning & Environmental
If

Moore County
SR 1456
Bridge No. 82 Over Deep River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1456(3)
State Project 8.2561001
T.I.P. No. B-2849
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
z4Z)z DAT H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
.? 4
?4
DATE icholas L. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
. , . N
Moore County
SR 1456
Bridge No. 82 Over Deep River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1456(3)
State Project 8.2561001
T.I.P. No. B-2849
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 1995
Documentation Prepared By: #, `t0j- NiA CAROB ?''•,
MA Engineering Consultants, Inc. •r.•' ?, ?EESS/p. 9
Q
SE AL
= 19732
s i
-2/ --
??.•?t+,yti NCl NEED .j?
Shihchen (David) Fuh, Ph.D, PE •,, y(,+ t??.i
Project Manager %leftist$
for North Carolina Department of Transportation
/J1 Bissett, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Stacy Y. Baldwin
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
Moore County
SR 1456
Bridge No. 82 Over Deep River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1456(3)
State Project 8.2561001
T.I.P. No. B-2849
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be implemented
to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
The initiation of Section 7 informal consultation process for the Cape Fear shiner, will be completed
during the preliminary design stage. Environmental commitments will be determined at the time of
the consultation process.
Sediment curtains and coffer dams will be used to minimize sedimentation into the river, if bridge
piers are removed during construction activities.
A United States Geodetic Survey (USGS) benchmark (30th ENGPS 1963) is located in the north
concrete curb corner with elevation 109.3 meters (358.6 feet) above sea level. USGS will be
contacted before the monument is disturbed.
Moore County
SR 1456
Bridge No. 82 Over Deep River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1456(3)
State Project 8.2561001
T.I.P. No. B-2849
Bridge No. 82 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacemeq? Program. The location is shown
in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a
Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
For the Summary of Environmental Commitments, see pages i.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 82 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The
recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 123 meters (403 feet) long and 9.6 meters
(32 feet) wide. This structure will provide two 3.6 meters (12-foot) travel lanes with 1.2 meters (4-
foot) shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade at this
location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width, to provide two 3.6-
meter (12-foot) travel lanes, and 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders, of which 1.2 meters (4 feet) will be
paved, on each side throughout the project limits.
A temporary off-site detour (see Figure 2A) will be used to maintain traffic during the construction
period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $1,324,500. The estimated cost of the project, as shown
in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program, is $957,000 ($900,000-construction;
$57,000-right-of-way).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the north-western portion of Moore County, approximately 6.4 kilometers
(4 miles) north of Robbins, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The area is rural agricultural, commercial
and residential in nature.
SR 1456 is classified as a rural local in the Statewide Functional Classification System and is a
Federal-Aid Highway. This route is located on a designated county-wide bicycle route named Tour
Moore.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1456 has a 5.2-meter (17-foot) pavement width with 1.2-meter (4-
foot) shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade increases from the bridge on both ends.
The existing bridge is located on tangent which extends approximately 15 meters (50 feet) north and
244 meters (800 feet) south from the structure. The roadway is situated approximately 13.4 meters
(44 feet) above the river bed.
The current traffic volume of 1100 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 2200 VPD by
the year 2018. The projected volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-
tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 55 kilometers per hour (35 miles per hour) in the
project area.
Bridge No. 82 is a nine-span structure that consists of a reinforced concrete deck on steel I-beams.
The substructure consists of reinforced concrete caps and columns. The existing bridge (see Figure
3) was constructed in 1947.
The overall length of the structure is 123 meters (403 feet). The clear roadway width is 6.1 meters
(20.1 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 13 metric tons (14 tons) for single vehicles and
15 metric tons (17 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 82 has a sufficiency rating of 27.9, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure. The
existing bridge is considered structurally deficient.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. However, overhead fiber optic cable lines and
buried cable lines parallel the existing bridge on the downstream side of the roadway throughout the
project area.
No accidents have been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 82 during the period from April 1991
to March 1994.
Six school buses cross the bridge daily.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 82 were studied. Each alternative consists of a bridge 123
meters (403 feet) long and 9.6 meters (32 feet) wide. Typical sections of the approach roadway and
structure are included as Figures 4 and 5.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative 1 (Recommended) - involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway
alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 60 meters
(200 feet) in each direction from the bridge. A temporary off-site detour will be provided during the
construction period. The off-site detour will be 20.1 kilometers (12.5 miles) in length (see Figure
2A). The design speed for this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour). Alternative
1 is recommended because it is less costly and has less impact on the wetland environment due to the
additional roadway approach work for Alternative 2. The expected cost benefits indicate that
Alternative 1 is economically justifiable because of the low traffic volumes.
Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment.
Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 60 meters (200 feet) in
each direction from the bridge. A temporary on-site detour will be provided during the construction
period east (downstream) of the existing structure. The temporary detour will consist of a bridge 75
meters (246 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide, located about 12 meters (40 feet) east of the
existing structure. The design speed of this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour).
This alternative is not recommended because of the wetlands that would be impacted by the
temporary detour, and the endangered Cape Fear Shiner that is indigenous to this area.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not acceptable
due to the traffic service provided by SR 1456.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Division eight concurs that an off-site detour will
be the best alternative during bridge replacement.
The Moore County School Superintendent indicates that the maintenance of traffic off-site during the
construction period is preferable.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
Structure
Roadway Approaches
Detour Structure and Approaches
Structural Removal
Engineering and Contingencies
Rieht-of-Wav/Construction Easements/Utilities
(Recommended)
Alternative 1
$ 943,000
79,000
0
63,000
165,000
Alternative 2
$ 943,000
79,000
608,000
63,000
257,000
Total I $1,324,500 1 $ 2,037,500
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 82 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2, with a
new structure having a length of approximately 123 meters (403 feet). Improvements to the existing
approaches will be necessary for a distance of about 60 meters (200 feet) in each direction from the
bridge. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternative.
A 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width with 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders, of which 1.2 meters (4 feet)
