19950248 Ver 1_Complete File_19950308

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 13, 1995
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
q n-,z 0 ?
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
RECEIVED
MAR 0 8A995
ENVIRONWENTAL SCIENCES
SUBJECT: Wake County, TIP No. B-2174, State Project No. 8.2403501, Federal
Aid No. BRZ-1301(1).
Dear Sir:
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 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one
copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their
review.
HFV/gec
Attachments
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, PE, Division 5 Engineer
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Philip Edwards, Project Planning Engineer
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone].
XankSinerlin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
.r^ , e.
Wake County
SR 1301
Bridge No. 315
Over Middle Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1301(1)
State Project No. 8.2403501
T.I.P. No. B-2174
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
• Mfr
AT H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
F' Z
AT Nicho L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
• /
Wake County
SR 1301
Bridge No. 315
Over Middle Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1301(1)
State Project No. 8.2403501
T.I.P. No. B-2174
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August 1994
Documentation Prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates
,?;3.ntritr?t?
r CA Ro?
?.
' S EAL t
x
chael E. Krannitz, .E. L I0926 :
VAS
Project Manager,, a
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. G rimes, E., Unit Head
Consul tant Engineering Unit
Philip 'D. Edwards
Project Planning Engineer
Wake County
SR 1301
Bridge No. 315
Over Middle Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1301(1)
State Project No. 8.2403501
T.I.P. No. B-2174
Bridge No. 315 is located on SR 1301 over Middle Creek and is scheduled for
replacement in the NCDOT 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated
as a result of this action. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures including NCDOT's "Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters" will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impact. Basic sedimentation and erosion control measures
in accordance with the NCDOT "Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures"
will be utilized throughout construction. No special or unique environmental
commitments are necessary.
The DSHPO requested additional consultation only in the case of new location
selected as the preferred alternative. B-2174 will be replaced on new location with
the existing bridge serving as the construction detour. At this time, no plans are
available for the project as currently proposed. When plans are prepared they will
be forwarded to the SHPO for review and additional consultation.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 315 will be replaced on new alignment as shown in Figure 2. Traffic
will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. Following completion
of the new structure the existing bridge and approaches will be removed.
The horizontal and vertical alignment will be improved to satisfy minimum design
speed criteria. The subdivision entrance on the west approach will be extended to
tie into the new alignment.
1
The replacement structure will have a length of 51.8 meters (170 feet) and provide
a deck with a 9.2 meters (30.17 feet) clear roadway width. The travelway is 7.2
meters (23.6 feet) with a 1.0 meter (3.28 feet) shoulder on each side.
The design speed is 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour).
The estimated cost based on current prices is $825,000. The estimated total cost of
the project as shown in the 1995-2001 TIP is $225,000.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1301 is classified as a collector in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. The roadway crosses Middle Creek connecting NC 55 and US 401. A
dam for the Sunset Lake recreational reservoir is located immediately upstream of
the existing bridge. See Figure 1. The land use in the vicinity consists of
residential development and woodlands. SR 1301 is a two lane facility providing a
total pavement width of 4.9 meters (16 feet) with 1.2 meters (4 feet) unpaved
shoulders. The existing structure has an overall length of 20.6 meters (67 feet - 7
inches) and provides a clear roadway width and a total bridge width of 5.8 meters
(19 feet - 2 inches) face-of-rail to face-of-rail. The existing right-of-way along SR
1301 is estimated to be from back of ditch to back of ditch, approximately 18.3
meters (60 feet).
The alignment is tangent across the existing' bridge. The east roadway approach
has a 295 meters radius (6°) curve compounding with a 145 meters radius (12°)
curve immediately adjacent to the bridge. The west roadway approach turns to the
right on a 75 meters radius (23°) curve. The grade across the bridge is level then
progresses with 9 percent and 5 percent upgrades on the west and east
approaches, respectively. See Figures 3 and 3A.
The existing (1993) traffic volume is 3,200 Vehicles Per Day (VPD). The traffic
volume is projected to increase to 3,500 VPD for 1995 and 7,600 VPD for the
design year 2015. The volumes include one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer
(TT/ST) and three percent dual tired (DT) with a 60 percent directional split. The
posted speed limit is 72.5 kilometers per hour (45 miles per hour) and the posted
load limit is 16,350 kilograms (18 tons) for single vehicles and 19,950 kilograms
(22 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 315 was rehabilitated in 1986. It has three spans with the
superstructure consisting of a timber deck on steel I-beams with an asphalt
wearing surface. The substructure consists of timber posts on concrete footings
supporting timber caps. Generally, all substructure units have experienced repairs.
2
The sufficiency rating for Bridge No. 315 is 47.1 out of a possible 100 for a new
bridge. This rating is below the minimum criteria level of 50 established by the Federal
Aid Bridge Replacement Program for structure replacement. The bridge has an
estimated remaining life of 28 years.
No utilities are attached to the existing structure. Overhead electrical lines cross
diagonally over the bridge.
Six traffic accidents were reported between May 1990 and April 1993 near the bridge.
All involved vehicles running off the road on the approach roadway curves. No
fatalities were reported.
The Wake County School System reports that ten bus trips occur daily across the
bridge.
ALTERNATIVES
The SR 1301 crossing of Middle Creek connects NC 55 with US 401. The
minimum off-site detour length would be 13 kilometers (8 miles). Alternatives
