19961115 Ver 1_Complete File_19961206

_- {

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
November, 27 1996
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 96 ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith
GARLAND B. GARRETi' J R.
SECRETARY
r !.? -- 6 1996
WETLANDS GRO(;N
WATER QUALITY ,.?; ° I
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Wake County, Replacement of Bridge No. 299 over Terrible Creek on
SR 1404. TIP No. B-3055, State Project No. 8.2404501, Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1404(2).
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion and Programmatic
4(f) Evaluation for the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal
Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR
77 115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose
pro eed 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 and appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality 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 Water Quality, for their review.
Wetland impacts for the preferred alternative (Alternative 1) is 1.5 acres. While this figure
is correctly stated on page 11 of the document, Table 2 - "Anticipated impacts to biotic
communities, wetlands, and surface waters" on page 10, is inaccurate. The actual
breakdown is reflected as follows:
9
i
% Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Disturbed 0.1 ha (0.25 ac) 0.1 ha (0.25 ac)
Bottomland Forest
Jurisdictional 0.6 ha (1.5 ac) 0.03 ha (0.07 ac)
Non jurisdictional 0.5 ha (1.2 ac) 0.13 ha (0.33 ac)
Surface Waters 0.01 ha (0.02 ac) 0.14 ha (0.35 ac)
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael
Wood at [phone] extension 315.
Sincerely
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Bill Goodwin, P.E., Planning & Environmental
u

Wake County,
Bridge No. 299 on SR 1404
Over Terrible Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ - 1404(2)
State Project 8.2404501
TIP Project B-3055
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
and
PROGRAMMATIC 4(I) EVALUATION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
10-24-96 ' U.
Date fv, H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
A-lbdlf6 -dam
Date _Nicho L. Graf, P. E.
/' `Division Administrator, FHWA
Wake County,
Bridge No. 299 on SR 1404
Over Terrible Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ - 1404(2)
State Project 8.2404501
TIP Project B-3055
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
and
PROGRAMMATIC 4(>f) EVALUATION
October 1996
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By
• NJ%
William T. Goodwin, Jr., P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
v"ay"e Z-7/,?T#
/a -2y-96
WaynAlliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head

Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
%%% ?N CAROZ '?.
%
?••• OFESS/O?.•9 ?y
SEAL F
zs 210T! sue;
I t4
Wake County,
Bridge No. 299 on SR 1404
Over Terrible Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ - 1404(2)
State Project 8.2404501
TIP Project B-3055
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 299, Wake County. This bridge carries SR 1404 over Terrible Creek (see Figure 1). NCDOT
includes this bridge in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge
replacement project. NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classify this
project as a federal Categorical Exclusion. These agencies expect no notable environmental
impacts.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 299 on new location as shown in Alternate 1, Figure 2.
NCDOT recommends replacing the bridge with a culvert, on new location approximately 65
meters (215 feet) east of the existing bridge. The new culvert will be a three barrel reinforced
concrete culvert, with each barrel measuring 3.0 meters (10 feet) by 2.4 meters (8 feet). The new
roadway will be constructed at a slightly higher roadway elevation than the existing roadway and
bridge. The new roadway will have a 7.2 meter (24 foot) wide travelway plus 2.4 meter (8 foot)
shoulders. The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 65 km/h
(40 mph).
The estimated cost is $ 985,000 including $ 35,000 for right of way acquisition and
$ 950,000 for construction. The estimated cost included in the 1997-2003 TIP is $ 480,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT may be required to seek a design exception due to the low design speed for this
project. The design speed for the project is affected by the poor existing horizontal alignment.
The recommended alternate will improve the design speed of the roadway, but it may not reach
the desired design speed.
III. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All applicable Best Management Practices will be installed and properly
maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
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." A Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 will
likely be applicable for this project.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit # 23.
Clearing activities will be kept to a minimum within the boundaries of the J. Beale
Johnson House which is a National Register Listed residence located just southeast of Bridge No
299. The removal of trees on the property will be limited to those trees absolutely necessary to
construct the project.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NCDOT classifies SR 1404 as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. The surrounding area is primarily rural-residential in nature, with few
scattered residences among wooded lots and farm fields. However, the area is experiencing
significant growth with several subdivisions being developed north and west of the bridge site.
Near Bridge No. 299, SR 1404 is a two lane paved road, 5.4 meters (18 feet) wide with
minimal grassed shoulders. Both the vertical and horizontal alignment of the south approach to
the bridge are poor. The alignment of the north approach is much better.
NCDOT built Bridge No. 299 in 1955. The bridge has an asphalt overlay surface on a
timber deck with steel I-beam girders (see Figure 3). The southern abutment and two of the bents
of the bridge are made of timber. The northernmost bent and end bent are solid reinforced
concrete piers. These two piers are part of the buttressing for the dam that forms Johnson's
pond. The spillway for the dam is directly adjacent to Bridge No. 299. The deck of Bridge No.
299 is 6.4 meters (21 feet) above the streambed. Water depth is approximately 0.3 meters (1.0
foot) in the project area. The bridge is 39.3 meters (129 feet) long with a 5.5 meter (18 foot)
roadway width. It carries two lanes of traffic and the posted load limits are 9 tons for single
vehicles and 12 tons for Truck-tractor Semi-trailer (TTST).
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of Bridge No. 299
is 2.0 of a possible 100.0.
The current traffic volume is 1400 vehicles per day (VPD), projected to 3700 VPD by the
design year (2020). The speed limit is posted at 35 mph on SR 1404 in the area of Bridge No.
299.
Traffic Engineering accident records indicate four accidents occurred in the vicinity of
Bridge No. 299 between October 1, 1992 and September 30, 1994.
The Transportation Director for Wake County Schools indicated there are 10 school
buses crossing the bridge twice each per day.
2
V. ALTERNATES
Two methods of replacing Bridge No. 299 were studied. The alternates studied are as
follows:
Alternate One (Recommended) - replace the bridge on new alignment approximately 65 meters
(215 feet) east of the existing bridge with a culvert. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction.
Alternate Two - replace the bridge on new alignment approximately 50 meters (164 feet) west
of the existing bridge with a new 225 meter (740 feet) long bridge, over Johnson's Pond.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical. The existing bridge would continue
deteriorating until it was unusable. This would require closing the road, or continued intensive
maintenance.
Replacing Bridge No. 299 in-place with traffic detoured off-site was also considered and
found not to be feasible due to the likelihood that the dam for Johnson's Pond would have to be
replaced as well as the bridge, adding considerable cost to the project.
VI. COST ESTIMATE
Estimated costs of the alternates studied are as follows:
Alternate One Alternate Two
Recommended
Structure
Roadway Approaches
Structure Removal
Misc. and Mobilization
Engineering & Contingencies
Total Construction
Right of Way & Utilities
TOTAL PROJECT COST
195,000 1,225,000
420,000 230,000
18,000 18,000
190,000 442,000
127,000 285,000
950,000 2,200,000
35,000 42,000
985,000 2,242,000
i The existing bridge will be removed down to the buttresses of the dam. The bridge abutments
may be left in-place if the integrity of the dam would be affected by their removal.
VIL RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 299 on new location, as shown in Alternate 1, Figure 2.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge and roadway during construction.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 299 with a culvert, on new location approximately 65
meters (215 feet) east of the existing bridge. The new culvert will be a three barrel reinforced
concrete culvert, with each barrel measuring 3.0 meters (10 feet) by 2.4 meters (8 feet). The new
roadway will be constructed at a slightly higher roadway elevation than the existing roadway and
bridge. The new roadway will have a 7.2 meter (24 foot) wide travelway plus 2.4 meter (8 foot)
shoulders. The project will require approximately 440 meters (1450 feet) of new approach
roadway. Where the design requires guardrail, the shoulder will be at least 3.3 meters (11 feet)
wide. The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 65 km/h (40 mph).
NCDOT recommends Alternate 1 in order to replace existing Bridge No. 299 in the most
economical fashion. Alternate 2 has a significantly higher cost than Alternate 1. Alternate 2
would reduce direct wetland impacts, but might require the partial draining of Johnson's Pond to
complete construction. All architectural and archaeological issues raised by Alternate 1 have
been resolved to the satisfaction of the SHPO, FHWA and NCDOT. Alternate 2 would have
avoided direct impacts to the J. Beale Johnson House, but may have had a more substantial
visual effect on the historic setting of the house. Alternate 2 would have avoided the former
Alford's Mill site, but an archaeological survey recovered all information of historic significance
at the site.
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be low for a project of this type and magnitude.
The division engineer concurs with the selection of Alternate 1. He states that traffic
should be maintained on-site due to the number of vehicles involved. The recommended alternate
will allow traffic to use the existing road and bridge during project construction.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. General Environmental Effects
The project is considered to be a "categorical exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the
human or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT 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 construction of the project.
4
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.
There are no known hazardous waste sites in the project area and no unknown sites are
likely to be found.
Construction of the recommended alternate will not have a significant adverse impact on
the floodplain or associated flood hazard. The elevation of the 100-year flood will not be
increased by more than 30 centimeters (12 inches).
B. Architectural and Archaeological Resources
Architectural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that in terms of historic
architectural resources, there are two sites of interest in the project vicinity. The J. Beale Johnson
House is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and is located within the project's
area of potential effect. The Atkinson-Whitted House and Tower is on the state study list, and is
located north of the project area on SR 1407. No additional historic architectural survey is
required for this project.
The Atkinson-Whiffed House and Tower are not within the area of potential effect (APE)
for the project and will not be effected by project construction. The J. Beale Johnson House is
within the APE for the project but, as shown by the concurrence form in the appendix, the project
