19951297 Ver 1_Complete File_19951222

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
January 20, 1998 /
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention: Mr. Michael Smith
Assistant Chief
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
FJ??a 1998
EMRCHMEWA C'ENCE8
9s
Subject: Wake County, Replacement of Bridge No. 289 over Swift Creek on
SR 1152; State Project No. 8.2404101; TIP No. B-2871; COE ID
199500817.
The Corps of Engineers (COE) issued a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23
(Categorical Exclusion) for the subject project on January 10, 1996. The replacement of
Bridge No. 289 over Swift Creek on SR 1152 was let to construction in July of 1997 and
is expected to be completed in August 1998. This permit expires on January 21, 1997.
Consequently, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) needs to
renew authorization for this work.
Information regarding the project description has not changed since the
distribution of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) in a letter dated December 19, 1995. The
bridge will be replaced on approximately the same alignment. Traffic will be maintained
on a temporary bridge downstream of the existing bridge throughout construction.
The NCDOT requests that the COE reauth ize thi bridge replacement project in
Wake County under a Section 404 Nationwide Pe it 23. ssuance of 401 Water Quality
Certification by the Division of Water Quality is als re ested.
J
30tt
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Lindsey Riddick at [phone], extension 315.
Sincerely
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: Mr. Eric A, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. David Cox, WRC
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, P.E., Division 05 Engineer
Af I

?-, ?)?-9-7

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
401 ISSUED
December 19, 1995
ICLC- D
2 2 1995'
rrav??- r?ns ?[Pd7AL SC1EN(,ES
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Wake County, Replacement of Bridge No. 289 over Swift Creek on
SR 1152, TIP No. B-2871, State Project No. 8.240410 1, Federal Aid
Project No. BRSTP-1152(2).
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. 3026 (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.
s
RZ-
Ar '-
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Gordon
Cashin at [phone], Extension 315.
Sincerel ,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
GEC/plr
Attachments
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, 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
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, Project Planning Engineer
Wake County
SR 1152
Bridge No. 289 Over Swift Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1152(2)
State Project 8.2404101
T.I.P. No. B-2871
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
O
DAT H. Franklin Vick, PE, Tanager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
/D 3f Qf
- !,f /IcS
17
DAT Nicholas L. Graf, PE
-Division Administrator, FHWA
Wake County
SR 1152
Bridge No. 289 Over Swift Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1152(2)
State Project 8.2404101
T.I.P. No. B-2871
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
October 1995
Documentation Prepared By:
MA Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Shihchen (David) Fuh, Ph.D, PE
Project Manager
I I It I,
F, 0, 1
••`??ZN CAR
oFESSi •,, 4
0
SFAL 9??
19732 t
CHE N ••••
for North Carolina Department of Transportation
J.A. Bissett, Jr., PE, Unit a
Consultant Engineering Unit
a!?, hojdaxL'
Stacy Y. B dwin
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
Wake County
SR 1152
Bridge No. 289 Over Swift Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1152(2)
State Project 8.2404101
T.I.P. No. B-2871
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Design plans will be forwarded to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office for continued
review of potential impacts to unrecorded archaeological sites which may be located within the
proposed project's area of potential effect.
Fill material from the temporary detour within the floodplain will be removed and the area restored
to the extent reasonably possible, to promote regeneration of the pre-construction conditions.
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be implemented
to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Construction activities shall be contained within the existing right-of-way on the west side of the
bridge to the maximum extent practical. The recommended temporary on-site detour structure will
be located to the east of the existing bridge, to minimize impacts to the Swift Creek Bluffs natural
area.
A United States Geodetic Survey (USGS) bench mark (61 DRD 1960) is located in the northwest
concrete wingwall of the bridge with elevation 93.9 meters (308 feet). United States Geodetic
Surveys will be contacted before the monument is disturbed.
Wake County
SR 1152
Bridge No. 289 Over Swift Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1152(2)
State Project 8.2404101
T.I.P. No. B-2871
Bridge No. 289 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".
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
For the Summary of Environmental Commitments, see page i.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 289 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The
recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 34 meters (110 feet) long and 12 meters (40
feet) wide. This structure will provide two 3.6-meter (12-foot) travel lanes with 2.4-meter (8-foot)
shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade at this
location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width, to provide two 3.6-
meter (12-foot) travel lanes, and 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders, of which 1.2 meters (4 feet) will be
paved, on each side throughout the project limits.