focussed on improving the level of service, maintaining traffic, satisfying design
speed criteria, and minimizing environmental impacts.
A relocation alternative (Recommended) proposes placing the replacement structure
downstream of the existing bridge. The new location will provide an alignment
which satisfies minimum criteria for a design speed of 80 kilometers per hour (49.6
miles per hours). A 295 meters radius (6°) curve and a 235 meters radius (7°-30')
curve are provided on the east and west roadway approaches, respectively. See
Figure 2. The vertical alignment will require raising the bridge approximately three
meters (10 feet). Approximately 122 meters (400 feet) and 198 meters (650 feet)
of roadway work will be required on the east and west approaches, respectively, to
accommodate the alignment changes. Traffic will be maintained on the existing
bridge during construction.
An upstream alignment was not considered for the relocation alternative so that
impacts to the dam of the Sunset Lake reservoir would be avoided.
An alternative with a replacement structure on existing location is not considered
reasonable or feasible due to the poor existing alignment and sight distances.
Minimum design criteria would not be satisfied.
The "do-nothing" alternative will leave a bridge with weight restrictions and
substandard clearances. This is not a desirable alternative due to the need to
provide an improved level of traffic service on SR 1301.
3
Investigations by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicate that rehabilitation to remove
weight restrictions and satisfy minimum design speed criteria is not feasible.
The design criteria for this bridge site is as follows: See Figure 4.
The approach roadway width is a 7.2 meters (23.6 feet) travelway with
2.4 meters (8.0 feet) shoulders of which 0.6 meters (1.96 feet) is paved.
The clear roadway width across the bridge is 9.2 meters (30.17 feet).
The bridge width accommodates a 7.2 meters (23.6 feet) travelway with
1.0 meters (3.28 feet) shoulders.
The design speed is 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour) with a
posted speed limit of 73 kilometers per hour (45 miles per hour).
ESTIMATED COST
The estimated cost of the alternative studied, based on current prices, is as
follows:
Structure Removal
Pavement Removal
New Structures
Construct/Remove Detour Structures
Roadway Approaches
Traffic Control
Miscellaneous and Mobilization
Engineering and Contingencies
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements
$ 6,500
4,400
285,700
0
231,200
10,000
108,200
104,000
75,000
TOTAL
$ 825,000
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 315 over Middle Creek will be replaced on new alignment as shown in
Figure 2. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge. The horizontal
alignment will be improved by providing 295 meters radius (6°) and 235 meters
radius (7°-30') curves on the east and west roadway approaches, respectively.
The vertical alignment on the bridge and roadway will be raised approximately
three meters (10 feet) above the existing bridge elevation. Approximately 122
4
meters (400 feet) and 198 meters (650 feet) of roadway work will be required on the
east and west approaches, respectively, to accommodate the alignment changes.
Right-of-way acquisition and temporary construction easements will be required. The
NCDOT Division Engineer concurs with this recommendation.
A 7.2 meters (23.6 feet) wide pavement with 2.4 meters (8 feet) shoulders of which
0.6 meters (1.96 feet) is paved will be provided on the approach improvements to
each bridge. In accordance with current NCDOT Bridge Policy, the replacement
structure will provide a clear width of 9.2 meters (30.17 feet). This will allow for a
7.2 meters (23.6 feet) travelway and 1.0 meters (3.28 feet) shoulders across the
structure.
Based on the field reconnaissance of the site and preliminary hydraulic analysis, an
estimated replacement structure with a length of 51.8 meters 0 70 feet) is proposed.
The proposed bridge opening is based on the historic performance of the existing
structure and on field observations. The proposed bridge opening may be adjusted
during final hydraulic design as determined appropriate to accommodate design flows.
The replacement structure will improve flow characteristics at the site and will not
impact adjacent properties by altering the existing floodway from roadway
encroachment.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project replaces Bridge No. 315 on SR 1301 over Middle Creek in
Wake County. The preferred alternative at this location is to replace the existing
structure with a new bridge to the downstream side. Traffic will be maintained on
the existing alignment during construction.
The project area is in the Piedmont Physiographic Province and lies southeast of
the town of Holly Springs and northeast of the town of Fuquay Varina. The bridge
is adjacent to the dam for Sunset Lake. The topography is composed of rolling
hills. The land within the project area has been altered by development, logging,
road construction, damming of the lake, and other activities.
METHODOLOGY
A natural resources investigation was undertaken to search for ovidence of
protected plants and animals and unique or high quality natural communities, to
describe current vegetation and habitats, identify wetlands, and provide information
to avoid or minimize the adverse environmental effects of the proposed bridge
replacement project.
5
During the period of December, 1993 through March, 1994 correspondence relative
to the project was initiated with the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, the
North Carolina Wildlife Commission, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the county Soil Conservation Service
office. Data on protected species, soil types, and stream characteristics were
gathered.
Biologists visited the site on 8 February and 20 March, 1994 to gather data and
verify documented information to complete an assessment of potential impacts
incurred by the bridge replacement proposal.
The area was divided into four quadrants, with the road dividing the north-south
parameters and the water channel dividing the east-west parameters. Information on
tree ages was gained using a 5.15 millimeter increment borer. Basal Area data was
gained using a ten factor prism. No canopy cover estimations were made since the
work was accomplished before the leaves were fully open. Wetland determinations
were made using the 1987 Corps Of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and
Munsell color charts. Precise delineations were not performed, but area estimates and
descriptions of wetlands are included.
Forest community types follow Schafale and Weakley (1990). Plant nomenclature
follows Radford (1981). Status of listed animals follows LeGrand ( 1993) and,the
1993 US Fish and Wildlife Service "Listed and Candidate Species of North Carolina,