of which will be paved, on each side will be provided on the approaches (see Figure 4). A 9.6-meter
(32-foot) clear width is recommended. on the replacement structure in accordance with the current
North Carolina Department of Transportation Bridge Policy. SR 1456 is classified as a rural local;
therefore, criteria for a rural local was used for the bridge replacement. This will provide a 7.2-meter
(24-foot) travelway with 1.2-meter (4-foot) shoulders across the structure. The design speed is 100
kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour).
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic off-site is acceptable because of low traffic
volumes using SR 1456. The use of a temporary on-site detour will also impact and damage wetlands
due to the construction of the temporary detour approaches.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length of
approximately 123 meters (403 feet). The bridge will have a 0.3% minimum slope in order to.
facilitate drainage. The elevation of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing
bridge so that there will be no increase to the existing 100-year floodplain elevation. The length and
height of the new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows
as determined by further hydrologic studies.
4
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on October 18, 1994 to verify documented information and gather
field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred by a proposed bridge
replacement project.
The, investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to: 1) search for
State and federally protected plants and animal species; 2) identify unique or prime-quality
communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats; 4) identify wetlands; and 5)
provide information to assess (and minimize adverse) environmental effects of the proposed bridge
replacement.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Three distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed project.
Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and physical characteristics
of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.). Communities are described below.
Mixed Upland Forest:
This plant community (Basic Oak-Hickory Forest) is west of the existing bridge above the Deep
River. The canopy is composed of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), northern red oak (Quercus
rubra), sugar maple (Acer sacchwwm), southern shagbark hickory (Cwya carolinae-septentrionalis),
hickory (Carya spp.), and black oak (Quercus velutina). The sub-canopy include the canopy species
plus American hombeam (Cwpinus caroliniana), flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), and redbud
(Cercis canadensis). The shrub/sapling layer is composed of saplings of hickory and blue haw
(Viburnum rufidulum). The herb/vine layer is sparse and composed of Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides).
Floodplain Hardwood Forest:
This plant community (Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest) is a wetland area adjacent to the
Deep River. The canopy is composed of southern shagbark hickory, boxelder (Acer negundo), black
willow (Salix nigra), and cottonwood (Populus spp.). The sub-canopy include the canopy species.
The shrub/sapling layer is composed of black willow, hickory, and common sumac (Rhus glabra).
The herb/vine layer is sparse and composed of Christmas fern, ebony spleenwort (Asplenium
platyneuron), and grasses.
Urban/Disturbed:
This community classification includes disturbed bridge and roadside margins, commercial and
residential lands in the vicinity of the project. This area is characterized primarily by invasive grasses,
vines and herbs including: trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), plantain (Plantago spp.), wild garlic (Allium vineale), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), and
multiflora rose (Rosa multj7ora). The shrub/sapling layer is composed of sweetgum and privet
(Ligustrum sinense). Several longleaf pine trees (Pinus palustris) occur on a residential property.
Wildlife (General)
Terrestrial:
The project area consists of primarily roadside urban/disturbed, commercial and residential, and
forested areas. The forested areas provide cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species
nearby the project area. The forested areas adjacent to the Deep River and associated ecotomes serve
as valuable habitat. The forest bordering the Deep River has all the necessary components (food,
water, protective cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.) were noted for the following species of
mammals including Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Mammals
likely to inhabit the area include eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and
deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
The observed bird species are typical of rural piedmont setting where a patchwork of habitat types
are available. Species encountered in the forested areas and nearby Deep River include common crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), and tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor).
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
siriahs), Carolina anole (Anolis carohnensis), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and rat snake
(Elaphe obsoleta).
Aquatic:
The Deep River supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for recreational fishing.
Game species present are redfin pickerel (Esox americans), largemouth bass (Micropeterus
salmoides), and sunfish (Lepomis spp.).
The river and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for amphibians and
aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophihalmus viridescens), northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus), frogs (Rana spp.), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), northern water
snake (Nerodia sipedon), eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), and rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta).
6
Physical Resources
Soil
Moore County is located within the Carolina Slate Belt System of the Piedmont Physiographic
Province. The major rocks are volcanic slates, basic and acid tuffs, breccias, and flows. Volcanic
igneous rocks rise above the surrounding slates as high hills and small mountains. Local changes in
subsurface geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a single rock type are rare.
Elevations in the immediate project area range from 515 meters (320 feet) along the river to 578
meters (359 feet) along the roadside.
Soils in the project vicinity include the presence of Goldston and Congaree soils. Goldston soils
consist of shallow, well to excessively drained, moderately rapidly permeable soils on gently rolling
to steep uplands. Congaree soils are well to moderately drained, moderately permeable soils on
floodplains. Goldston and Congaree soils are not listed as hydric soils in Moore County.
Water
Bridge No. 82 crosses the Deep River approximately 72 kilometers (45 miles) downstream from its
origin near High Point, North Carolina. The Deep River drains east into the Cape Fear River. The
Deep River is part of the Cape Fear River Basin.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (NCDNRCD 1993).
The Deep River is Class WS-IV, indicating waters protected as water supplies which are generally
in moderately to highly developed watersheds.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas, Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), WS I or WS II Waters occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project site. A HQW zone
is proposed within the study area. The project study area is within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Critical Habitat Area for the Cape Fear Shiner.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) report no dischargers within four miles upstream of the proposed
crossing.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates. Certain organisms
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality. Good water quality is associated with high taxa
richness (the number of different types of organisms) and the presence of many intolerant species.
Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a community
structure quite different from that in an unstressed waterbody. The Deep River was sampled (August
1983, 1985-88) by the BMAN at the project crossing and given a bioclassification rating of Excellent.
