Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19950988 Ver 1_Complete File_19950911 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT II I GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY September 8, 1995 RECEIVED SEP 1 1 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Regulatory Branch U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office P. 0. Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 ATTENTION: G. Wayne Wright Dear Sir: Subject: Brunswick County - Replacement of Bridge No. 27 on NC 904 over Scippio Swamp; State Project No. 8.1231101; T.I.P. No. B-2807 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 as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting 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 a CAMA Major Permit will be required from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management, for this project. NCDOT will apply directly to DCM for a CAMA Permit when final plans have been developed. By copy of the CAMA Permit application, a request for 401 Water Quality Certification by the Division of Environmental Management will be made. 01 0-1A {. September w3, .19%95 Page 2 If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Cyndi Bell at (919) 733-3141, Extension 306. Sincer ly, H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch HFV/tp Attachment cc: Michael Hosey, COE, Wilmington Field Office Eric Galamb, 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 D. J. Bowers, P. E., Division 3 Engineer Stacy Baldwin, Planning & Environmental .. . % NC 904 Bridge No. 27 Over Scippio Swamp Brunswick County Federal Aid Project BRSTP-904(2) State Project 8.1231101 T.I.P. No. B-2807 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS APPROVED: /nom DA,T9 7? Franklin Vick, PE, Manager Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT 8 Lo3h.5-- DXTE Fop, Nicholas L. Graf, PE Division Administrator, FHWA .•' . . t NC 904 Bridge No. 27 Over Scippio Swamp Brunswick County Federal Aid Project BRSTP-904(2) State Project 8.1231101 T.I.P. No. B-2807 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION July 1995 Documentation Prepared By: MA Engineering Consultants, Inc. 7-z?- 9S Shihchen (David) Fuh, Ph.D, PE Project Manager too,01i .•`?0" CARpZ''•. r?• ?rQOEESS/q..J y 9' ' SEAL ?s 19732 s s •o'yClNEEt • R, for North Carolina Department of Transportation J.A. Bissett, Jr., PE, Uni ead Consultant Engineering Unit %L&4 e Stacy Y. B d n Project Manager Consultant Engineering Unit NC 904 Bridge No. 27 Over Scippio Swamp Brunswick County Federal Aid Project BRSTP-904(2) State Project 8.1231101 T.I.P. No. B-2807 I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique environmental commitments are necessary. NC 904 Bridge No. 27 Over Scippio Swamp Brunswick County Federal Aid Project BRSTP-904(2) State Project 8.1231101 T.I.P. No. B-2807 Bridge No. 27 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion". I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS For the Summary of Environmental Commitments, see page i. II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Bridge No. 27 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The recommended replacement structure consists of a double 3.6-meter (12-foot) wide by 2.7-meter (9- foot) high reinforced concrete box culvert. This structure will be of sufficient length to provide two 3.6-meter (12-foot) travel lanes with 2.4 meter (8-foot) usable shoulders, 0.6 meters (2 feet) of which will be paved 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 0.6 meters (2 feet) will be paved, on each side throughout the project limits. Atemporary off-site. detour (see Figure 2A) will be used to maintain traffic during the construction period. Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $276,500. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program, is $305,000 ($280,000-construction; $25,000-right-of-way). III. EXISTTNG CONDITIONS The project is located in the southwestern portion of Brunswick County, approximately 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) north of Longwood, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The area is rural woodlands in nature. NC 904 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System and is a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated bicycle route. In the vicinity of the bridge, NC 904 has a 5.8 meter (19-foot) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6-foot shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is relatively flat through the project area. The existing bridge is located on a 4 degree curve which extends approximately 90 meters (300 feet) north and 430 meters (1400 feet) south from the structure. The roadway is situated approximately 5.5 meters (18 feet) above the creek bed. The current traffic volume of 2750 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 5700 VPD by the year 2018. The projected volume includes 4% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 6% dual- tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 70 kilometers per hour (45 miles per hour) in the project area. Bridge No. 27 is a three-span structure that consists of a reinforced concrete deck on steel I-beams. The substructure consists of reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1948. The overall length of the structure is 23.2 meters (76 feet). The clear roadway width is 7.2 meters (24.0 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 17 metric tons (19 tons) for single vehicles and 22 metric tons (24 tons) for TTST's. Bridge No. 27 has a sufficiency rating of 6.0, 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 power lines parallel the bridge on the downstream side of the roadway and overhead fiber optic cable lines and buried cable lines on the upstream side of the roadway throughout the project area. Utility impact is anticipated to be low. No accidents have been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 27 during the period from April 1991 to March 1994. Ten school buses cross the bridge daily. 