by County" publication. Status of listed plant species follows Weakley (1993) and the
US Fish and Wildlife Service list.
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Plant Communities
The site is basically composed of two community types. A Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest (Piedmont Subtype) occurs on the north side of the road and on both sides
of the creek. A disturbance community is present along the road edge and in the
portions of land south of the road. Unlike the hardwood forest, the disturbance
community is not recognized as a natural community type by the NC Natural
Heritage Program. Much of the southeast quadrant consists of mature pines,
mowed lawn and flower beds.
6
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
This community type occurs on the northwest and northeast quadrants of the project
area. Portions on the slope close to the creek contain more species associated with
mesic conditions, while drier upland areas may be dominated by different species.
The canopy trees include beech (Fagus arandifolia), black oak Quercus velutina),
black cherry (Prunus serotina), scarlet oak (4uercus coccinea), sweet gum
(LLi uidambar styraciflua), occasional pines, and red maple (Acer rubrum). Understory
trees include dogwood (Corpus florida), sweet gum, red maple, and holly (Ilex opaca).
Shrubs and vines included grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), blueberry (Vaccinium se), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus ouinauefolia), cane (Arundinaria giaantea),
hearts-a-bursting (Euonymus americana), wild jasmine (Gelsimium rankinii) crossvine
(8ignonia capreolata), and greenbriar (Smilax sp). Herbs that were noted during this
spring include liverleaf (Hepatica americana), hogpeanut (Desmodium so), beech drops
( ifa uq s virginiana), rattlesnake root (Prenanthes so), ginger (Hexastylis sp), elephant
foot (Ele hpus caroliniana), aster (Aster spp), and ebony spleenwort (Asplenium
Qlatyneuron)
Trees were generally 10 to 17 meters (33-56 feet) tall, with a basal area of 70 to 100
and an average diameter at breast height of 15 to 23 centimeters (6-9 inches). Two
trees were cored to determine ages. A sweet gum with a 33 centimeter 0 3 inches)
diameter was found to be about 80 years old. An oak with a 31 centimeter (12
inches) diameter that was closer to the creek was found to be about 52 years old.
Disturbance community
The disturbance community is often composed of weedy species, which include
bracken fern (Pteridium aauilinum), Johnny jump-up (Viola arvensis), bluets (Houstonia
caerulea), pasture grasses (Poa sp, Festuca sra), asters Aster sue), goldenrod (Solidago
2g), field garlic (Allium vineale), wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), mouse-ear
cress (Arabidogsis thalania), panic grass (Panicum sr).), dock (Rumex crisl2us), and
poke weed (Phytolacca americana), corn salad (Valerianella radiata ), vetch ( i i
angustifolia), lyre leaf sage (Salvia Ivrata), evening primrose Menothera biennis),
daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
iai2onica).
Wildlife
Wildlife likely to occur in the project area include reptiles such as the banded water
snake (Nerodia fasciata), rat snake (Elaphae obsoleta), black racer (Coluber
constrictor), Carolina anole (Anolus carolinensis), eastern fence lizard (Scleropsis
undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces laticeps), snapping turtle (Chelvdra ser Rentina),
spotted turtle (Clemmvs guttata) and eastern boxturtle (Terrapene caroling).
7
Birds include the indigo bunting (Passrina cvanea), common crow ( rv
brachyrhyncos), turkey vulture (Coragvps atratus), common grackle (Quiscalus
guiscula), towhee (Pi ilo erythrophtvalmus), common flicker (Colantes auratus), red-
eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) and yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia). Mammals
include the opsossum (Didelphis virginiana), marsh rabbit (Svlvilagus palustris), house
mouse (Mus musculus) and southeasten shrew (Longirostrus longirostrus).
Fish likely to be found in the project area include the bowfin (Amin calva), carp
(Cyprinus cargo), brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), yellow bullhead (Ictalurus
natalis), mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) and pirate
perch (Aphredoderus savanus).
Numerous signs of wildlife were observed. Signs of white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus
virginiana), grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), striped skunk (Mephitis me hitis)
burrow, beaver (Castor canadensis) and raccoons (Procyon lotor) were noted. Birds
observed included a brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), house wren (Troglodytes
aedon), crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), a mockingbird (Mimus l2olY91 tos), and a
towhee (Pi ilo erythrophthalmus). The general area is probably utilized by common
frog species such as the spring peeper (Hyla crucifer) and the southern leopard frog
(Rana sphenocenha).
The presence of freshwater mollusks at this site was documented by NCDOT
biologists in a recent study. Middle Creek was surveyed on May 23, 1994. The
excess amount of broken glass and other litter in the stream created hazardous survey
conditions, and thus the majority of the survey was done in very shallow areas, or by
examining discarded shells along the banks. A total of 10 living eastern floater
(Anodonta cataracts) and 15 living eastern Elliptipo (Elliptio complanata) were found.
Shells of both species were abundant. This stream is located directly downstream of
Sunset Lake, which is typical habitat for both species found.
Biotic Community Impacts
Some of forest cover will be lost. Temporary impacts will affect 0.08 hectares (0.2
acres) of disturbance community and 0.06 hectares (0.15 acres) of hardwood forest.
Permanent impacts will affect 0.10 hectares (0.25 acres) of disturbance community
and 0.35 hectares (0.9 acres) of hardwood forest.
The NC Natural Heritage Program has identified a natural community of significance
described as the "Middle Creek Bluffs and Slopes" that occurs along the south side
of Middle Creek along a 3.2-4.8 kilometer (2-3 mile) stretch between Sunset Lake and
SR 1386. The area is a wide floodplain with many steep slopes.
8
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
it
This site occurs in the Piedmont Physiographic province. Two soil series are
prevalent in the site. Congaree fine sandy loam runs parallel to the creek on both
sides. It is not a hydric soil but has the potential to have inclusions of Wehadkee,
which is a hydric soil. It is a dark brown, deep, moderately permeable soil that
occurs in drainageways. Above the bands of Congaree, on both sides of the creek,
are varying subunits of upland soils of the Appling series. These include Appling