7
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of Deep River observed in the vicinity of the proposed
bridge replacement project.
TABLE 1
Stream Characteristics and Ecolop-ical Classifications
Characteristic Description
Substrate Gravel, boulder
Current Flow Moderate
Channel Width 34 meters (112 feet)
Water Depth 30 centimeters (1 feet) to 91 centimeters (3 feet)
Water Color Clear
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Southern shagbark hickory, boxelder, black
willow, cottonwood
Wetlands Palustrine Forested
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined
in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 32 in accordance with provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). ers and wetlands will be impacted ?Y-
project construction. Approximately 0.06 hectar's (0.15 acres) f Palustrine Forested wetlands (see
Cowardin et al. 1979) will be impacted (filled) the constru on of the recommended alternative.
Field observations indicated that wetlands were assoc' with the river bank area. In general, along
both sides of river, banks are steep and well drained, and wetland hydrology was not observed in
other parts of the project.
Wetland communities were identified using the criteria specified in the 1987 "US Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland", the following
three specifications must be met: 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values); 2) presence
of hydrophytic vegetation; and 3) evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion (5
percent or greater duration) of the growing season.
Protected Species
Federally Protected Species:
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988 Amendments).
8
Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned due to potential
vulnerability. Table 2 lists the federally protected species for Moore County as of March 28, 1995.
TABLE 2
Federally Protected Species for Moore Count
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas E
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E
Brief descriptions of each species characteristics, habitat requirements, and the relationship to the
proposed project are discussed below.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Status: E
Family: Picidae
Listed: 10/13/70
This federally Endangered woodpecker is found in scattered locations throughout the southeast. The
bird measures 18 to 20 centimeters long with a wing span ranging from 35 to 38 centimeters. The
male has a small red spot on each side of the head. Both males and females show a black cap and
stripe on the side of the neck. The throat is also black while the cheeks and under parts are white.
Black and white horizontal stripes are visible on the back. Nesting habitat consists of open pine
stands (minimum age 60 years) or mixed pinelhardwood stands, (50 percent or more pine). Longleaf
pine (Pimts palustris) is most commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternative. Also, a review of North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area.
It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Red-cockaded woodpecker.
Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas)
Status: E
Family: Cyprinidae
Listed: 9/25/87
The Cape Fear Shiner is known from four small populations in the Cape Fear drainage in Randolph,
Moore, Lee, Harnett, and Chatham Counties, North Carolina. The species is generally associated
9
with clean streams with gravel, cobble and boulder substrate and has been observed to inhabit slow
pools, riffles, and slow runs of streams with relatively low silt loads.
The Cape Fear Shiner is a small fish, rarely exceeding 5 centimeters (2 inches) in length. The body
is colored pale silvery yellow, and a black band runs along its sides. The fins are yellowish and
somewhat pointed. The upper lip is black, and the lower lip bears a thin black bar along the margin.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY EFFECT
The project study area is within the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife
Service Critical Habitat Area as well as WRC proposed critical habitat for the Cape Fear Shiner.
Suitable habitat (i.e. gravel and boulder substrate) exist along the proposed project alternative. The
N.C. Heritage Program reported surveys in the Deep River for the Cape Fear Shiner were conducted
between 1985-88. The species was collected from the Deep River within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile)
upstream of the subject project study area. Also, the Cape Fear shiner was collected from sites 3.2
kilometers (2 miles) and 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles) downstream of the subject project study area. As
an agent of the Federal Highway Administration, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
will initiate Section 7 informal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service. The initial Section 7
consultation process will be completed during the preliminary design.
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia)
Status: E
Family: Primulaceae
Listed: 6/12/87
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb that grows slender stems from a rhizome and reaches
heights of 3 to 6 decimeters. Whorls of 3 to 4 leaves encircle the stem at intervals beneath the showy
yellow flowers. Flowering occurs from mid-May through June, with fruits present from July through
October. Habitat occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine
pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth) usually on a wet, peaty, poorly drained soil, on moist
to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternative. Also, a review of North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area.
It can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this species.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Status: E
Family: Anacardiacene
Listed: 9/28/89
10
Michaux's sumac was known historically from the inner coastal plain and lower piedmont of North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Thirty-five populations have been reported in North Carolina.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent on some sort of disturbance to
maintain the openness of its habitat. It grows only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight and
it does not compete well with other species such as Japanese honeysuckle.
Mchaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows 0.2 to 1.0 meters in height.
The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile, oblong to oblong-lanceolate leaflets
that are each 4 to 9 centimeters long, 2 to 5 centimeters wide, acute and acuminate. It bears small
flowers in a terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which
develop from August'to September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to
6 millimeters across.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The disturbed roadside margins along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant by
plant surveys along the roadsides were conducted on October 18, 1994. No plants were observed.
Also, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species
in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact
this species.
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana)
Status: E
Family: Scrophulariaceae
Listed: 10/29/92
American chaffseed is a finely pubescent (to tomentose, unbranched) perennial herb reaching 3-8
decimeters tall. The leaves are alternate, sessile, entire, elliptical-lanceolate (to elliptic-oval) 2-5
centimeters long and approximately 1 centimeter wide. Flowering occurs in spring and fruits in early
summer. Habitat is moist to dry sandy pinelands and oaklands with frequent fire; especially in
seasonally wet pine savannas and pine woodlands.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternative. Also, a review of North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area.
It can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this species.
Federal Candidate Species:
There are 20 C2 federal candidate species listed for Moore County. The North Carolina status of
these species is listed in Table 3.
11
TABLE 3
Federal Candidate Species for Moore County
Common Name Scientific Name Suitable NC
Habitat Status
Bachman's sparrow Ain:ophila aestivalis Yes SC
Northern pine snake Pituophis m. melwioleucus Yes SC
Sandhills clubtail dragonfly Gomphus parvidens carolinus No SR
Brook floater Alasmidonla varicosa Yes T
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Yes T