A temporary on-site detour will be used to maintain traffic during the construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $961,300.00. The estimated cost of the project, as shown
in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program, is $388,000 ($355,000-construction;
$33,000-right-of-way).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the central portion of Wake County, approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 mile)
south of the Town of Cary, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The area is rural woodlands in nature.
SR 1152 is classified as an urban minor arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification System and
is a Federal-Aid Highway. The route is located on a roadway that is heavily used by bicyclists.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1152 has a 7.2-meter (24-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 tangent which extends approximately 120 meters (400 feet) north
and 275 meters (900 feet) south from the structure. The roadway is situated approximately 5.1
meters (17 feet) above the creek bed.
The current traffic volume of 12900 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 21300 VPD
by the year 2018. The projected volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-
tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 70 kilometers per hour (45 miles per hour) in the
project area.
Bridge No. 289 is a five-span structure that consists of a reinforced concrete deck on reinforced
concrete deck beams. The substructure consists of reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. The
existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1947.
The overall length of the structure is 33.5 meters (110 feet). The clear roadway width is 7.4 meters
(24.2 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 13 metric tons (14 tons) for single vehicles and
18 metric tons (20 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 289 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
existing bridge on the east side of the roadway throughout the project area. Utility impacts are
anticipated to be low.
One single vehicle accident, resulting in no fatalities and one injury, has been reported in the vicinity
of Bridge No. 289 during the period from April 1991 to March 1994. The incident was the result of
the vehicle leaving the road and striking fixed objects.
Eighteen school buses cross the bridge daily.
2

IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 289 were studied. Each alternative consists of a bridge
34 meters (110 feet) long and 12 meters (40 feet) wide. Typical sections of the approach roadway
and structure are included as Figure 4 and Figure 5.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative 1 (Recommended) - involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway
alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 60 meters
(200 feet) in each direction from the bridge. A temporary on-site detour will be provided during the
construction period east (downstream) of the existing structure. The temporary detour will consist
of a bridge 15 meters (49 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide, located about 12 meters (40 feet)
east of the existing structure. The design speed for this alternative is 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles
per hour). Alternative 1 is recommended because it maintains the existing horizontal tangent
alignment, which is superior to the proposed alignment for Alternative 2. Additionally, Alternative
1 has less impact on the wetland environment due to the additional roadway approach work for
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3.
Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the bridge at a new location immediately east of the existing
structure. Modifications to the alignment on the bridge approaches include approximately 135 meters
(450 feet) to the north and 135 meters (450 feet) to the south. The design speed of this alternative
is 80 kilometers per hour (50 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 each end of the project.
Altemative 3 - involves replacement of the bridge at a new location east of the existing structure. The
realignment of the bridge approaches include approximately 275 meters (900 feet) to the north and
275 meters (900 feet) to the south. The additional length of approach roadway improvements to the
north and south utilizes existing curves which improves alignment geometry, however reverse curves
exist at each end of the improved alignment. The design speed of this alternative is 80 kilometers per
hour (50 miles per hour). The existing structure will serve as an on-site detour during the
construction period. Tlus Alternative is not recommended because of the reverse horizontal curve at
each end of the project; it is more costly and it has more impact on the wetland environment due to
the additional roadway approach work.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not acceptable
due to the traffic service provided by SR 1152.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Division 5 concurs that traffic be maintained on-
site instead of closing the road during construction because of the traffic volumes using SR 1152 and
the excessive length of additional travel that will be required with an off-site detour.
The Wake County School Superintendent indicated that maintenance of traffic on-site during the
construction period is preferable.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Structure $ 343,200 $ 343,200 $ 264,000
Roadway Approaches 82,000 311,200 675,160
Detour and Structure Approaches 349,200 0 0
Structure Removal 20,600 20,600 15,840
Engineering and Contingencies 130,000 100,000 145,000
Right-of-way and Construction Easements 36,300 27,900 61,900
Total $ 961,300 S 802,900 $ 1,161,900
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 289 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2, with
anew structure having a length of approximately 34 meters (110 feet). Improvements to the existing
approaches will be necessary for a distance of about 60 meters (200 feet) in each direction from the
bridge. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternative.
A 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width with 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders, of which 1.2 meters (4 feet)
will be paved, on each side will be provided on the approaches (see Figure 4). A 12-meter (40-foot)
clear width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the current North
Carolina Department of Transportation Bridge Policy. SR 1152 is classified as an urban minor
arterial; therefore, criteria for an urban minor arterial 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 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour).
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic on-site with a temporary detour is necessary.