has been determined to have "No Effect" on this National Register Listed property.
Archaeological Resources
The SHPO has indicated that there are the remains of a historic period mill site located
east of the existing bridge. This site will be affected by the recommended alternate, and was
evaluated and recorded during the archaeological survey. The SHPO has stated, by letter dated
May 9, 1996, that the mill site is eligible for listing on the National Register. However, all
significant information has been adequately retrieved so that the project will have No Adverse
Effect upon the site.
5
C. Natural Systems
Southwestern Wake County lies in the Piedmont physiographic province. The topography
of the project region is characterized by rolling hills. Soil types and availability of water directly
influence the composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community. The
elevation at the project site is approximately 88 meters (290 feet) above mean sea level.
Soils
Soils of the immediate project study area are dominated by the Appling, Herndon and
Wehadkee Series. Soils of the Appling series vary in slope from 2-10 percent. Of the soil series
present in the project area, only Wehadkee and Bibb soils are considered hydric. Table 1
summarizes characteristics of the soils mapped in the project study area.
Table 1. Summary of the soils of the project site.
Unit Soil Phase % Slope Hydric Class
AgC Appling gravelly sandy loam 6-10 -
ApB Appling sandy loam 2-6 -
HrE Herndon silt loam 15-25 -
Hydric Class 1 - Hydric soils, only because of saturation for a significant period during the
growing season.
For each soil series, site indices for several forest tree species that are commercially
important are included. The site index is the average total height, in feet, of the dominant and
codominant trees in a well-stocked, even-aged stand at 50 years of age and is a means of
expressing the potential productivity of a soil for a given kind of tree. Soils of the Appling and
Herndon series have a site index of 75-85 for loblolly pine, yellow poplar and sweetgum and 65-
75 for shortleaf pine and southern red oak. Wehadkee and Bibb soils have a site index of 85-95
for loblolly pine, sweetgum and water oak and 85-100 for yellow poplar (USDA Soil
Conservation Service 1970). Overall, the soils in the project vicinity have a high potential
productivity for forest resources. However, much of the area is currently maintained as cultivated
fields and residential areas.
Water resource information encompasses the resource's relationship to major water
systems, physical aspects, Best Usage Classification, and water quality. Impacts to water
resources are discussed, along with suggestions to minimize impacts.
Characteristics of Water Resources
Water resources located within the project study area lie in the Neuse River Drainage
Basin. Terrible Creek [DEM Index No. 27- 43-15-8-(2)] originates approximately 3.2 kilometers
(2.0 miles) west of the project site and flows into Middle Creek approximately 6.4 kilometers
(4.0 miles) downstream from the project site. Middle Creek eventually flows into the Neuse
River near Smithfield, central Johnston County. Currently SR 1404 crosses Terrible Creek on the
dam that forms Johnson's Pond. The pond is a 6.9 hectares (17 acres) lake located on the west
side of SR 1404 at the subject bridge.
6
Alternative 1 will cross Terrible Creek which is approximately 3 meters (10 feet) wide
and 30.5 centimeters (12.0 inches) deep at the project site. This creek has fast flow, clear water,
and a sand/silt-gravel bottom. Various unnamed tributaries of Terrible Creek transverse the east
side of the project vicinity. The NWI map classifies this area as a PFOIA (Palustrine Forested
Broad-leaved Deciduous, temporarily flooded) wetland.
Johnson's Pond [DEM Index No. 27-43-15-8-(1)1 is located on the west side of SR 1404
and will be bridged if Alternative 2 is chosen. The pond has shallow edges but quickly grades off
into water greater than 4.5 meters (15.0 feet) deep. The NWI map classifies Johnson's pond as
L 1 UBHh (Lacustrine, Limnetic, Unconsolidated Bottomland, Permanently flooded
impoundment).
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a Best Usage Classification by the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM). The best usage classification for Terrible Creek from the
dam to Middle Creek is Class C NSW. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The
supplemental NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) classification refers to waters which require
limitations on nutrient inputs. Johnson's Pond is classified as Class B NSW. Class B waters are
considered primarily for recreation and any other usage specified by the "C" classification. NSW
waters require limitations on nutrient inputs. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 kilometers
(1.0 miles) of the project study area.
Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by the DEM and
is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term
trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macromvertebrates are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these organisms
are reflections of water quality. BMAN information is not available for Terrible Creek (NC
DEHNR 1991).
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required
to register for a permit. One permitted discharger is located in the project vicinity. The Fuquay
Varina/Terrible Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is located approximately 0.5 kilometers (0.3
miles) northeast of the project site on a tributary of Terrible Creek. This tributary enters Terrible
Creek downstream from the project site.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Project construction could involve either the installation of a culvert through which
Terrible Creek will flow (Alternative 1) or bridging the lower end of Johnson's Pond (Alternative
2). Crossing Terrible Creek at a new location downstream from the current crossing at the dam
will result in temporary impacts to the water quality of the stream.
Project construction from either alternative may result in the following impacts to
surface waters:
- Increased sedimentation and siltation from erosion;
7
- Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal;
- Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction;
- Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal, and;
- Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway construction and toxic spills.
Precautions should be taken to minimize these and other impacts to water resources in
the study area. This can be accomplished by protecting stream bank vegetation, installing silt
fences as well as other erosion and sedimentation controls. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines should be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. Provisions to preclude unnecessary
contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval should also be strictly
enforced.
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those
ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between fauna and flora
within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the
project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications. Natural plant community titles follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where
possible. Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described and
discussed. Identifications and nomenclature of vascular plants were made primarily with Radford
gI ?1. (1968). Fauna observed during field investigations are designated with an asterisk (*).
Terrestrial Communities
A variety of disturbed biotic communities dominate the project study area. The roadside
shoulder, newly installed sewer line and hay field are maintained at an early successional stage.
A Piedmont Bottomland Forest is present along Terrible Creek on the east side of the existing
bridge.
Disturbed Communities
The roadside shoulder, sewer line ROW and hay field are dominated mostly by
herbaceous and shrubby, early successional species. Herbaceous plants include meadow fescue,
broomsedge, black nightshade, dog fennel, various species of goldenrods and elephant's foot.
Pokeweed, greenbrier, poison ivy and Florida blue lettuce were also common within the
disturbed portions of the project study area. Shrubby species common to these disturbed sites
include blackberry, green ash, loblolly pine and red maple.
Disturbed areas such as these are used by a variety of animals for foraging and nesting.
Avian species such as rufous sided towhee*, northern cardinal*, brown thrasher*, Carolina
chickadee* and red tailed hawk* were observed in both the disturbed and forested portion of the
project study area. Mourning dove, ruby throated hummingbird, American goldfinch and various
other songbirds are also likely to be found in the project study area. Scavenging birds such as the
American crow* and turkey vulture are probably present during most of the year.
Other faunal species likely to inhabit or use these disturbed areas include white-tailed
deer, raccoon*, Virginia opossum, white-footed mouse and the southeastern shrew. Upland
chorus frog, spring peeper and northern cricket frog are likely amphibians. Black rat snakes and
rough green snakes may be found throughout the disturbed areas.
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
The forested area lying within the project study area is primarily Piedmont Bottomland
Forest. Based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydrology and hydric soils, much of
this area meets the necessary criteria to be classified as a jurisdictional wetland. Herbaceous
species common to the wetland areas of the Bottomland Forest include common rush, Japanese