Georgia leadplant Amorpha georgiana georgiana Yes E
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii Yes C
Venus flytrap Dionaea nmscipula No C-SC
Pine barrens boneset Eupatorium resinosun: No C
White-wicky Kalmia cuneata No E-SC
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea No E
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis teniala No W1
Conferva pondweed Polamogeton con jervoides No C
Well's sandhill pixie-moss Pyridcmlhera barbulata var brevijolia No E
Sun-facing coneflower Rudbeckia heliopsidis Yes E
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna No E
Pickerines morning-glory Slylisma p. var. pickeringii Yes E
Heller's trefoil Lolus purshimius var helleri Yes C
Panhandle lily Libum iridollae No C
Rough leaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia No C
NC Status: SC, E, SR, W 1, and C denote Special Concern, Endangered, Significantly Rare, Watch List
Candidate, respectively.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but
for which there is not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. These species are mentioned here for information
purposes, should they become federally protected in the future. Specific surveys for any of these
species were not conducted, nor were these species observed during the site visit.
State Listed Species:
Plant or animal species which are on the. state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S.
113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G. S. 106-202. 12 et seq.).
As mentioned above, the Cape Fear Shiner (State Status Endangered) is known from within 1.6
kilometers (1 mile) of the project site.
Impacts
Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system present in the
study area. It should be noted that estimated impacts were derived using the entire proposed right-of-
way. Project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way and therefore actual impacts
may be less. Table 4 summarizes potential plant community impacts which could result from the
proposed bridge replacement.
12
TABLE 4
Impacts to Plant Communities for Alternative 1 in Hectares (Acres
Plant Communities Permanent Impact
Mixed Upland Forest 0.09 (0.23)
Floodplain Hardwood Forest 0.06 (0.15)
Urban/Disturbed 0.07 0.18
TOTAL 0.22 (0.56)
Note: Permanent Impacts are based on a 24-meter (80-foot) corridor of the alignment.
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacements for Alternative 1 are restricted to
narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridges and roadway segments. Bridge and approach
improvements occur primarily within disturbed right-of-way limits, commercial and residential lands,
and hardwood forest edges. The loss of forest habitat is likely to reduce the number of plant species
which serve as shelter, nesting and foraging habitat for numerous species of wildlife.
The proposed action will result in loss or displacement of known terrestrial plant or animal habitat.
Habitat affected by the proposed action include Urban/Disturbed and Hardwood Forested areas. The
Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by opportunistic plant species such as Japanese honeysuckle and
mobile species such as insects, rodents, lizards and snakes that can recover quickly from construction
impacts. The hardwood forest area that is bordering the Deep River will receive disturbances next
to the existing bridge area. The Deep River should continue to provide adequate habitat areas for
mammals, reptiles and birds.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will utilize the best management practices for the
proposed action to limit affects on the aquatic ecosystem. The disturbance of the creek bed and
sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life (fish, mollusks, and benthic invertebrates) both
at the project site as well as down stream reaches.
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities, which may
increase sedimentation and turbidity. If bridge piers are removed during construction activities,
then sediment curtains and coffer dams will be used to minimize sedimentation into the river. Because
this project lies within a Critical Habitat Area for the Cape Fear Shiner (see below), measures must
be taken to minimize sediment from entering the river. Additionally, impacts will be minimized by
the use of best management practices, including implementation of other stringent erosion and
sedimentation control measures during construction.
Long term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed improvements. The
new bridge will maintain the present flow to protect stream integrity. Increased runoff from roadway
surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for vegetated road shoulders and limited use of
ditching where ever possible.
13
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a permit
will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters
of the United States". Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that
this project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit
authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically
excluded" from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions
which neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However, final
permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. Erosion and sedimentation
control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to minimize unnecessary
impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management Practices will also be implemented.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack
of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and
specifications.
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 the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely
affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
14
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easements from any land protected
under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a
federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment. The project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation provided
documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office. There are no structures over fifty years of age in the Area of Potential Effect (APE), depicted
in Figure 2. Correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Officer (see Appendix) indicates
that no National Register-listed or eligible properties are located within the area of potential effect.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to architectural resources, is
required.
In response to a scoping letter from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer, in a memorandum dated December 19, 1994 (see Appendix),
indicated that there are no recorded archaeological sites located in this vicinity and recommended that
"no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project". Therefore, no
archaeological work was conducted for the project.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Soil Conservation Service. The Farmland
Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the potential
impact to prime farmland of.all land acquisition and construction projects. There are no soils
classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity of the project.
Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within these
classifications.
The project is located in Moore County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 is not applicable, because the proposed
project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on
the air quality of this attainment area.
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, the impact on noise levels and
air quality will not be substantial. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
15
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plans for air quality
in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for noise analysis of Title 23 CFR Part 772
and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy
Act.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Moore County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The approximate
100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 6. The amount of floodplain area to be
affected is not substantial.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result
in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
In the vicinity of the project, there are no structures located within the limits of the 100-year
floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
16
II
I
IIIII
•?
?/ -.so.**..