2 IV. ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 15 were studied. Each alternative consists of a double 3.6- meter (12-foot) wide by 2.7-meter (9-foot) high reinforced concrete box culvert. Typical sections of the approach roadway is included as Figure 4. 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 with a double 3.6-meter (12-foot) wide by 2.7-meter (9-foot) high reinforced concrete box culvert. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 60 meters (200 feet) in each direction from the bridge. The proposed replacement structure will be of sufficient length to accommodate the roadway typical section. A temporary off-site detour will be provided during the construction period The off-site detour will be 6 kilometers (4 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 maintains the existing horizontal alignment, which is superior to the proposed alignment for Alternative 2. Additionally, a culvert will generally be constructed in less time than will a bridge, which reduces the exposure time of the traveling public to the construction work zone and temporary detour. Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the structure at a new location immediately west of the existing structure. Improvements to the alignment on the culvert approaches include approximately 210 meters (700 feet) to the south and 150 meters (500 feet) to the north. The design speed of this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour). The existing structure will serve as an on- site detour during the construction period. This alternative is not recommended because of the reverse horizontal curves that will be required to tie into the existing roadway at the northern end of the project. The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not acceptable due to the traffic service provided by NC 904. The North Carolina Department of Transportation Division 3 concurs that an off-site detour will be the best alternative during the construction of the new bridge. The Brunswick County School Superintendent indicates that maintenance of traffic off-site during the construction period is acceptable. "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: (Recommended) I Alternative 2 Structure $ 108,000 $ 108,000 Roadway Approaches 88,000 306,000 Detour Structure and Approaches 0 0 Structural Removal 14,000 14,000 Engineering and Contingencies 40,000 72,000 Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities 26,500 43,000 Total $ 276,500 $ 543,000 VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Bridge No. 27 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2, with a double 3.6-meter (12-foot) wide by 2.7-meter (9-foot) high reinforced concrete box culvert. 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) usable shoulders, of which 0.6 meters (2 feet) will be paved, on each side will be provided throughout the length of the project in accordance with the current North Carolina Department of Transportation Policy. (see Figure 4). NC 904 is classified as a rural major collector, therefore, criteria for a rural major collector was used for the bridge replacement. This will provide a 7.2-meter (24-foot) travelway with 2.4-meter (8-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 NC 904 and the short length of additional travel required along existing secondary roads. 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 be a double 3.6-meter (12-foot) wide by 2.7-meter (9-foot) high reinforced concrete box culvert. The elevation of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing structure. The final design of the culvert will be such that the backwater elevation will not encroach beyond the current 100-year floodplain limits. The dimensions 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 27, 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 Two 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. Bottomland Hardwood Forest: This community (Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods, blackwater subtype) is on level areas within Scippio Swamp. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) are the dominant canopy trees. Other canopy trees include loblolly pine (Pinuis taeda), water oak (Quercus nigra), black willow (Salix nigra), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). The sub- canopy is composed of the canopy species and red maple (Ater nibrum). The shrub/sapling layer is composed of sumac (Rhos spp.), bald cypress, wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and inkberry (Ilex glabra). Herbs include rush (Juncos spp.). Urban/Disturbed: This community classification includes disturbed bridge and roadside margins in the vicinity of the project. The shrub layer is composed of inkberry and wax myrtle. This area is characterized primarily by invasive vines, grasses and herbs including: poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), grape (Vitis spp.), aster (Aster spp.), grasses (Poaceae), and plantain (Plantago spp.). 