grass, false nettle, spotted touch-me-not, privet, Japanese honeysuckle and meadow fescue. Other
herbaceous species include meadow garlic, wild strawberry and mouse-ear chickweed. Canopy
species common to this forest include sycamore, red maple, river birch, water oak, loblolly pine,
sweetgum and dogwood.
Great blue herons and green backed herons are likely residents of the Bottomland Forest
and spend a considerable amount of time feeding in Johnson's Pond and Terrible Creek. Many of
the animals that inhabit or use the disturbed areas are probably also found in the adjacent
Bottomland Forest including birds such as northern cardinal, Carolina chickadee, red-tailed hawk
and American crow. White-tailed deer, raccoon, Virginia opossum, upland chorus frogs, eastern
newt, slimy salamander, eastern box turtle and black snakes are all likely inhabitants.
Aquatic Communities
Two types of aquatic communities are present in the project study area. Johnson's Pond
dominates the western half of the project study area while Terrible Creek and one of its unnamed
tributaries is to the east of the current bridge.
Johnson's Pond
Johnson's Pond was created as a result of a dam on Terrible Creek at the current bridge.
Aquatic vegetation such as cattails, smartweeds and submerged pondweeds are likely to be found
in the pond.
Great blue herons and green-backed herons feed on various species of fish, reptiles and
amphibians as well as crustaceans associated with the pond. Fish species likely to inhabit
Johnson's Pond include eastern mosquito fish, largemouth bass, bluegill, red-breasted sunfish and
catfish. Snapping turtle and stinkpot are common turtles in aquatic habitats of the Piedmont.
Bullfrog, southern leopard frog and pickerel frog are all common in lakes and ponds in the
project region. Crayfish species are commonly found in or near aquatic habitats in the Piedmont.
Piedmont Perennial Stream
Terrible Creek and its unnamed tributary are both considered Piedmont perennial
streams. Fish species common to Piedmont streams include creek chub, green sunfish,
pumpkinseed, bluegill and rosyside dace. These fish species feed on a variety of aquatic insects
including caddisflies and mayflies.
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources has the potential to
9
impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources
in terms of the ecosystems affected. Both temporary and permanent impacts are considered.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each
community at the project site. Project construction will result in the clearing and degradation of
portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative losses of these biotic
communities resulting from project construction. Estimated terrestrial impacts are derived using
a ROW width of 18.3 meters (60.0 feet) on the northern end of Alternative I and 40 meters (130
feet) in the portion of Alternative 1 where Terrible Creek will be culverted. Usually, project
construction does not require the entire ROW width; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less. Impacts to Johnson's Pond (Alternative 2) are based on the surface area of the
bridge and a 18.3 meter (60.0 foot) ROW width.
Terrestrial communities found in the study area serve as nesting, feeding and sheltering
habitat for various wildlife. Alternative 1 will impact approximately 1.1 hectares (2.7 acres) of
land. Approximately 0.6 hectares (1.5 acres) of this area is Bottomland Forest while the other 0.1
hectares (0.2 acres) constitutes disturbed areas including an agricultural field and existing
roadside shoulder. Approximately 0.4 hectares (1.0 acres) of the Bottomland Hardwood Forest in
the vicinity of the proposed culvert is jurisdictional wetland.
Habitat reduction concentrates wildlife into smaller areas of refuge, thus causing some
species to become more susceptible to disease, predation and starvation. Impacts to the aquatic
community include degradation of water quality, thus negatively impacting the aquatic
organisms living in the stream. The surface area impacts to Terrible Creek will be extensive
where the stream will be culverted. The culvert will require stream widening upstream and
downstream from the crossing. The channelization of 40 meters (130 feet) of the stream is
required for the culvert and will disrupt the aquatic community in Terrible Creek. Culverting
such a long section of Terrible Creek will most likely displace all of the fish and most of the
aquatic invertebrates that are currently inhabiting this portion of the stream.
Alternative 2 (bridging Johnson's Pond) will have the least impact on the terrestrial
communities within the project area. Only 0.2 hectares (0.5 acres) of Bottomland Forest and 0.1
hectares (0.2 acres) of disturbed habitat will be impacted by Alternative 2. This alternative will
also impact a narrow fringing wetland along the northeastern edge of Johnson's Pond. This
wetland is less than 0.03 hectares (0.07 acres) in size. The initial impacts to the aquatic
community of Johnson's Pond resulting from bridge construction could be great. The substrate of
the pond will be impacted as pilings are inserted during bridge construction. If the water level
must be lowered for construction activities, large numbers of fish will likely be killed. If the
pond is completely drained and the substrate dries out, aquatic invertebrates will also be lost.
Permanent impacts to Johnson's Pond include shading 0.14 hectares (0.35 acres) of surface
waters. Shading will negatively impact the lake community by reducing the amount of
phytoplankton as well as reducing water temperatures in this portion of the lake. Normal traffic
as well as maintenance activities (salt, paint, etc.) will contribute toxic compounds into the pond.
Table Anticipated impacts to biotic communities, wetlands and surface waters
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Disturbed 0.1 ha (0.2 ac) 0.1 ha (0.2 ac)
Bottomland Forest 0.6 ha (1.5 ac) 0.2 ha (0.5 ac)
Wetland 0.4 ha (1.0 ac) 0.03 ha (0.07 ac)
Surface Water 0.01 ha (0.02 ac) 0.14 ha (0.35 ac)
10
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of Waters of the
United States, as defined Section 33 of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands are defined in 33 CFR 328.3 as those areas inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action
that proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to determine the presence of jurisdictional wetlands includes evidence of hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. Wetlands and surface waters will be impacted by
the proposed project.
One large wetland is located to the east of the dam creating Johnson's Pond.
Approximately 0.6 hectares (1.5 acres) of this wetland will be impacted by Alternative 1. A
second wetland located in the project study area fringes Johnson's Pond. Alternative 2 will only
impact less than 0.03 hectares (0.07 acres) of jurisdictional wetland near the northeastern corner
of the pond. Both wetlands contained hydrophytic plants such as red maple, sweet gum, river
birch, sycamore, spotted touch-me-not and false nettle. Hydric soils with a color of IOYR 4/1 and
3/1 were present with mottles of 10 YR 4/6. Terrible Creek will be impacted by Alternative 1
while Alternative 2 will impact Johnson's Pond.
Permits
As mentioned above, impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are
anticipated from project construction. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA,
a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of dredge 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's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with the determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DEM
prior to the issuance of a Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state
issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in
a discharge to Waters of the United States. Final decisions concerning applicable permits rest
with the COE.
11
Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands." The purpose of this
policy is to maintain and restore the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of the
United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ
to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing
impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR) 1508.20. Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance alternatives examine 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 and the COE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measure should be appropriate to the
scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and
logistics.
Alternative 1 involves crossing Terrible Creek downstream from the current crossing (on
the dam). This alternative would have the greatest impact to jurisdictional wetlands which could
only be avoided by bridging the wetland or moving this section of new location further east.
Alternative 2 would have only minor impacts to wetlands that fringe the edge of Johnson's Pond
but would have the greatest impact to surface waters as it crosses Johnson's Pond.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practical steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, ROW
widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Since much of the bottomland area east of the
dam is jurisdictional wetland, shifting the relocated section of Alternative I either west or
slightly east of its proposed location would still have significant wetland impacts. Shifting the
new location section several hundred meters to the east would minimize impacts to wetlands.
Alternative 2, involving bridging Johnson's Pond would only impact a small wetland along the