Otherwise, traffic will have to be detoured along existing secondary roads. This detour route is
considered unacceptable due to traffic volumes using SR 1152 and the excessive length of additional
travel required.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length of
approximately 34 meters (110 feet). The bridge will have a 0.3% minimum slope in order to facilitate
drainage. The elevation of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge
so that there will be no increase to the existing 100-year floodplain elevation. The length and height
of the new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by further hydrologic studies.
4
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on October 21, 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.
Floodplain Hardwood Forest:
This plant community (Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest Type) is adjacent to Swift Creek.
The canopy is composed of river birch (Betula nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraci/hua),
American elm (Ubnus americana), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), swamp chestnut oak
(Quercus michauxii), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). The sub-canopy include the canopy
species plus ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), red mulberry (Mores rubra), flowering dogwood
(Corpus florida), paw-paw (Asimina triloba), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). The
shrub/sapling layer is composed of downy arrowwood (Viburnum raftnesquiamun), strawberry bush
(Fuonymus americanus), spicebush (Lindera benzoln), and saplings of sweetgum and American elm.
The herb/vine layer is composed of greenbrier (Smilax rolundifolia), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), cane (Arundinaria gigantea), poison ivy (Toxicodendrop radicans), bracken fern
(Pleridium aquilinum), and wild geranium (Geranium maculatum).
Urban/Disturbed:
This community classification includes disturbed ditched and roadside margins in the vicinity of the
project. This area is characterized primarily by invasive grasses and herbs including: trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), fescue grass (Festuca spp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lopicera japonica), coral
honeysuckle (Lopicera sempervirens), bracken fern, poison ivy, liverleaf (Hepatica americana), mint
(Glecoma hederacea), clover (Trifolium spp.), mouse-ear chickweed (Cerastiwn vulgatum), grape
(Vitis spp.), greenbrier, wild garlic (Allium vineale), and dandelion (Taraxacian offrcipale). The
shrub/sapling layer is sparse and composed of strawberry bush (Erionymtis americatrus) and
sweetgum.
Wildlife (General)
Terrestrial:
The project area consists of primarily roadside urban/disturbed and forested areas. The forested areas
provide cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species nearby the project area. The
forested areas adjacent to Swift Creek and associated ecotones serve as valuable habitat. The forest
bordering Swift Creek has all the necessary components (food, water, protective cover) for mammals,
birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.) were noted for the following species of
mammals including Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and raccoon (Procyoii lotor). Mammals
likely to inhabit the area include eastern mole (Scalopus aqualicus), striped skunk (Mephitis
mephitis), mice (Peromyscus spp.) and deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
The observed bird species are typical of rural piedmont setting where a patchwork of habitat types
are available. Species encountered in the forested areas and nearby Swift Creek include Carolina
wren (Thryothorus ludoviciamis), Carolina chickadee (Pares cai-olinensis), common grackle
(Quiscahis quiscula) and common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos).
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake (77winnophis
sirtalis), Carolina anole (Aeolis carolinensis), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and Fowler's
Toad (Bufo ivoodhousei).
Aquatic:
Swift Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for recreational fishing.
Aquatic invertebrates observed included whirligig beetles (Gyrieus spp.) and mayflies
(Ephemeroptera). A number of fish observed in the creek included the eastern mosquitofish
(Gambusia holbrooki), sunfish (Lepomis spp.) and shiners (Notropis spp.).
The creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for amphibians and
aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophthaheus viridescens), northern dusky salamander
(Desmognalhus ftiscus), frogs (Rana spp.), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), corn snake
(Elaphe gultata) and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon).
Physical Resources
Soil
Wake County is located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Topography is characterized
by rolling and hilly relief, resulting in moderate to rapid drainage. Elevations in the immediate project
area range from 91 meters (300 feet) along the creek bottom to 94 meters (310 feet) along the
roadside.
6
The county is underlain by intact metamorphic, igneous and sedimentary rocks that underlie the soil
deposits and weathered rock in Wake County. Local changes in subsurface geology are common,
and large, homogeneous masses of a single rock type are rare.
Soils in the project vicinity are dominated by the presence of Chewacla and Wehadkee silt loam soils
in the floodplain and along the creek. Chewacla and Wehadkee soils are poorly drained and
frequently flooded. Chewacla and Wehadkee soils have map units that are hydric soils or have hydric
soils as a major component.
Water
Bridge No. 289 crosses Swift Creek approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) downstream from its origin
near US 1/64 in Cary, North Carolina. Swift Creek flows east into Lakes Wheeler and Benson and
then drains into the Neuse River near Smithfield, North Carolina. Swift Creek and subsequent
receptor systems are part of the Neuse 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).