5 Alk Wildlife (General) Terrestrial: The project area consists of a combination of forested and urban/disturbed areas. Clearing and conversion of tracts of land for urban/disturbed uses has eliminated some cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species nearby the project area. The remaining natural plant communities in the area, particularly the forest area adjacent to Scippio Swamp and associated ecotones, do serve as valuable habitat. The marsh bordering Scippio Swamp 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 mammals eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Mammals likely to inhabit the area include opossum (Dipdelphis virginiana) and grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). The observed bird species are typical of a rural setting where a patchwork of habitat types are available. Species encountered above and nearby Scippio Swamp include yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronala) and common grackle (Ouiscahis quiscula). Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), Carolina anole (Aeolis carolinensis), eastern box turtle (T errapene carolina), spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata) and Fowler's Toad (Br fo woodhousei). Aquatic: Scippio Swamp supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish. Game fish species present are redbreast sunfish (Lepomis aurilris), redfin pickerel (&ox americanus americanus), catfish (Ictahn•us spp. ), warmouth (Chaenobiyttus gulosus) and sucker (Moxostoma spp.). The swamp and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Nolophthahnus viridescens), southern dusky salamander (Desmogiralhus auriculalus), frogs (Rana spp.), black racer (Coluber constrictor), and corn snake (Elaphe guttata). Physical Resources Soil Brunswick County is located in the Lower Coastal Plain - Wicomico and Talbot System. The upland surfaces in the Lower Coastal Plain have low relief and broad gently undulating to nearly flat plains. Elevations in the immediate project area range from 10.7 meters (35 feet) along the swamp to 12.2 meters (40 feet) along the roadside. 6 The county is underlain primarily with sedimentary rock in Brunswick County. Local changes in subsurface geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a single rock type are rare. Soils in the project vicinity include Muckalee loam and Johns fine sandy loam. Muckalee loam is a poorly drained soil on low floodplains. Johns fine sandy loam is a somewhat poorly drained soil on stream terraces. Muckalee loam is classified as a hydric soil or has hydric soils as a major component. Johns fine sandy loam is classified as having map units -with inclusions of hydric soils or have wet spots. Water Bridge No. 27 crosses Scippio Swamp approximately 0.6 kilometers (1 miles) from its origin east of the bridge. Scippio Swamp is impounded upstream by Butter Pond across from the existing bridge and NC 904. Scippio Swamp flows to the west into the Waccamaw River which is part of the Lumber 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). Scippio Swamp is class C Sw, indicating waters which are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture and a supplemental classification for swamp waters; waters which have low velocities and other natural characteristics which are different from adjacent streams. The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) reports no dischargers within 6.4 kilometers (4 miles) upstream of the proposed crossing. No Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas, Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters occur within 175.3 meters (575 feet) of the project site. Mr. Keith Ashley (N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission) indicated that anadromous river herring would be in the Waccamaw River, but not in the project area. The dam immediately upstream of the bridge prevents anadromous species passage. 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. There are no BMAN sampling stations on streams in the immediate vicinity of the project. Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of Scippio Swamp observed in the vicinity of the proposed bridge replacement project. 7 TABLE 1 Stream Characteristics and Ecological Classifications Characteristic Description Substrate Mud Current Flow Slow Channel Width 11 meters (36 feet) Water Depth 0.6 meters (2 feet) to 1.2 meters (4 feet) Water Color Black Water Odor None Aquatic Vegetation None Adjacent Vegetation Sweetgum, yellow-poplar, loblolly pine, water oak 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 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters and wetlands will be impacted by project construction. Approximately 0.28 hectares (0.69 acres) of Palustrine forested deciduous wetlands, (see Cowardin et al. 1979) will be impacted (filled) by the construction of the recommended alternative. This wetland is associated with the low-lying areas adjacent to the creek and along the bridge. 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). Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned due to potential vulnerability. Table 2 lists the federally protected species for Brunswick County as of March 28, 1995. TABLE 2 Federallv Protected Species for Brunswick Count Common Name Scientific Name Status Eastern cougar Felis concolor cougar E West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus E Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E Bald Eagle Haliaeelus leucocephalus E Piping plover Charadrius melodus T Wood stork Mycleria americans E Kemp's ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempi E Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E Loggerhead turtle Carelta carelta T Green sea turtle Chelaua mydas T Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysinrachia asperulaefolia E Cooley's meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi E Seabeach amaranth Amaranlhus pumilus T Brief descriptions of each species' characteristics, habitat requirements, and relationship to the proposed project are discussed below. Eastern cougar (Felis concolor cougar) Status: E Family: Felidae Listed:• 6/4/75 The cougar is a large, unspotted cat with a small, rounded head, and long tall. Color varies from deep gray or reddish brown to pale buff. The belly, lower cheeks, chin, lips, and inner ear are reddish brown to pale buff. The base of the whiskers, back of the ears, and tip of the tail are black. The cougar is an extremely shy animal, and little is known of its habits in the Southeast. It is a nocturnal mammal, leaving its secluded hiding place at dusk in search of prey. Prey includes deer, wild pigs, rabbits, and occasionally domestic stock. The cougar often ranges 20 to 30 miles in a single night. This fact helps to explain its seemingly transient nature in portions of its range. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT While it is possible that the cougar could be a transient visitor within the project vicinity, the proposed project will not impact the species. 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 cougar. 9 West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) Status: E Family: Trichechidae Listed: 6/2/70 The West Indian manatee is a large gray or brown aquatic mammal. Adults average about 10 feet long and weigh 1,000 pounds. They have no hind limbs, and their forelimbs are modified as flippers. Manatee tails are flattened horizontally and rounded. Manatees inhabit both salt and fresh water of sufficient depth (5 to 20 feet) throughout their range. When water temperatures drop below 21 degrees Centigrade, they migrate to south Florida. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT A review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area. An incidental passage of the West Indian manatee through the study area is unlikely. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the West Indian manatee. Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Status: E Family: Falconidae Listed: 6/2/70 The Peregrine Falcon is a medium sized hawk, slightly larger than a crow. Males average 40.6 centimeters (16 inches) in length while females average 48.3 centimeters (19 inches) in length. Adult plumage varies between light and dark phrases in this species. Typically, individuals are a solid slate- grey above and off-white to bully-orange below, with fine to heavy horizontal barring of dark brown except on the throat, which is usually unmarked. The top of the head is marked with a dark helmet- like cap which extends down the face. Two key habitat requirements of the Peregrine Falcon are cliffs for nesting and open country for hunting; given these conditions they range from coastal regions to mountains, and from plains and tundra to forested areas. Nests are typically located on high ledges with a good view of the surrounding terrain. Although Peregrines do not build a nest as such, laying their eggs on the bare substrate, they are usually quite faithful to a given site. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT While it is possible that peregrines could forage in the project vicinity, the proposed project will not impact nesting sites for this species, nor will it impact this bird's forage resources. 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 Peregrine Falcon. 10 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 pine/hardwood stands, (50 percent or more pine). Longleaf pine (Pinus pakistris) is most commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT A review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed one record (July 1989) of this species within one-mile of the subject project study area. The habitat at that site is longleaf pine savanna/ flatwoods. Land-use between the longleaf pine savanna/ flatwoods community and the subject project study area are discontinuous and separated from the nesting habitat by greater than 330 feet on all sides. Neither longleaf pine savanna/ flatwoods habitat, nor other suitable habitat, exists along the bridge replacement alternative. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Red-cockaded woodpecker. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephahis) Status: E Family: Accipitridae Listed: 2/14/78 The bald eagle is primarily associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually nesting near bodies of water where it feeds. Nests are usually constructed in living trees, but bald eagles will occasionally use a dead tree. The proximity of good perching trees may also be a factor in site selection. An otherwise suitable site may not be used if there is excessive human activity in the area. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT No nesting sites were observed within the subject project study area. While it is possible that bald eagles could forage in the project vicinity, the proposed project will not impact nesting sites for this species, nor will it impact this bird's forage resources. 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 Bald Eagle. 11 Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) Status: T Family: Charadriidae Listed: 12/11/85 The Piping plover is a small, stocky shorebird resembling a sandpiper. The adults are 18 centimeters (7 inches) long, and have a wingspan of 38 centimeters (15 inches). Both sexes are similar in size and color, upper parts are pale brownish, underparts are white. Nesting occurs on beaches close to dunes or in other shoreline habitats. Breeding birds on the North Carolina coast are mostly found from the vicinity of Cape Lookout northward. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT No suitable breeding 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 Piping plover. Wood stork (Mycleria americana) Status: E Family: Ciconiidae Listed: 2/28/84 The Wood stork is a large, long-legged wading birds, about 50 inches tall, with a wingspan of 60 to 65 inches. The plumage is white except for black primaries and secondaries and a short black tail. Storks are birds of freshwater and brackish wetlands, primarily nesting in cypress or mangrove swamps, and feeding in freshwater marshes. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT No suitable breeding 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 Wood stork. Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi) Status: E Family: Cheloniidae Listed: 12/2/70 The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is a small turtle with a heart-shaped body, usually broad, keeled carapace which is serrated behind the bridge. Adults approach 56 centimeters (22 inches) in carapace length and average about 36 kilograms (80 pounds). The Kemp's ridley sea turtle inhabits shallow coastal and estuarine waters often associated with red mangrove. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT 12 No suitable breeding habitat exists for this species 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 Kemp's ridley sea turtle. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) Status: T Family: Cheloniidae Listed: 7/28/78 The Loggerhead turtle is a large turtle with a large head with blunt jaws. Adults average about 91 kilograms (200 pounds). The Loggerhead turtle inhabits a large range of marine, salt marshes, and inshore areas. The loggerhead nests on beaches from North Carolina through Florida. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT No suitable breeding habitat exists for this species along the bridge replacement alternative. Also, 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 Loggerhead turtle. Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) Status: T Family: Cheloniidae Listed: 7/28/78 The Green sea turtle is a large turtle which approaches 122 centimeters (4 feet) in length and average about 200 kilograms (440 pounds). The Green sea turtle inhabits shallow waters (except when migrating) inside reefs, bays and inlets. The Green sea turtle nests on open beaches with a sloping platform which have minimal disturbance. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT No suitable breeding habitat exists for this species 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 Green sea turtle. 13 Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Status: E Family: Dermochelidae Listed: 6/2/70 The leatherback sea turtle is a large turtle with a barrel-shaped body, with leathery skin and paddlelike, clawless appendages. The leatherback sea turtle lacks a hard shell and has five to seven longitudinal ridges (keels) running the length of its back. Adults approach 2 meters (6 feet) in carapace length and average about 360 kilograms (800 pounds). Leatherbacks nest on sandy, ocean- facing beaches, usually with few rocks or coral and relatively deep near-shore approaches. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT No suitable habitat exists for this species 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 Leatherback sea turtle. Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) Status: E Family: Acipenseridae Listed: 3/11/67 The shortnose sturgeon is a small species of sturgeon (seldom exceeding I meters (3 feet) in length) with a wide mouth and a short snout. The shortnose sturgeon occurs in the lower section of larger rivers and in coastal marine habitats. In North Carolina, this species has only been reported from Brunswick-New Hanover (Cape Fear Basin) and Anson (Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin) Counties. The shortnose sturgeon occurs in the lower section of larger rivers and in coastal marine habitats. At spawning time the shortnose sturgeon can move considerable distance upstream if unimpeded by dams. The species' general pattern of seasonal movement appears to involve using an upstream spawning area in late winter to spring, spending summer and fall in the lower river near the mouth. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT A review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area. No suitable spawning habitat exists along the proposed project alternative. It can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this species. 14 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 The disturbed areas along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant by plant surveys along the disturbed areas were conducted on October 27, 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. Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) Status: E Family: Ranunculaceae Listed: 2/7/89 Cooley's meadowrue is a perennial herb that grows from an underground rhizome. Its stems are usually I meter in height, but sometimes grow as high as 2 meters on recently burned sites. Under ideal conditions, in full sun, these stems are erect; in shade they are lax and may trail along the ground or lean on other plants. Leaflets are lance-shaped and less than 2 centimeters long. Both basal and stem leaves are present on the plant and the leaves are usually in groups of three. The flowers have no pedals. The sepals are pale yellow (male plants) or green (female plants). Flowering occurs in June and fruits mature in August and persist into October. Cooley's meadowrue occurs in moist to wet bogs and savannahs. It grows along fireplow lines, roadside ditches, woodland clearings, and powerline right-of-way, and needs some type. of disturbance to maintain its open habitat. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT The disturbed areas along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant by plant surveys along the disturbed areas were conducted on October 27, 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. 