edge of the pond. Impacts to this wetland could be lessened by extending the bridge over the
fringing wetland. Impacts to surface waters would be great.
Additional means to minimize impacts to the waters and wetlands crossed by the
proposed project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control using Best Management
Practices for the protection of surface waters during the entire construction life of the project;
reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, particularly in riparian areas and reduction or
elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-establishment of
vegetation on exposed areas, with prudent pesticide and herbicide management; minimization of
in-stream activity and litter and debris control. The use of any number of these methods will be
effective in reducing the degradation of water quality resulting from project construction.
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
12
unavoidable, adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization
has been done. 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
the project site, when possible.
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require compensatory
mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of the Army. The final decision regarding mitigation rests
with the Corps of Engineers.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been 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 [ESA] of 1973, as amended) requires that any action,
likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9
of the ESA. Four federally-protected species are known from Wake County as of April 1, 1996
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). An endangered species is a species that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Alismodonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel)
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a distinguishable shell noted by two
lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half. The periostracum (outer shell) is olive
green to dark brown in color and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North Carolina are in portions of the
Neuse and Tar River systems. This mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial
pollutants and requires a stable silt free streambed with well oxygenated water to survive.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
NCDOT biologist Tim Savidge surveyed Terrible Creek at the project site for dwarf
wedge mussels on September 5, 1995 and found no specimens of this species. Further, the NC
Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats currently does not indicate
any populations of dwarf wedge mussel in the project vicinity. This project will not affect the
dwarf wedge mussel.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle)
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail. The
body plumage is dark brown to chocolate brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be identified
by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile), in the largest living
tree in an area, and having an open view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause
an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in
13
December or January. Fish are a major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots.
herons, and wounded ducks. Food may be either live or carrion.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Johnson's Pond, the only body of water in the project site, is not likely to support bald
eagle foraging because of its size. No bald eagles or their nests were observed during either site
visit. The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats does not
indicate any populations of bald eagles in the vicinity of the project. This project will not affect
the bald eagle.
borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker)
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker 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 red cockaded
woodpecker is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The red cockaded woodpecker has a large white
cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
Red cockaded woodpeckers use open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly
longleaf pine, for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine,
lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the
RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years old and are contiguous with pine
stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of this species is up to 200 hectares (500
acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are
infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 3.6-
30.3 meters (12.0-100.0 feet) above the ground and average 9.1-15.7 meters (30.0-50.0 feet)
high. Cavity trees can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree.
The red cockaded woodpecker lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The project vicinity is mainly composed of a bottomland hardwood forest. No mature
pine stands are present at or near the project site. Thus, suitable habitat for this species does not
exist. The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats does not
indicate any populations of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the project vicinity. Therefore, this
project will not affect the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac)
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of the leaves are
rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of Michaux's sumac are
greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on female plants, are
a red densely short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac is dependent on some
sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in association with
basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows only in open habitat
where it can get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete well with other species, such as
Japanese honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
14
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Very little habitat exists for this species at the project site. Most of the disturbed areas are
mowed on a regular basis. A plant by plant survey for $]y_? michauxii was conducted by walking
the disturbed habitats during the site visits and no specimens were found. The NC Natural
Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats does not indicate any populations
Michaux's sumac in the project vicinity. This project will not affect Michaux's sumac.
D. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
The project is located in Wake County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham nonattainment
area for ozone (03) as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as a "moderate" nonattainment area for 03.
and CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as
"maintenance" for 03 on June 17, 1994, and "maintenance" for CO on September 18, 1995.
Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to
the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any
transportation control measures for Wake County. The Capital Area 1995 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) has been determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The MPO
approval date for the TIP is August 9, 1995. The USDOT approval date of the TIP is November 1,
1995. The current conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rules found in
40 CFR Part 51. There have been no significant changes in the project design concept or scope, as
used in the conformity analysis.
The impact on air quality will be insignificant. This project is an air quality neutral project,
therefore a project level CO analysis is not required. If the project disposes of vegetation by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and the National
Environmental Policy Act. The project requires no additional reports.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will have no
substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction.
E. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and
important farmland soils. These soils are determined by the US Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
based on criteria such as potential crop yield and possible level of input of economic resources.
The SCS was consulted to determine whether the proposed realignment and replacement of
Bridge No. 299 will impact farmland soils. The SCS completed Form AD-1006, Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating, indicating approximately 0.50 acres of prime farmland soils would be
affected in the proposed realignment alternate [Alternate One]. The relative value of the farmland
to be converted by Alternate One was 13.4 on a scale of 100 points. The total farmland
conversion impact rating is 46.4 on a scale of 260. An impact rating of 160 or above would have
constituted the rejection of an alternate as a possible project location.
There is no active farmland in the project area, therefore the impact of the project to
prime farmland soils will not be mitigated.
15
IX. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the above discussion, NCDOT and FHWA conclude that the project will cause
no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the project may be processed as a Categorical
Exclusion.
WTG/
16
an
„°,
I'1' .17 .15 . hl L421
1
na$
Im / ,.
on .7, 1
m /
19
1
Lm 1421
1
laz Im L42L
lat AID
1471
m
7777
IOHNSONS
POND
01
a
.64 140,
.11
a
1493 AE7
9 ?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
WAKE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 299 ON SR 1404
OVER TERRIBLE CREEK
B - 3055
0 mile 1 FIG. 1