fine sandy loam (an eroded soil on 6 to 10% slopes) and Appling gravely sandy
loam (an eroded soil on 2 to 6% slopes). Soil horizons close to the road and the
lake have been altered by disturbances.
Table I Soil Series in Project Area
Series Hydric Hydric Locations
status Inclusions
Congaree fine sandy loam no Wehadkee along both sides of
creek
Appling fine sandy loam no no SE quadrant
Appling gravely sandy no no NE quadrant
loam
Water Resources
Middle Creek is a tributary of the Neuse River. The headwater reaches of Middle
Creek are near the town of Apex in southern Wake County. Two small Lakes (Bass
and Sunset) and many small farm ponds dot the landscape of the upper reaches of
Middle Creek. The particular reach of the stream within the project area is influenced
by being immediately downstream from the Sunset Lake Dam.
At this site, Mill Creek has a usage classification of C NSW, The "C" designates that
the water body is suitable for agricultural uses, fish and wildlife propagation and
secondary recreation, but is not rated for human consumption or contact recreation
(State of NC, 1993). The "NSW" denotes that this nutrient sensitive waters are
present, which require limitations on nutrient inputs. At present, this water body
does not have Outstanding Resource Water status, nor any Wild and Scenic River
designation. The average flow rate for the water body at the project area is 6.5 cubic
meters per second (230 cubic feet per second) (U.S. Geological Survey).
9
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is a program that is used to
monitor water quality. It has been incorporated into the Basin Wide program being
established by the state. There are no monitoring stations for this particular location.
Sites downstream along the creek indicated fair to good water quality (DEM, 1992).
The total number of taxa (genera, species, or varieties) of organisms recorded ranged
between 55 and 96.
TABLE II Stream Characteristics
Substrate sand, clay, mud
Current flow low
Channel width in meters 10.00 (32.8 feet)
Bank height in meters 1-2.5 (3.28-8.2 feet)
Water depth variable
Water color clear
Water odor none noted
Aquatic veg none noted
Adjacent veg hardwood forest, roadside
Wetlands Assoc. none noted
Water Resource Impacts
Short term impacts could include increased sedimentation. NCDOT's "Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters" will be implemented. Long
term impacts to water resources are not expected to occur as a result of this project.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Jurisdictional Waters of the United State
Wetlands are designated as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3) and are
therefore regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US COE). as to discharge
of dredged or fill material. No wetlands were found within the project area.
10
Permits
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 US COE
1344), a permit will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers (US COE) for
the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States".
Since this 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. However,
final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the US COE.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, may be required. This certificate is issued
for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit
is required.
Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during
construction activities to minimize unnecessary impacts to wetland ecosystems.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation may not be required under a Nationwide Permit. Final
authority rests with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Rare and Protected Species
Federally Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to
federally protected plants or animals is subject to review by the US Fish & Wildlife
Service (USFWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973. In the case of state-funded action, where federal wetland permits are likely
to be required, the US Fish and Wildlife Service can require consultation to insure that
the proposed action does not jeopardize any endangered, threatened or protected
species. Even in the absence of federal actions, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has
the power, through provisions of Section 9, Endangered Species Act, to exercise
jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and other resource agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this area in
accordance with the Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
USC 661 et seq). North Carolina laws are also designed to protect certain plants and
animals where statewide populations are in decline.
11
No rare or protected plant or animal species were observed during surveys that were
done in February and March. There are no current known population records for
federal or state listed species in the project area. The NC Natural Heritage Program
noted that this area had been visited by botanists, but that it had never been
systematically surveyed throughout the growing season (personal correspondence,
1994). Below is a list of species identified by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to occur
in the county in which the project takes place. These species are not likely to occur
within the project area, due to lack of appropriate habitat.
Table 111 Federally Protected Species
Common name Status" Habitat
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded
woodpecker E mature long leaf
pines
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus bald eagle E mature forests near
water
Vermivora
bachmanii Bachman's warbler E swamp forest
thickets
Alasmidonta
heterodon dwarf wedge
mussel E aquatic
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E sandy forests,
woodland edges
* Federal status : E = endangered
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to southern
Florida, west to eastern Texas, including the states of Kentucky, Arkansas,
Tennessee, Oklahoma and Missouri. It is currently known only in coastal states of its
historic range, plus southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. North Carolina
populations are found in the sandhills and southern coastal plain.
The adult RCW's plumage is entirely black and white except for small red streaks on
the sides of the nape of the neck in the male. The back has horizontal stripes of black
and white and the breast and underside is white with streaked flanks. It has large
white cheek patches surrounded by a black cap, nape and throat.
12
This species uses open, mature stands of southern pines, particularly long leaf (Pines
I ri ), for nesting and foraging. Suitable habitat must contain at minimum 50%
pine and a fairly open understory. The birds nest only in trees that are 60 years or