15 Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus puniihis) Status: T Family: Amaranthaceae Listed: 4/7/93 Seabeach amaranth is an annual plant found on Atlantic ocean beaches. The stems are fleshy and pink-red or reddish, with small rounded leaves that are 1.3 to 2.5 centimeters in diameter. The leaves are clustered towards the tip of the stem, are normally a spinach-green color, and have a small notch at the rounded tip. Flowers and fruits are relatively inconspicuous, borne in clusters along the stem. Flowering can be from June until autumn. Seabeach amaranth occurs on barrier island beaches, where its primary habitat consists of overwash flats at accreting ends of islands and lower foredunes and upper strands of non-eroding beaches. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. 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 Seabeach amaranth. Federal Candidate Species: There are 32 C2 federal candidate species listed for Brunswick County. The North Carolina status of these species is listed in Table 3. 16 TABLE 3 Federal Candidate Soccies for Brunswick Coun Common Name Scientific Name Suitable NC Habitat Status Bachman's sparrow Ahnophila aestivalis No Sc Henslow's sparrow Anintodrantus henslowii Yes SR Carolina crawfish frog Rana areolata capito Yes SC Carolina pygmy sunfish Elassoma boehlkei Yes T Magnificent rams-horn snail Pleviorbella wagnificunt No E Cape Fear three tooth Triodopsis soelneri Yes E Waccamaw spike Elliptio waccantmsensis Yes T Pyxie moth Agrotis buchholzi Yes SR Rare skipper Problema bulenta Yes SR Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus ntimicus Yes SC Savanna lcadplant Amorpha georgiana confusa Yes T Savanna campylopus Campylopus carolinae Yes C Chapman's sedge Carex chapntrntii Yes C Vcnus flytrap Dionaea muscipula No C-SC Harper's fringe rush Fintbistylis perpusilla Yes T Pondspice Litsea aestivalis No C Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana Yes C Loose watcrmilfoil Myriophyllmn larmn No T Savanna cowbane Ozvpolis tentata Yes W1 Carolina grass-of-pamassus Pantassia caroliniana Yes E Pincland plantain Planlago sparsifora Yes E Awned meadowbeauty Rltexia aristosa No T Sun-facing coneflower Rudbeckia heliopsidis Yes E Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna Yes E Carolina goldenrod Solidago pulchra Yes E Wircleaf dropsccd Sporobolus teretifolius Yes T Carolina asphodel Tofieldiaglabra Yes C Dune blue curls Trichoslema sp. Yes C Honeycomb head Balduina alropurpurea Yes C Dwarfl burhead Echinodorus parvulus Yes C Thomc's beaked-rush Rylmchospora lhomei Yes C A beaksedee Rhvnchosnora clecurrens Yes C NC Status: SC, E, T, SR, W1, and C denote Special Concern, Endangered, Threatened, Significantly Rare, Watch List, and 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. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has a record (July 1989) for Bachman's sparrow within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project site. 17 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 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has a record for Bachman's sparrow, a North Carolina State SC species, and the red-cockaded woodpecker, a North Carolina State Endangered species, 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 replacements. TABLE 4 Impacts to Plant Communities for Alternative 1 in Hectares (Acres Plant Communities Permanent Impact Urban/Disturbed 0.11 (0.28) Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.11 0.28) 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. Bridges and approach improvements occur primarily within disturbed right-of-way limits and 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. Habitat affected by the proposed action include Urban/Disturbed and forest areas. Forest habitat provides cover for a diversity of plants and animals. The Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by opportunistic plant species and mobile species such as rodents, lizards and snakes that can recover quickly from construction impacts. 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 terns impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities, which may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts will be minimized by the use of best management 18 practices, including implementation of 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. Permit Coordination CAMA directs the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to identify and designate Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) in which uncontrolled development might cause irreversible damage to property, public health and the natural environment. CAMA necessitates a permit if the project meets all of the following conditions: 1) it is located in one of the 20 counties covered by CAMA; 2) it is in or affects an AEC designated by CRC; 3) it is considered "development" under the terms of the Act; and 4) it does not qualify for an exemption identified by the Act or by CRC. This project is likely to affect the following AEC: Public Trust. A Public Trust AEC includes all waters and submerged lands in the coastal region where the public has rights of use/or ownership, including rights of navigation and recreation. This AEC covers all lands underneath these waterways and the mineral and biological resources that these submerged lands contain. This project will require a CAMA major development permit because impacts to AEC's are likely. The CAMA major development application form serves as an application for three other state permits and for permits from the Corps of Engineers (COE) required by Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The state permits include: 1) permit to excavate and/or fill; 2) easement in lands covered by water; and 3) 402 Water Quality Certification. 