?
A:?! T yr? x C

V'
d Y
r'u'b` ,t ,` ;
,,? ??"'? ?" A !. ,r i . = ',? '•?,! z ,
I`

Pk 5 •r, ,

V

J ? t k ?}! fir,. F
YI I A? '
}y r
Match
1

i
't
O
.P
i
r I. ?*
}
ti.
4 ?
t
? tt
i
!Y ?1
1?y}f
rr114 !t°' `'!?
i to , IXAi? r.
•5 ?Yi Y cr ' t 1
1 I
i t ?i1 AFi7 '?1 Yi ly

'
jj 1 YM
??yj Y

f ,
I
v

Match Line
F
"BAs ' ,? r st'R 1 ? i ' ` (• el Y ^?`
y' p I ?,p .
! ,'\n\u?!?' „?1
rb 5 !1F l,S•..,; "j? _.
+Au
,p
1 Ix f c
IIAJ

+?.iy..Sr ?? i \w rr'i!',y
r 1
`? d
?"` d• N'
i L? 1
?
,
?
? .

. d
r
u
l??i z 7?
j
.y 'r, t
° '.6 • Rr
..kq „
!' ''ttS?H??? ? .,•ti??.l"?? S 1A 5 ?""?1 Y` M ;?'?' ' - f? 'hY?' f ?ti
1 `i
.
1
'
•
'
' •
-
?. (.M 1°'
,
4 .
X4.
'F` ? ' fk• S 9rv

', I ' "Irk, ? . " ' "C'' ? ? ?l ? ??`k?i ? ? • r
' ?
?
??
1 ?•?, ?
' ? s
i ?.1t
,q ', 1
. '
? 1 ?' ui ,.? ?'M'-?y,9?1j.1?
'
? f
1 1
'
5r `
{
L ? ,?
??LC .?
•
1
! J`'
/,
? ? 1
?
A
? f f
.
h ? ' et
p t
'
'P L , ?.( ,i? 1 11V4'?!• f' 1 '
\ ''iN 7+ 1 _
.
?r^ ,
+ y
.? f". ,?
?1,7
'"
''
'
'a'
'
' ' '
ri?
. ?
y
r" r
', ,rr,??•+.??,,,,,**,s"
t ` ,
i 4
?
.
l hiu FS r 7c k 1 2
0 ` 4, \o,t
,tt?. ? ; ,i
1
'Yr .
7

z

?
1 '? 1 5 I
5
1°' * > t-...
• ?t' ?
1 1 Ilpn '
'°.
Y
h .
d! w?
?` ,
. (.
?
PP

' J
r W.' .,
yt?
? t 1
? M I
f 7 L ? t Y'.
IIY gyp-k.1t`h '1, 1Mr Q ?s .
ny n+?t74 r{
Vl
b
? b I PP
,4 1 1? tt _
t .c 'rl . ?
Y y 1,
5esl.? e1, .o I:

n ?I
?
? s
?
r?' SQ 7 4,

4 yT 1, ?

t ? 1 I +¢•. i 'i ? Vi e
7t

ti r ? ar}?; ?•?

Y
! f ate
??
^a
' `t?'} ' ?? ;?", .! ' • ???r

7 {

'i

mom
?1

1
u
O
¦ p
cd
o
,r
F''
+ ? a i
' d
? ? b
n

'
I
v !d
q d
I
• r '
7r,
, h:? ? ett q bA ?Q
W ? V
q eq
a? In
q N '?

4
1
4
,
V O
. O 't¦

rv??4,?. I a
¦ 8

? op, q
n' Q

q
z
E
s y y pa
ed bA F

¦ ? H A is, A O
,{1
?Y• I~ V O I

. ts . oee gN?
1

, 1
,• ?? r f I
r u,
t
B ?
'':(. bl ei•?
ii j
LL?
L?
a.l
b
0
a
H
0
a
.C
ti
? ' 7Pliiv.+
?c?
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS WITH
HISTORIC SITES
TIP Project No.: B-3055
State Project No. 8,2404501
Federal-Aid Project No.: BRZ-1404(2)
DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Bridge No. 299 on SR 1404 over Terrible Creek in Wake
County. The historic resource involved in the project is the J. Beale Johnson
House, a National Register Listed house located just southeast of the
existing bridge.
M NO
1. Is the proposed project designed to improve the
operational characteristics, safety, and/or physical
condition of the existing highway facility on essentially X
the same alignment?
F-1 X
2. Is the project on new location ?
X F-1
3. Is the historic site adjacent to the existing highway?
4. Does the project require the removal or alteration a X
of historic buildings, structures, or objects?
5. Does the project disturb or remove archaeological
resources which are important to preserve in place X
rather than to recover for archaeological research?
6. a. Is the impact on the Section 4(f) site considered X
minor (i.e. no effect, no adverse effect) ?
b. If the project is determined to have "no adverse
effect" on the historic site, does the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation object to the determination N/A
of "no adverse effect"?
7. Has the SHPO agreed, in writing, with the assessment
X
of impacts and the proposed mitigation?
1-1 X
8. Does the project require the preparation of an EIS?
r ,
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not to be feasible and prudent:
YES NO
1. Do nothine
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
F-I X
(a) correct capacity deficiencies?
d
?
h
i
i
f F-I X
azar
s
st
ng sa
ety
or (b) correct ex
di
i
?
d X
con
ons
t
or (c) correct deteriorate
X
and (d) create a cost or impact of extraordinary measure ?
2. Improve the highway without using the adjacent
historic site.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes in standards,
use of retaining walls, etc., or traffic management
measures been evaluated? X
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse environmental impacts
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental, or
economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
or (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are of
extraordinary magnitude

yes
3. Build an improved facility on new location without X
usine the historic site.
(a) An alternate on new location would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve the
existing problems
or (ii) substantial social, environmental, or
economic impacts
or (iii a substantial increase in project cost
or engineering difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or difficulties of
truly unusual or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yea )`IQ
1. The project includes all possible planning to minimize X
harm necessary to preserve the historic integrity of the
site.
2. Measures to minimize harm have been agreed to, in X
accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, by the FHWA,
the SHPO, and as appropriate, the ACHP.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are described as follows:
No

The clearing and removal of trees within the boundary of the National Register
Listed property will be kept to the minimum necessary for project construction.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer x
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation N/A
c. Property owner N/A
d. Local/State/Federal Agencies x
e. US Coast Guard N/A
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project. There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic site.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and the measures to minimize
harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed with local and state agencies.
Approved:
10.2¢ • 9.S G???-? l/
Date Ast; Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch NCDOT
Date r- ADivisi Administrator, FHWA

Federal Aid T ??? 1404 L2 - TIP ? ?'3°S`' County
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSIIMNT OF EFFECTS
wxuz-
Brief Project Description
[wEr?A?E P .?CC.E ?o• 2°t°1 •N Stz 1404 ovER.. (ERR tgL.E ?-EEIL
On 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 and agreed
? there are no effiects on the National Resister-listed property within the project's
area of potential eject and listed on the reverse.
there are no efrects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the
project's area of potential erect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property-propercies and the effect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
there is an ei<ect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The properly/properties and effect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Signed:
r
Represe v , . ` OT, Historic Architectural Resources Section bat
FHtiV
r the Divisic(A Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Date
G
Representative, HPO D
tate Historic Preservation Officer /Dav
(over)

ederal Aid I • 144o¢ (2? . TTP 9
P!; '::,o S s
County
W At_E
oper-des within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
ational Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
. Et?LF?..?oNrJSoN No1A-15 E C t4 9- ) Dew-++??^ Will iVI94Nje. N, , e1AV'l(1NWte*1l1Xl uw?Ml?wswl- ? YvNNI?IZC. fi?t?tllN^