older and are contiguous with pine dominated forest stands that are at least 30 years
in age. The RCW foraging range is about 0.8 kilometers (0.5 mile) and must be
connected to suitable nesting sites.
RCWs nest exclusively in living pine trees that are frequently infected with the fungus
that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies and are found at 430
meters (12 to 100 feet) above the ground, with an average height of 9-15 meters
(30-50 feet). Large incrustations of running sap on the tree trunk is an indicator sign
of a nest tree. This may be a defense against predators. A clan of RCWs consists
of one breeding pair and the offspring of previous years. Eggs are laid in April, May
and June. Clutch size varies from 3-5 eggs. All members of the clan share in raising
the young. Diet consists mainly of insects, but occasionally includes seasonal fruits.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. There is no suitable habitat within the project area.
No mature longleaf pine forests are present.
Haliaeetus leucoceohalus (bald eagle) E
The bald eagle is found in eastern North America from Florida to Alaska. The only
nesting populations in the southeast are in Florida, coastal Louisiana, Mississippi and
South Carolina. Migrants and nesting pairs do occur elsewhere, including North
Carolina. There are several factors that affect. nesting sites. The site must be within
0.8 kilometer (0.5 miles) of water, with a clear flight path. It must have a large tree
with an open view. Human disturbance may cause the eagle to abandon its nest.
An adult can be readily identified by its large white head and short tail. The body
plumage is dark brown. Immature birds lack the white head. Adults range from 69
to 94 centimeters (27-37 inches) in length and have a wingspan of 178 to 229
centimeters (70-90 inches). Their wings are flat while soaring. Breeding season
begins in December or January. Their food source is fish, with coots, wounded
ducks, or carrion.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. There is no highly suitable nesting habitat in the
project area.
Vermivora bachmanii (Bachman's warbler) E
The Bachman's warbler is one of the rarest and least known of the North American
warblers. Its breeding range is in the southeast, primarily South Carolina, Alabama,
Arkansas, and Missouri. Its occurrence in North Carolina is probably just as a visitor.
13
The Bachman's warbler is 11 centimeters (4 inches) long. The male is bright yellow
below, with yellow cheeks and forehead, with a black cap and throat patch. The
female has a grey cap and is a duller color. It lays 3 to 4 eggs in a nest that is made
from plant stems and leaves, lined with fine fibers, and placed low in shrubs and
vines.
Its habitat is in densely wooded swamps and wet thickets in heavy forest.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. It is highly unlikely that this species would be found
nesting within the state. Very little dense undergrowth is present within the project
area.
midonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
The dwarf wedge mussel occurs in aquatic habitats in the Tar and Neuse River
drainages, mainly near the fall line. It is likely very dependent on good water quality
and lack of sedimentation. NCDOT biologists surveyed the project area for this
species on May 23, 1994.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. Given the survey results, the stream characteristics
(flow fluctuations) and the degraded water quality, it can be concluded that no dwarf
wedge mussel (DWM) population occurs in Middle Creek, and that no impacts to this
species will result from project construction.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) E
Michaux's sumac is endemic to North and South Carolina and Georgia. In North
Carolina, it is currently known from Davie, Franklin, Hoke, Lee, Moore, Richmond,
Robeson, Scotland, and Wake Counties. In South Carolina, it is known from Kershaw
County.
It is a dioecious, rhizomatous shrub that is densely pubescent. It reaches a height of
1.5 to 4 meters (5-13 feet) tall. Leaflets are 9 to 13, sessile, oblong to
oblong-lanceolate, 4 to 9 centimeters long, 2 to 5 centimeters wide and serrate. Its
fruit is a densely pubescent drupe that is 5 to 6 millimeters broad. It flowers in June,
with fruits maturing in August and September. It grows on sandy or rocky openings
and open woods, sometimes in waste places. It may be associated with basic soils
Biological Conclusion: No effect. No individuals were found, nor any habitat.
14
Federal Candidate and State Protected S en cies
Federal Candidate (C2) species are not legally protected under the Endangered
Species Act. These species show evidence of decline or vulnerability and may
become listed in the future. Presently, there has not been sufficient data gathered on
many of these species to ascertain the correct status. State listed species with
designations of Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern are granted protection
by the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. Enforcement and administration falls under the jurisdiction
of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture.
Neither the above mentioned species, nor their appropriate habitat, were surveyed for
in this study. N.C. Natural Heritage Program records showed no known occurrences
in the project area. Table IV (below) lists Federal Candidate species known to occur
in Wake County. Habitat may be somewhat appropriate for the Carolina trillium or
nestronia, however, the area is greatly disturbed and no individuals were noted during
survey. Therefore, this project is not likely to impact these species.
The "Middle Creek Bluffs and Slopes" occur along the south side of Middle Creek
between Sunset Lake and SR 1386." Hexastylis lewisii (Lewis' heartleaf), a State
Listed Significantly Rare species occurs on the slopes. This project is not expected
to affect this area. The cliffs are not within the project area.
The Neuse River water dog (Necturus lewisi; State Special Concern species) has been
recorded as occurring in the creek at the above-mentioned site. It is endemic to North
Carolina and occurs in the Tar and Neuse Rivers drainages. It is likely very sensitive
to sedimentation, therefore, the sedimentation control measures will become even
more important.
Table IV Federal Candidate Species, Including State Protection Status
Scientific name Common name Federal
Status* State
Statuses
Myotis austroripanus southeastern bat C2 SC
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's warbler C2
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe mussel C2 T
15
Table IV Federal Candidate Species, Including State Protection Status
Scientific name Common name Federal
Status;* State
Status"
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary
butterfly C2
Lasmigona subviridis green floater mussel C2 E
Monotropsis odorata sweet pinesap C2