wrr NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
Moore County
SR-1456 over Deep River
Bridge No. 82
B-2849
FIGURE 1
Moore County
SR-1456 over Deep River
Bridge No. 82
B-2849
C O U N T Y
C H ?
ALTERNATIVE 1
BRIDGE NO. 82 - - (RECOMMENDED)
1456 Q tea 6„ FAS 1 615 1 -0
Jug 1470 1513 4 \_\\ OFF-SITE DETOUR 7
is27 - a- 40 • 1462 1466
I t „ fl 1400
tasV .l t !? \ 1e?3 1
F 6 IIV 1 D 8 1,61 .T Ie01 '%V ^ \ 1000 f1.
'?1 fwd f?? ??? S t'
I<38 B > E
I -A56 .2 1604 \ \N t } 106: le
n ' Ia01 ;461 3 ?N 9 Ia00 ' 'J 3
1n9 1411 0 w 1466 1605
3
?0 ? 1460 1605 U IAIl
1003 IalO . 14,62 1606.5
/ - 1422 1 's7 Highfolls 1, t ? i 1610 3 I -
611
1 500 9 O .? 1456 0££t-, 472 ' "? 1606 -
ti
1423 . '? d' tIM 9 '•?!? ?j"° Isoo Ie10
1.3 h 1510 1494 ? 1419 ?
!aeo
f ' tm .3 S ??i41? ?w21sib 7.?? Ilti??? tzr! Ap,
6 1424 0 1507
4
9A . O / I <S7 'u .2 1497 , q L ??
705 'L -` .41 1456 . 1412 ? I50G1.2 Bu 010 a
? M1 •Q _ 7 Q? i
1490 McConnef? 16)6
/
1453 4 1474 1419 /•8
?7\ 15 •B / Tt 133 A 1103 •/ . • 1484 ', I aB t .?\..-A •J ?t
1 - .
9 Q ^ y 1.1 1485 b 1677 1 ) 1635
eeV .J 1473 1470 1479 'a 1187 1638
0 1154 705 I.I 1483 Ia8! /? 4 .S
` 1452 h ?.D 1476 b ROBBINS .4 /G(Q .e 1637
ItSt V POP. 1 256
b
^eef j/_? ° 1462
1 450
1449 Pvtnom
(?': ?, :••., 1478
472 •
1 498 .3
iat I481
-?-- r. o -4 .':.,?.?•:;:: F?5 .5 14e0 Na1o C?o??ti? ? law
12 RARWAP .2 1479 'aP
1520 f' : ?o tan ?s _ S gds
S ! S?' _ ._ ) 1487
~ :i'! t S i tee 7
° Er Creek 1002 .5
1002 1.3 •? 1073
'5 1521'1 •0 1440 b •j s 1469 Parkwood ,•?`
6 j
22
1432
1503
l.Ob1A , 1434 1475 1490
v N 1439 .1 1402
('-"?/ ` 1776 FAP .9 y ?(-• yd b 1 •/ ,?, 1493
U d 24 -9 1713 J ISYL
1275 °' U •1 `? t1 Garners 1 1264 .l 1123 ?b
1433 5 ry'? 1281 Store 1 1.3 ' S Calvary
D 1306 ? I 1210 Q 1493 J147
.
_ t . 1267 "k Horse 1337 1327
?:• "k Horse f• 1337 1327 /
e a ( a° 4
West 1277 13333 •6
•4 ? 22 Zees
Philadelphia y 705 74
7
1268
1 N •?
.J
?_ i ^ 1799 , /(
^ 1762
S t276 C1C
1276 i.
1265 0 /
z
1270 /
Z 9 `
1 1296 9 - 1761
130! ? X10
1.3 1 770 J i 1.296 1 761
6.. .Q ? b `\ '?t`, f5 1763 OAS i' ':.:.:,_••'?17t5
% 1269 `y ` hind-
1275 ••?. •Q ?, 131241 N.C. STATE
77 t r =;
?, , ; ` .. 1270 ?'??'• 1 329 `? . 1 210 _ ?? , FIGURE 2A
SIDE VIEW
NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
FIGURE 3
L•
O
F
z
I3]
LL)
F-
zZ