IatkuN tYtG pvDpl?jl,( ?1I? h?-• !?• ?J yJiry?iN {lei l.?n??l?(Ti ??rtNOCr..?n ?(? G »?y rev, .
'roperties within area of potential effiect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (QTR
,r DE) and describe effiect.
2eason(s) why effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCDOT FHNVA SHPO G

o
,w STATE
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 9, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological report for replacement of Bridge
No. 299 on SR 1404, Federal Aid Project BRZ-
1404(2); State Project 8.2404501, TIP B-3055,
Wake County, ER 95-8113, ER 96-8761
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
1 A ?qqb
p
& EiVVtA
Thank you for your letters of March 18, 1996, and April 11, 1996, and the
accompanying archaeological report and site form by John Mintz and Thomas
Beaman of the North Carolina Department of Transportation for the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, it is our opinion that the following property is eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places under Criterion D:
31WA1255**
The Johnson's Mill (Alford's Mill) Site (31 WA1255 * *) is eligible because it is a
good example of early twentieth century water powered technology in the North
Carolina Piedmont and has yielded important information about that technology.
The archaeological report is excellent. The research and recordation already
accomplished is comprehensive. The significant information concerning water
powered technology has been adequately retrieved so that the proposed bridge
replacement will have No Adverse Effect upon archaeological site 31 WA1255 * *.
Mr. Mintz and Mr. Beaman are to be commended for the quality of their report
which meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??
Nicholas L. Graf
May 9, 1996, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
L nce ely,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw /
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
J. Mintz
T. Beaman

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
.
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 17, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 299 on SR 1404 over Terrible
Creek, Wake County, B-3055, Federal Aid Project
BRZ-1404(2), State Project 8.2404501, ER 95-
8113
Dear Mr. Graf:
FEB 2 2 1995
lur DIVISION n .
H1GHWAN ;
Division
William S. rector
On February 7, 1995, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds
concerning the above project. We reported our available information on historic
architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial
photographs at the meeting and for our use afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, the J. Beale Johnson House, which is
listed in the National Register of Historic Places, is located within the project's area
of potential effect. The Atkinson-Whitted House and Tower, which is included on
the state study list, is located north of the project area on SR 1407. We
recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
The remains of a historic period mill site are located east of the existing bridge. If
this site will be affected by the proposed replacement, archaeological
investigations to record and evaluate the site are recommended prior to
construction activities.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
addressed our comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance With Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2507 Q3P
, 1
Nicholas L. Graf
February 17, 1995, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
GDavid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw/
cc: VH. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

-
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
DATE
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
C?lc. ?aM I7 1-i?1-. IM N
ROM: REP. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
CIL( CIAmbstO

NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? _ NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

e n• SUI[ u
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES 11. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL. HUNT II I
GoVIANOR 11.0. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 S11C It I, VARY
December 20, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Wake County, Bridge
No. 299, SR 1404 over Terrible Creek, B-3055
Attached for your review and comments are the Scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets 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 project. A Scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for February 7, 1995 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us
with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Bill Goodwin, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
WTG/pl r OR3 [U 3 ?-2-
,--I-
Irr S? z'? - ?{ 3
Attachment
X01 d ,?rl5on5 ??or G ?a ?3 t Sso
6r
iJ
BRIDGE; PROJI;C7' SLOP I NG SHEET
TIP PROJECT: _ B-3055 Df VISION: Fifth
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ- 1404-_(_2.)-----__-_-- C0IINT'Y : _Wake
STATE PROJECT: 8.2404501____ _ ROUTE: _SR 1404
PROJECT PURPOSE: Rep 1 ace_ Obso 1 e_t e_,B_r ie_____
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No. 299 on SR 1404 over Terrible Creek
in Wake CountY
PROJECT USGS QUAD SHEET(S): __Fuguay_--Vrir_i r?_a __-------___-
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .................................... $ 375,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COSTT .................................... $ 209000
PRIOR YEARS COST ......................................... $ -0-
TIP TOTAL COST ............................................ $ 395,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YI;S NO X.
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: O ( % )
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 1400 VIII); DESIGN YEAR VPD
TTST I % DT
EXISTING TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: _18 _foot pavement with minimal
grassed shoulder
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 39_3-_ Meters WIDTH 6.1 Meters
]29 Feet 20 Feet
COMMENTS:
PREPARED BY: Bi 1 1 Goodwin - DATE 12/20/94
???

"Vk

NORTH CAROLINA DEPAR,rmENT O
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND T NVIRONMENTAL
RRANCIT
WAKE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 299 ON SR 1404
OVER TERRIBLE CREEK
B - 3055
FIG. 1
I--- -.1
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP OAT[
3-8-G5
T
' REF. NO. OR ROOM, SLOG.
/1 ?j.??
_{/? , ` 1'-M F tb w
R RRF
NO. OR ROOM, SLOG.
q .
A
TllN
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ?SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ?INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
A
RECEIVED
- MAR 09W"
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
BRANCH
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 8, 1995 ,
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Bill Goodwin '13&
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 299 on
SR 1404 over Terrible Creek, Wake County, Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1404(2), State Project No. 8.2404501,
TIP No. B-3055
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on February 7, 1995.
The following persons were in attendance:
David Cox NC WRC
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Buddy Gregg Division Five
Don Sellers Right of Way
Sid Autry Location and Surveys
Ray Moore Structure Design
Ellis Powell Structure Design
Darin Wilder Program Development
Abdul Rahmani Hydraulics
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Derrick Lewis Traffic Eng. - Congestion Mgmt.
Charles Mullen Traffic Eng. - Traffic Control
Tony Houser Roadway Design
John Williams Planning and Environmental
Wayne Fedora Planning and Environmental
Bill Goodwin Planning and Environmental
The following is a summary of comments made at the scoping meeting and
through correspondence prior to the meeting.
This project will be designed in Metric units. Design speed and possible
design exceptions will vary considerably between alternates. Final decisions
will be reached prior to completion of the environmental document.
Utility conflicts will likely be low for this project, there are only a
few utilities in the project area. These utilities include telephone and
power distribution lines.