Nestronia umbellula nestronia C2
Trillium pusillum var.
pusillum Carolina trillium C2 E
• Federal status : C2 = candidate; • • State Protected Status : E = endangered,
T=threatened, SC=special concern;
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 a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
environmental consequences.
The project is not in conflict with any land use plan or zoning regulations. No
significant change in existing land use is expected to result from construction of
the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition and temporary construction easements will be required. No relocatees
will be involved with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
Impacts on utilities as a result of the proposed action will be low.
16
There are no publicly owned parks, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
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 36
CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted
projects having an effect on properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity
to comment.
There are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National Register within the
area of potential effect (APE). Therefore, the Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer has no comments on the project in regards to historic architecture.
The Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer's letter of January 12, 1994, (included
in the appendix) in response to a scoping letter, states "if the replacement is to be in
a new location, please forward a map" so that review can be completed. The new
bridge will be constructed on a new alignment that is northeast of existing SR 1301.
The DSHPO requested additional consultation only in the case of new location selected
as the preferred alignment. Figure 2 serves as the "map... indicating the location of
the new alignment so" the SHPO "may evaluate the potential effects of the
replacement upon archaeological resources." At this time, no plans are available for
the project as currently proposed. When plans are prepared they will be forwarded
to the SHPO for review.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils
by all land acquisition and construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils
are defined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). According to the SCS, the
proposed project will impact 0.16 hectares (.40 acres) of prime and unique soils and
.09 hectares (.22 acres) of statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts
for very little of the total 187,265 hectares (462,739 acres) of prime and important
farmland soils. Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating, is included in the
Appendix.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the Raleigh Regional
Office of the NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Wake
County was designated as a moderate nonattainment area for Carbon Monoxide (CO).
The attainment date is December 31, 1995. The Raleigh/Durham area was designated
as a maintenance area for ozone (03) effective June 17, 1994. The current State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures (TCM)
for Wake County. The Wake 2010 Urbanized Area Thoroughfare Plan (TP) and 1994
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) have been determined to be in conformity
17
to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Interim Conformity Guidance dated
June 7, 1991. The approval dates of the TP and the TIP by the MPO were on October
17, 1991 and August 8, 1993, respectively. The approval dates of the TP and the TIP
by USDOT were on November 15, 1991 and December 15, 1993 respectively.
Traffic volumes will not increase or decrease as a result of the project. The existing
noise levels are not expected to change significantly, therefore, no impacts will occur.
Noise levels may temporarily increase during construction. If vegetation is disposed
of 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
213.05020. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway
traffic noise (23 CRF Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no
additional reports are required.
Records of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the N.C.
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section indicated that no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites are known to exist in the project
area.
Wake County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The project
limits for Middle Creek are located in a detailed FEMA study area. Approximate limits
of the 100 year floodplain in the project area are shown in Figure 5. Impacts to 'the
floodplain as a result of roadway encroachment are not considered to be significant.
There are no reasonable alignment alternatives which will avoid crossing Middle Creek.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of this project.
18
REFERENCES
Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Personal communication with the Wake County Soil
Conservation Service office, Raleigh, NC.
Brown, P.M. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. NC Geologic Survey. Raleigh, NC.
Bull, J. & Farrand, J. Jr. 1988. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds,
Eastern Region. Alfred A. Knopf, Now York.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways. Experiment Stn., Vicksburg, MS.
LoGrand, H.E., Jr. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North
Carolina. NC Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey & J.R. Harrison. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press , Chapel Hill, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Management. 1992. Basinwide
Assessment Report of the Neuse River Basin.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Management. 1992. Basinwide
Assessment Report of the Neuse River Basin.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles & C.R. Bell. 1981. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Schafale, M.P. & A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, 3rd approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.
State of North Carolina Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources. 1993.
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Lumber
River Basin. NCDEHNR. Raleigh, NC.
US Fish & Wildlife Service. 1993. Listed and Candidate Species of North Carolina, by
County.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. NC Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.
19
I /
1
11 II
11
1
1
1 1
1 1
I
?cSoc?ooc??
A P..,= r
MOW. + ' i tuua tin
,flaleigh
?Rrp/ ia?ie X41 ... 6r8 ®?
7 ROC? N n
OCALE:
1, A. r• ?6j ©®
r.67fCCf"'?
?r 0
1~
Mrl{u. SPin?f
.3 0 1 wLa
1 .3 0 1 M LS
=O=TS CAIit)LMA DZPA=TL=T OF
R: =--7Q2TATlOa
urV :ion o' MM=us
PLdF=G A= ==v=oIil==AL
II?YA W. y7 C2
BRIDGE NO. 315
WAKE COUNTY
B-2174
FIGURE I