CO Cl) F
- >
<z=z
>
zov? a

0 ca. C4
?dao O
0 V
z
CL CL C"
-0
z
C?
? 'D
Z p?
P [] co
a

•e
E

J
Z Z
0 O
U U
W
CO W
Z ?
<
<
O H
0 ?+ C
CL
N N
a.
W
p
CL 0
CL CC
^w ^'
>
< < M
J
<
J N
U U
CL a o
} co

d
J
C h
00 d >L
X N M
W N .r ?
Q
s
d CL
.. O 3

CO L O
> co L
>
CF)
N
(-- a
d d w
co co
J a-
II 11 11
c/) N
Y J CL F-
w
U-
0
F d

w z
? w

z
¢ a
w
o j
a z ? z
?ot?W c
oa
?? a
oG F ?, C., N
'•
° UdozV
x?oz
x ? ? oo.
v°z o
V c
i
za za
0 v
fY?
r
N O
oGZa
g?
Z F- in 4 m v-r
v

J • nr??

O _ fl ?

v s ?
U
a

H
N
Z
O W
H
Z
O ?
H

W
v
i U

o

?
M O
a

O O O
O O
O z F N
0
Q

o Q

u u

En
4') u
qT 00 00
Q Q rnV` o
a N
U
a
d
z
O
H
U

w

C7
w
a ) Q LT)
00 z W
oQ o? o z :?
?z0 a N
N
? /• b z
•\ .-mot
a
00
Z o :..
.
N ?• ; \
a
v1 F- H N CSC :r
0 o g?
w
o
Z 0
,. \
r=J
.. Z
0
N
FIGURE 6 9
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
November 8, 1994
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
TAKE==. ¦•
PRIDE INO"
AMERICA
?o
M

NoV
z'
j ?