March 8, 1995
Page 2
Mr. Eric Galamb of DEM indicated, by telephone prior to the meeting,
-that Terrible Creek is classified as Class C water, while Johnsons Pond is
classified as Class B water. Mr. Galamb recommended the implementation of
standard erosion control measures.
Mr. David Cox of NC WRC indicated that Terrible Creek, which is a
tributary of Middle Creek, may contain one or more species of endangered
mussels. A complete biological investigation will have to be undertaken to
evaluate their presence. If endangered mussels are found, High Quality Water
sedimentation and erosion control measures may be required, as well as other
environmental commitments. Mr. Cox contacted me after the meeting to state
that Middle Creek is designated as a Critical Habitat Area for mussels
including several species with state or federal endangered species status.
Since Terrible Creek is a tributary of Middle Creek, any designations given
to Middle Creek apply to Terrible Creek. Coordination with NC WRC will be
required to minimize possible impacts to the waters of Middle Creek.
Ms. Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
indicated that there is a National Register Listed house located southeast of
Johnsons Pond, just east of SR 1404. This house, the J. Beale Johnson House,
is a 1900s era house. The National Register listing boundary does not extend
north to the existing bridge site. A second house, the Atkinson-Whitted
House, is on the state study list for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places. This house is located northwest of the existing bridge,
along SR 1407 near the intersection of SR 1404. No additional architectural
surveys will be required for this project.
Ms. Bevin contacted me after the meeting to indicate that the mill site,
located directly east of the existing bridge, will have to be surveyed by a
DOT archaeologist if the replacement project will affect the site.
Mr. Abdul Rahmani of the Hydraulics Unit recommended that the existing
bridge be replaced with a triple barrel 3.0 m by 2.4 m (10 ft. by 8 ft.)
reinforced concrete box culvert on new location, with the upstream end of the
culvert approximately 20 m - 30 m (70 ft. - 100 ft.) downstream of the
existing bridge and dam. This was recommended to prevent backwater caused by
the culvert from saturating the dam. The proposed roadway grade for this new
crossing would be slightly higher than the existing bridge.
Mr. Rahmani indicated that replacement of the bridge in the existing
location was not recommend because it would require extensive renovation or
possibly even reconstruction of the existing dam and spillway, which are in
poor condition.
Mr. Rahmani also indicated that an upstream replacement of the existing
bridge would require a structure up to-180 m (600 ft.) in length, depending
on the exact alignment. In order to reduce the structure length, large
amounts of fill would have to be placed in Johnsons Pond, which would require
excavation elsewhere in the pond to maintain the ponds storage capacity.
Additionally, the pond may have to be drained to accomplish these
modifications.
March 8, 1995
Page 3
The Division Engineers Office has recommended against road closure
during construction, due to the traffic volume and the proximity of the
elementary school located south of the project on SR 1404.
Four alternates will be evaluated for replacing bridge number 299 over
Terrible Creek. These alternates are:
Alternate One - relocate SR 1404 approximately 45 meters (150 feet)
downstream of the existing bridge and construct a culvert to cross
Terrible Creek. Close the existing bridge and remove it if.possible
without weakening or damaging the dam for Johnsons pond.
Alternate Two - construct a bridge over Johnsons Pond, upstream of the
existing bridge and relocate SR 1404 as necessary. Close the existing
bridge and remove it if possible without weakening or damaging the dam
for Johnsons pond.
Alternate Three - use local roads to detour traffic around existing
bridge site. Remove the existing bridge, and the dam if necessary, and
replace them in place.
Alternate Four - the no-build alternate - close the portion of SR 1404
near the bridge to traffic permanently. Close the existing bridge and
remove it if possible without weakening or damaging the dam for Johnsons
pond.
Construction cost estimates for all alternates will be provided to
concerned parties as soon as they are available.
At this time alternate one appears to be preferable due to the high
costs associated with alternates two and three; and the undesirable affect on
local traffic resulting from alternate four. A final recommended alternate
will be selected in the environmental document.
The current project schedule calls for right of way acquisition to begin
in July 1997 and construction to begin in July 1998.
WTG/plr
Attachment
cc/att: Scoping Meeting Participants
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
REVISED
3/8/95
TIP PROJECT: B-3055 DIVISION: FIFTH
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1404(2) COUNTY: WAKE
STATE PROJECT: 8.2404501 ROUTE: SR 1404
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bride No. 299 on SR 1404 over Terrible Creek in Wake Co.
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace Obsolete Bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): FugM Varina ,
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Local Route
CONSTRUCTION COST (IIQCLmm ENGINEERING AND coNmNGENCIES) ............................. $ ?00,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, umxr1Es, AND ACQUISITION) ................... $ ?00,000
TOTAL COST ................................................................................................................................ $ ?00,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ........................................................................................................ $ 375,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ........................................................................................................ $ 20,000
PRIOR YEARS COST .................................................................................................................... $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................................................ $ 395,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS,
OR OTHERS? YES OR ®(CIRCLE ONE)
IF YES, BY WHOM?
WHAT AMOUNT? $
OR %
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 1400 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 3'
TTST 1 % DUAL 2 %
VPD
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: 18 foot pavement with minimal grassed shoulders
PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: 7.2 m (24 ft.) pavement with 2.4 m (8 ft.) grassed
shoulders. 3.6 m (12 ft.) shoulders in areas with guardrail.
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR -------
3. RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE
4. OTHER
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 39.3 mETms WIDTH 6.1 Nffi- S
129 FEET 20 FEET

PROPOSED STRUCTURE: triple 3.0 m by 2.4 m (10 ft by 8 ft) RCBC
1'1`
.e ?
57 145! 1
,p 1141
.V IS = 1171
1451 1951 $ 3YQ2 ?b
345L
l
1450 77
I `?
3434 1
?L 1
29 Y9 1
1790 O 1?
ISyL 1340 1407
L4U
1195,
CIS
uji
275

POND
1104
'o
13
Al " 11Q._
1
t
,b
1100
59
oe
lJ
l55 »
JBB1

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF.
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
WAKE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 299 ON SR 1404
OVER TERRIBLE CREEK
B - 3055
• 0 mile 1 FIG. 1