BRIDGE NO. 315
WAKE COUNTY
B-2174
BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
LOOKING WEST

1
! I1.
EXISTING BRIDGE SITE
LOOKING WEST
BRIDGE NO. 315
WAKE COUNTY
B-2174
WEST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST
EAST APPROACH
LOOKING EAST
ELEVATION
LOOKING NORTH
FIGURE 3A

(n m
m L
u \ v
Z Q ON \

0 m Q
(7
z W W =
m
F- z CD
o
a

m CL J ?-+
V) U
z
X? J mod. ?Q
W C7 W Q O W ?-+ Z
E w w ?U
w
CL O

v
>-
u
F-
J

L11 Q
MV)
?.j
? z
OJ a
U
0 _1 V)

?-+ Q
UQ } 0
O ? F- ?-1

Q? a
N

(na

N LD

Q ?
0 W
v; OI = O 0 z
N U z
.?
W Q W m
o1 z
Z cD O Ix 0 a
U
ri

CL Z lD cr O

0 n. Nj

O

0 Q
O
U t
+ N I
O Q O M
U .I
i z z
0
0
cc)
O

0
f --
N
z

1.
M I
N
V-
LO
M
O
W
O
O j
1
z .? .-.
?
O J J
OD
I I- o Q a
o
N U U
W
V) CL w
>-- F-
~ z
J
Q
_U
CL

E--

c?
z

F- z
N =)
... O
X
W C?
FIGURE 4
WAKE COUNTY
B-2174
ZONE X
130 3°6
ZONE X P.
':.. ZONE AE A 315 Bann 22. Stream 9 6 304
ZONE X---- 10
ZONE X 08 A 3c
316 3 ZONE AE Tv
' ZONE X ZONE AE ZONE X
/ {.
{ t p'
30 304 l.' . /?f l
s t.. r 315 all
f, 302
}r t
CORPORATE 302?-
r ZONE X L ZON
312 + r
X
Middle Crrrk
(Basin 22. Strram 1) BRIDGE
r? N O. 315 + „ a
! 4
} r
-ZONE X ZONE.
Dam 30 , ? ?r
312 °E +
r.
ZONE X.'`ef t r?
ZONE X t m
ZONE X
,r y r,
ZONE X ZONE A ,kv
?( O
t 5 f ' It
Town of Holly Springs , , (- I
37UO3 r t a a?? ;` `{ r- C '
ZONE X-'
y I
,rte 'tF ZONE X
( ZONE AE
1=3 ?-4,. ' 1
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN p
r1`
r ?
ZONE X -ZONE X
Basal Crrek
(Basin 22. Stream 16)
FIGURE 5
PArl,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Jemes B. Hung Jr., Govunor Division of Archives and History
Betty Rzy VIcUn, SccrtL y WiUL-m S. Price, Jr., Director
June 17, 1994
Michael E. Krannitz, P.E.
Wilbur Smith Associates
P.O. Box 2478
Raleigh, NC 27602
Re: Replace Bridge No. 325 on SR 1301 over Middle
Creek, B-2174, Wake County, ER 94-8020
Dear Mr. Krannitz:
Thank you for your letter of May 20, 1994, forwarding additional information
concerning the above project.
Because of the location and topographic situation of the proposed project area, it
is unlikely that any archaeological sites which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed 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.
Sincerely,
Davt rook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
1(19 Fstt Tn-- t ?frY-rt . T?*t4eh Wrwth f%-mUni'77MIX'M

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Raleigh Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Boyce A. Hudson, Regional Manager IFE
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
March 15, 1994
Wilbur Smith Associates
P.O. Box 2478
Raleigh, NC 27602
ATTN: Michael E. Krannitz, P.E.
RE: Sunset Lake Dam
Wake County
Dear Mr. Krannitz:
As we have discussed, I have reviewed our file for the
subject dam and offer the following data for your consideration:
(1) The NC IDS{ for this dam is WAKE-053. It is classified as a
high hazard structure because the roadway below the dam poses
a threat to loss of life if the dam were to fail. The
roadway would probably receive serious damage or failure,
and the approaches are curved which will significantly
reduce the sight distance to the bridge.
(2) Our most recent inspection of the dam was January 27, 1994.
The structure continues to be well maintained and appears to
be stable at this time.
(3) S&ME performed an inspection and general evaluation of the
dam for the owners in 1987. The report made recommendations
for overall maintenance, and indicated that the structure
should be able to accommodate the 100-yr. storm event without
failure. A copy of this report may be obtained from this
office if more details are needed.
3800 Barrott Drivo, Sdto 101, Rdoigh, North CaroUna 27609 Tolophono 919-571-4700 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Af irmatW Action Employor 50% rocyclod/ 1036 post-conaxnor papor
Mr. Krannitz
March 15, 1994
2
Please do not hesitate to contact me regarding any questions
you might have, or if addition information is needed.
Sincerely,
Jo An L. Holley, Jr., P.E?, CPESC
RAdgional Engineer
Land Quality Section
_ State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 a o k
Division of Solid Waste Management f?
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
February 7, 1994 • ?- -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael E. Kranni , P.E.
THROUGH: Doug Holyfeld, ead
Waste Management Branch
FROM: Larry D. Perry, Supervisor AM
Eastern Area Compliance Unit
RE: RCRA Comments on the NCDOT Group V Bridge Replacement Report
The Hazardous Waste Section has reviewed the noted project and offers the following
comments:
There are numerous RCRA hazardous waste generating facilities in the counties where
the replacement projects are located, but we do not believe there are any located near
the proposed projects. I do not believe that these projects will cause any adverse
situation on any sites that might generate or handle hazardous waste nor any hazardous
waste generator facility cause an adverse situation on any project.
This review only considered hazardous waste sites or generators. By copy of this
memorandum, this packet is being referred to the Solid Waste Section and Superfund for
their review.
If a site is encountered that raises concerns or questions, please contact our office at
[phone].
LDP/lfb
cc: Solid Waste Section
Superfund
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Tolophono 919-733-4996 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmativo Action Employor 50% rocyclod/ 10% post-con;umor pop©r
oiuite u1 1%junn t--uroiina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
1 /1
4
GROUNDWATER SECTION
January 25, 1994
Michael E. Krannitz
Wilbur Smith Associates
P.O. Box 2478
Raleigh Bldg., Suite 910
Raleigh, NC 27602
Dear W. Krannitz:
4 , 1
1-3 Q
The Groundwater Section has reviewed its records for the the items you requested in your
December 14, 1993, letter to Arthur Mouberry regarding thirteen bridges slated for replacement
in the State. All bridges, except for numbers 77 and 315, were reviewed with regards to
hazardous waste sites, hazardous waste generators, landfills, and underground storage tanks.
According to our records, none of the above situations were within 1000 feet of these
bridges. However, Solid Waste Management (SWM) for the State maintains complete records
for all landfills and hazardous waste sites and generators. I suggest contacting Doue Holvfield of
the Hazardous Waste Section of SWM, [phone], for more information. Fay Sweat, in our
Pollution Control Branch [[phone]], maintains the incident management database for all
reported underground storage tank incidents in the State.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone], ext. 406.
Sincerely,