'994
r
r ??Vn?rrTP?-v
This is in response to your letter of November 2, 1994
requesting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) comments on
15 proposed bridge replacements in various eastern counties in
North Carolina. These comments are provided in accordance with
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The Federally endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas) occurs in Moore County. Our records indicate
that one of the five populations is documented from below dam
at Highfalls, to the start of the reservoir near the railroad
crossing of Deep River northeast of Glendon, Moore County. A
second population occurs from the Deep River in Coleridge,
Randolph County to the start of the reservoir above Highfalls,
Moore County. As such, it appears that the Cape Fear shiner
may occur in the area of the SR 1456, bridge #82, over Deep
River, Moore County.
The endangered dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
occurs in Nash, Granville, and Wake Counties, and may
potentially occur in Fishing Creek in Granville County where SR
1609, Bridge #14 replacement is proposed, and in Swift Creek in
Wake County where SR' 1152, bridge #289 replacement is
identified.
The Tar Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) occurs in Nash
County with documented populations in Sandy Creek, Swift Creek,
and the Tar River below US-64 Alt. bridge.
For bridge replacements proposed in counties where Federally-
listed aquatic species are known to occur, the Service
recommends that instream construction activities be avoided.
In the event that such activities must occur, the following
conditions must be adopted to avoid adverse impacts to the
above-referenced species:
1) Immediately before construction is to occur a qualified
individual should survey for the Cape Fear shiner, the
Tar spinymussel and dwarf wedge mussels within the
project impact area, and 150 feet downstream of the
impact area. If either of the endangered mussels are
found, the Service and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) shall be contacted and a
relocati.on plan must be developed and approved by the
Service.
2) Regardless of whether the endangered mussels or the Cape
Fear shiner are discovered during your survey, we
recommend the use of instream silt curtains and
stringent bank erosion control. If trees must be
removed, we recommend that stumps and roots be left
intact for bank stabilization.
3) High Quality Waters Erosion guidelines will be
followed throughout construction.
4) Early permanent seeding of disturbed areas shall
occur.
5) The existing bridge structure will be removed so
as not to allow debris to enter the stream.
6) Stormwater from the new bridge shall be directed
over land -rather than drained directly into the
stream.
7) All piles shall be driven and not drilled.
8) Immediately before construction is to begin, the
contractor shall contact the Service and NCWRC for
notification (due to possible changes in stream
conditions).
The following is a list of individuals whom the Service and the
NCWRC believe are qualified to conduct freshwater mussel
surveys:
1) Dr. Art Bogan [phone]
2) Dr. Eugene Keferl [phone]
3) Dr. Dave Michaelson [phone]
4) Dr. Dick Neves [phone]
5) Dr. Phil Stevenson [phone]
6) Dr. David Stansbery [phone]
7) Dr. Dave Strayer [phone]
We encourage the NCDOT to continue an informal consultation
dialogue with this office since instream work is generally
considered by the Service to cause adverse impacts to
freshwater mussels and fish. However, as you proceed with your
environmental planning process and more details are available,
the Service is available to have additional site specific
resource discussions.
If it is determined through your environmental analysis that
the proposed action "may affect" a Federally-listed species,
then formal consultation is required. If it is concluded that
"adverse effects" are not likely, the Service should review the
assessment and provide written concurrence with the
determination. We refer you to the Interagency Cooperation
Regulations (50 CFR 402) and the Act for Section 7 consultation
requirements.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and provide these
comments in the early stages of your environmental planning
process. If you have any questions please contact Ms. Candace
Martino at [phone] ext. 30.
Sincerely,
Olaj
David Horning
Endangered Species Coordinator
t? s 020
DEC 2 2 1994
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 19, 1994
MEMORANDUM
Division of Arc Histo F?
William S. Price,
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State I-{isto'ric-Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects (fifteen
bridges), Multicounty, CH 95-E-4220-0305
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have reviewed the list of fifteen bridges planned for replacement. With the
exception of B-2830; Greene County on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek on which
we commented at a "meeting of the minds" in 1994, we have no record of having
seen these proposed projects.
Given our lack of staff in the Survey and Planning Branch to review the potential
impacts of these replacements on-historic buildings, we are unable to respond to
your request for comments at this time. We suggest you direct your consultants,
MA Engineering, to make an appointment with Renee 'Gledhill-Earley to check our
maps and files or have her review aerial photographs or maps of the project areas.
Our comments with regard to archaeological resources are as follows:
Bridge 23 on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek, B-2830, Greene County, ER 94- '
8699
There 'are no recorded archaeological sites within the immediate project vicinity,
although the area south of the existing bridge contains a very high probability for
the presence of prehistoric resources. It is likely that we will recommend an
archaeological survey for this project, but we are unable to complete our review
without project details and location. Please forward them as soon as they are
available.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh. North Carolina 27601-2807 Q3
H. F. Vick
December 19, 1994, Page 2
Bridge 109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek, B-2852, Orange County
Archaeological site 31OR438** is likely to be affected by the proposed bridge
replacement project. This historic period mill dam is located across New Hope
Church north of SR 1734. We recommend that the project area be surveyed and
site 31 OR438 * * be tested and evaluated for its National Register eligibility if it is
to be affected by the project.
Bridge 2 on SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek, B-2850, Nash County
Bridge 14 on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek, B-2828, Granville County
Bridge 13 on SR 1530 over Haw River, B-2802, Alamance County
Bridge 289 on SR 1152 over Swift Creek, B-2871, Wake County
Bridge 2 on SR 1529 over Haw River, B-2801, Alamance County
There are no recorded archaeological sites located in the project vicinity.
However, we are unable to assess the project's potential effects upon as yet
unrecorded resources without a project location. As soon as a location and
detailed project information (including new right-of-way, approach work, detour
structures) is available, please forward it to us so we may complete our review.
Bridge 37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek, B-1336, Richmond County
Bridge 15 on SR 1100 over Barnards Creek, B-2595, New Hanover County
Bridge 27 on NC 904 over Scipped Swamp, B-2807, Brunswick County
Bridge 37 on US 13 over South River, B-2819, Cumberland and Sampson Counties
Bridge 82 on SR 1456 over Deep River, B-2849, Moore County
Bridge 45 'on NC 211 over Raft Swamp, B-2860, Robeson County
Bridge 61 on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp, B-2863, Robeson County
Bridge 32 on SR 1433 and SR 1310 over Lumber River, B-2866, Robeson and
Scotland Counties
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of- Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
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: State Clearinghouse
B_ Church
T. Padgett
3? Jam=
Qs
a.:
;ice
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Barbara Church
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
- Department of Transportation
FROM: Renee Gledhill-Earl
ey? o?-
Environmental Revie ordtnator
Historic Preservation Office
SUBJECT: Concurrence Forms

Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Attached are the fully executed concurrence forms for properties not eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places for the following projects:
Alamance County, B-2801; Federal Aid BRZ-1 529(2), Replace Bridge No. 2
on SR 1529 over. Prong of Haw River
Alamance County, B-2802, Federal Aid BRSTP-1530(1), Replace Bridge No.
13 on SR 1530 over Haw River
Brunswick County, B-2807, Federal Aid BRSTP-904(2), Replace Bridge No.
27 on NC 904 over Scippio Swamp
Cumberland County, B-2819, Federal Aid BRSTP-13(3), Replace Bridge No.
37 on US 13 over South River
Granville County, B-2828, Federal Aid BRZ-1609(1), Replace Bridge No. 14
on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek
Greene County, B-2830, Federal Aid BRSTP-123(1), Replace Bridge No. 123
on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek .
More County, B-2849, Federal Aid, BRZ-1456(3), Replace Bridge No. 82 on
SR 1456 over Deep River
Nash County, B-2850, Federal Aid BRZ-1003(13), Replace Bridge No. 2 on
SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek
New Hanover County, B-2595, Federal Aid BRSTP-1100(5), Replace Bridge
No. 15 on SR 1100 over Barnards Creek
?C,
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 'v
Barbara Church
February 21, 1995, Page 2
Orange County, B-2852, Federal Aid BRSTP-1734(2), Replace Bridge No.
109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek
Richmond County, B-1336, Federal Aid BRSTP-6491(2), Replace Bridge No.
37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek
Robeson County, B-2860, Federal Aid BRSTP-21 1(1), Replace Bridge No. 45
on NC 211 over Raft Swamp
Robeson County, B-2863, Federal Aid BRZ-1935(1), Replace Bridge No. 61
on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp
Scotland County, B-2866, Federal Aid BRSTP-1433(1), Replace Bridge No.
32 on SR 1433 over Lumber River
Wake County, B-2871,, Federal Aid BRSTP-1152(2), Replace Bride No. 289
on SR 1152 over Swift Creek
Please distribute to the appropriate engineer and to Federal Highway
Administration. We have kept copies for our files.
RGE:slw
Attachments
TIP J 6' 2g4q Federal Aid t4ti,[, S)
County M IPP.F-
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
. 1?Ept.AGi:. l3RiDGE ?o. ?2 otil SiZ 145(a eve-P- DECP Q-tvEJZ,
On J"uAey 2 , , tgq? , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scopin- meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as . are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation o therrr-ig necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
77yZ9s
Representative, NCDOT Date
Z ?
FHwA_ f he ivisioa Administrator, or other Federal Agency ate
Representative, SHPO Date

ric Preservation Officer
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.