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. 19 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. The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easements from any land protected under Section 4(0 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. 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 (APE), depicted in Figure 2. 20 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), 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. All work will be done within the existing right-of-way. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of prime, unique, or important farmland acreage. This project is located in Brunswick County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse 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 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. Brunswick County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 5. 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. 21 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. 22 0 to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q ,ow v u h 1324 1.0 l.s 132 1322 accam_aw 13 N n •' `'sue NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL `BRANCH Brunswick County NC-904 over Scippio Swamp Bridge #27 B-2807 FIGURE 1 -5 1359 Y.',r,? xqs ` Brunswick County NC-904 over Scippio Swamp 1325 Ash Bridge B-2807 7 1300 10 (r t \ ^ Waccamaw 1333 e 1324 1.0 N f N h 1,S 13211 S? 1331 1322 -Foe. ? +•S -.1\j "CP r .6 N d 1355 1323 9 h? Regan 1.4 •+ 135 3.3 ? 11 F FAS 0. ? 1 _1 1321 h? D 1300 Sw4 S 111 1309 cp i 8 1308;1: 8 z? 1354 b W 3 Qs ¦OO Longwood 13 / Friendship Ch. ;o 1.1 1350 1.0 1306 L, 1306 2 - 9 1305 1300 ?Jc G4 1304 a '-' •t1 1.6 7 1.0 Iredell FAS C C b Q S -, 9lPf?? v 1302 1165 a S 1356 4, •O R ,a 3.1 17 1 315 BRIDGE NO. 27 L?1313 .8 ? N 1315 i i 'u 1316 1.0 Y? 9 1`/1317 Shallotte ` a Ch. 3 1.6 P Grissettown \ ..rrn 1.1.0: FIGURE 2A v NORTH APPROACH LOOKING SOUTH SOUTH APPROACH LOOKING NORTH i' i FIGURE 3 i ? I U. O z w LL) Nzz CL a O 5 m iPy0 YG OF w ? o.ar- aOV U a o V) (n O z z -,- ac 00 a. a. 0 C14 AL AL p z a cl w O .. ?«,. z J z z O p U U w r,u N N _ U C7 Z ? Z U W L4J 0 a: Cl) C? Oda o vNCvo ? OG ` oo Q w CL c ? M a_ om J •y Q J U Q co U CL a 7 0 J =1 c J C V1 i-• >L N W O\ O 00 N fl Q • CL N CL L O '0 .. O 5 = O ? L c ?oCf) CL I- n u u Y _r LL F- C7 w U W Z O N o U o V C] 0 N op / O U z n N O z w U W ? O N 1 i O O II w U w I j I ? j i i i i i FEAR APPENDIX 333 1 wr, r C `? STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION fM1E5 B. HUNT. fR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I11 GOVfRNOR 124 Division Drive SFCRf7'ARY Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 910/251-5724 March 24, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. H. F. Vick, P.E. Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch FROM: J. E. Blair, P.E. Division Construction Engineer SUBJECT: Projects B-2595 and B-2807 MA Engineering has requested our comments on the subject bridge replacements. B-2595 - New Hanover County Recommend the bridge be replaced on its existing alignment and the road closed during construction - no on-site detour required. Local roads will be used to detour traf iic. B-2807 - Brunswick County Recommend the bridge be replaced on its existing alignment and the road closed during construction - no on-site detour required. Local roads will be used to aetouaf iic.- Both projects should be let so as to cause least impact to school traffic. JEB:fs O (32 0 .,. T' DEC 2 2 1994 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Betty Ray McCain, Secretary December 19, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch Division of Highways Department of Transportation FROM: David Brook Deputy State Histohc'Preservation Officer wVt,, Division of Arc ?? Histo h? William S. Price, ? = 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, NIA 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 QO H. F. Vick December 19, 1994, Page 2 Bridge 109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek, B-2852, Orange County Archaeological site 31 OR438 * * 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 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-Earley Environmental Revie Coordinator 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-1529(2), Replace Bridge No. 2 on SR 1529 over Prong of Haw River Alamance County, B-2802, Federal Aid BRSTP-1 530(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 1 100 over Barnards Creek 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2507- 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 1 152 over Swift Creek ' Please distribute to the appropriate engineer and to Federal Highway Administration. We have kept copies for our files. RGE:slw Attachments 1 .f . .. TIP 6 'LSo-7 Federal Aid 13?c rF - c104 (Z County ?1 CONCURRENCE FORIM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Brief Project Description pMtf-E 53400 Oo. 2-1 .?.1 t?o°lA4 ovCfZ SatPPto ?3we.wtP On JAIJIA&F•Y Q( O, 10*1 , 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 scoping meeting Historic architectural resources photograph review sessionkonsultation 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 Pre u A4 . are considered not eii,ibl for the National Register and no further evaluation or them-is necessary. ? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect. Signed Representative, NCDOT Date Z FHw , f. e Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Representative, SHPO Dace If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.