Brian Waaner
Hydrogeologist
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Ted Bush
Bob Cheek
Fay Sweat
Doug Holyfield
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-05:5 Tolephono 919-733-3221 FAX [phone]
An Equd OpportunrtyAffvmatrvo Action Ernmoyer 50%recycledl 10%oost-conmxmer pacer
? ANl o?
y? IAA
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 6, 1994
Michael E. Krannitz, P.E.
Wilbur Smith Associates
P.O. Box 2478
Raleigh, NC 27602
Re: Replace Bridge No. 315 on SR 1301 over Middle Creek,
Wake County, B-2174, ER 94-8020
Dear Mr. Krannitz:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of December 14, 1993, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and determined that this structure is not
located in or adjacent to any property which is listed in or eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places. In addition, the structure is neither listed in nor eligible for
listing in the National Register as an individual property. We, therefore, have no comment
on the project.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. If the
replacement is to be located along the existing alignment, it is unlikely that significant
archaeological resources would be affected and no investigations would be recommended.
If, however, the replacement is to be in a new location, please forward a map to this office
indicating the location of the new alignment so we may evaluate the potential effects of the
replacement upon archaeological resources.
Please note under normal procedures, requests concerning federally-funded roadway
projects come from the Federal Highway Administration and are directed to the Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer, David Brook.
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.
Sincerely,
G?
? D Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
1AQ 1r,M T- C#-# . V dA;nh Nnrfh rqa l;- 774AI 7QM
A 1? ./
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
January 5, 1994
W REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
FILE NO. CESAW-C-010
Mr. Michael E. Krannitz, P.E.
Wilbur Smith Associates
Post Office Box 2478
Raleigh Building, Suite 910
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Krannitz:
Reference your letter dated December 14, 1993, concerning the proposed
replacement of 8 bridges by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) in Bladen/fender, Columbus/Brunswick, Duplin, Onslow, Wake, and
Wayne/Johnston Counties, North Carolina.
Pursuant to 33 CFR 330, Nationwide Permit Program Regulations, dated
November 22, 1991, Categorical Exclusion determinations are "activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined... that the activity, work, or discharge is
categorically excluded from environmental documentation...." and that the
Corps of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Our review of your information indicates that the work is eligible for
authorization under the terms and conditions of Nationwide Permit 23
(Categorical Exclusions). Temporary detours involving fills in wetlands or
waters of the United States or not authorized by this permit. However, such
temporary detours may be authorized under the provisions of Nationwide Permit
33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering), Nationwide Permit 14 (Minor
Road Crossing), or NCDOT General Permit No. 31.
The request for our concurrence for Categorical Exclusions should be
submitted directly to this office by NCDOT or their designated authorized
agent. It should be accompanied by information in support of this
determination. Please refer to this file number and the date of this letter
when requesting the concurrence(s).
If you have questions please call Mr. Ernest Jahnke, Wilmington Area
Field Office Manager, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
a Wrig -
mi egu latory Branch
WAKE COUNTY PUBLIC
MK
SCHOOL SYSTEM
Department of Transportation
January 4, 1994
Michael Krannitz, P.E.
Wilbur Smith Associates
P. O. Box 2478
Suite 910
Raleigh, N. C. 27602
Subject: NC DOT - Group V
Bridge Replacement
Planning Reports
Dear Mr. Krannitz:
The replacement bridge project on SR 1301 over Middle Creek would
impact bus schedules to the following extent:
Total Daily Trips Across the Bridge: 10
Total Detour Time Required: 25 - 30 minutes
The major impact would be the detour time because of the location
of the bridge. If at all possible, it would be advantageous to the
school system's bus service to do as much of the work in the summer
as possible. If this is not possible, please let me know as far in
advance as possible and we will plan accordingly.
If you need additional information, please let me know.
Sincerely,
0 -
W tt Harper, Ed.D.
Director of Transportation
WH/pg
Attachments
c: Wyatt Currin
Ava Bailey
,/
1551 Rock Quarry Road • PO Box 28041 • Raleigli, North Carolina 27610 • 9191856-8050, FAX: [phone]
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART 1 (To be completed by Federal Agcncy) r Date Of Land Ew.luation Rcqu:st ? I -9 1 q 4-
Name Of Project NG DD T I. P 11 9-Z I ? 4- Federal Agency Involved P. N. W. A.
Proposed Land Use J. County And State WaK e .C, 1 Co.
(fir t e laccrl<i cit (4G
x/117 I' ll e 1 Y alcr 4iN!!(,/!•a GV Ay JW? ?.. ... `a•u . Yf a? ?.., R-• :a '? ??`-:.._?_? • _?..? ? ??..4
?, Does the cite corticin prima, unique, statewide or local important fr.rmlandt Yea • No im?t Arse, FAarm Slz .
(If no; the FPPA do= not apply -'do not complete [additional parts of this form).: (? ? ` 01'1,t% 12..U
± : I Cro ' ;., r i j ..

Name Of Land Evzlustlon System Used

?• ?lal? °L?S` - . :?. Ftunu-We Land In Csovt. Jurisdiction
A=: 62 7 3 < , N c 3, b g'

flame Of Local Sits A. umnt System -

..,. AK`e LEST} Amount Of Fcrml:nd As Dating in F PA

r,?3 rZ
Agra:- o&2.
Q'te Land C-valuztlon fi.tumzd By
SCS
"1?.1 '22'
I4?
PART 111 (To be completed by Fcd:ral A
snc
) Altern3tlve • to sting
g
y Site A Site 0 Site C Site
D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 1.10 -
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirect) 0.54-
C. Total Acres In Site , 44-
PART IV (To ba completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information i:
A. Total -Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 1
0. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland e
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Bo Converted 4_0 60 1
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Some Or Higher Rtlatlve Value 3,2-P 0
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (ScaleofOto lOOPointsl
5 I ?:.
?
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria [These criteria am explainsd in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Averaga
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To bo completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Site Assessment (From Part Vl above ora local
site assessment)
160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lhws) 260

Site Selected:
Date Of Selection %W3 A Local Site Aueument Used?
Yes U No ?
mason ror wnw=lon:
(Ser Instructions an rew.rsesidcl --fin all