Swift Creek is Class WS-III NSW stream, indicating waters protected as water supplies which are
generally in low to moderately developed watersheds, and a supplemental classification for nutrient
sensitive waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas, Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), WS I or WS II Waters occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project site.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) reports one discharger (Apex Wastewater Treatment Plant) within four
miles upstream of the proposed crossing.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates. Certain organisms
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality. Good water quality is associated with high taxa
richness (the number of different types of organisms) and the presence of many intolerant species.
Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a community
structure quite different from that in an unstressed waterbody. BMAN data are available within Swift
Creek approximately 6.4 kilometers (2 miles) upstream of the project area near the Hemlock Bluffs
natural area (March 1989), and the bioclassification rating was Good/Fair.
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of Swift Creek observed in the vicinity of the proposed
bridge replacement project.
7
TABLE 1
Stream Characteristics and Ecological Classifications
Characteristic Description
Substrate Sand, gravel
Current Flow Slow
Channel Width 6 meters (20 feet)
Water Depth 30 centimeters (1 foot) to 61 centimeters (2 feet)
Water Color Clear
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation River birch, sweetgum, American elm, bitternut
hickory, swamp chestnut oak, green ash
Wetlands Palustrine Forested
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetland
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 0.20 hectares (0.50 acres) of Palustrine forested broad-leaved
deciduous wetlands (see Cowardin et al. 1979) will be impacted (filled) by the construction of the
recommended alternative. Field observations indicated that an intermittently flooded wetland exists
along both sides of the existing 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 Wake County as of March 28, 1995.

TABLE 2
Federaliv Protected Species in Wake Count
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus E
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidotta heterodon E
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
Brief descriptions of each species characteristics, habitat requirements, and relationship to the
proposed project are discussed below.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
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 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 bald eagle.
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 palustris) is most commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement 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 Red-cockaded woodpecker.
9
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
Status: E
Family: Unionidae
Listed: 4/13/90
The dwarf wedge mussel formerly ranged from the Petitcodiac River, Canada to the Neuse River,
North Carolina. In North Carolina populations are found in Middle Creek and Little River of the
Neuse River Basin and in the upper Tar River and Cedar, Crooked, and Stoney Creeks of the Tar
River system. This mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants and requires
a stable silt free streambed with well oxygenated water to survive.
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel ranging in size from 2.5 centimeters to 3.8 centimeters in
length. It's shell is distinguishable by two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half, The
periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish
to silvery white.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
An initial mussel survey conducted 30 meters (100 feet) above and 100 meters (328 feet) below the
proposed project alignment revealed evidence of the Asian clam (Corhicula f inninea), and shell
evidence of eastern ellipito (Elliptio coniplanala), and other mussel fauna including an old specimen
of a mussel identified as squawfoot (Sirophitus undulates), a North Carolina Threatened species.
Therefore, results of the mussel survey revealed evidence of native mussel species occurring in this
section of Swift Creek. Also, a review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database
revealed a record (May 5, 1994) for the Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiala), a North Carolina
Special Concern Species, approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) upstream of the subject project study
area in Lynn Branch.
Because of the rich bi-valve fauna in this reach of Swift Creek, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation conducted additional in-stream surveys for mussels to confirm/dispute the presence
of the dwarf wedge mussel. NCDOT biologist Tim Savidge conducted mussel surveys near the
project crossing for the subject species on August 31, 1995. Survey methodology included visual and
tactile searching by wading in the stream.
10
The federally endangered dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonla heterodmi) (DWM) is listed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service for Wake County and is known to inhabit Swift Creek several miles
downstream of the project area. Two man-made lakes (Lake Wheeler and Lake Benson) occur within
this stretch. The proposed project impacts Swift Creek, but there is no threat to the downstream
DWM population from the proposed action. A total of 13 common elliptio mussels (Elliptio sp.)
were found. The absence of small individuals and the apparent water quality depredation, suggests
that this population is no longer viable. The introduced Asian clam (Corbicula fluurinea) was found
to be common.
The survey results indicate that the DWM is not present in this stretch of Swift Creek. It can be
concluded that construction of this project will have no impact on the dwarf-wedge mussel.
Michaux's sumac (Rhos michauxii)
Status: E
Family: Anacardiacene
Listed: 9/28/89
Michaux's sumac was known historically from the inner coastal plain and lower piedmont of North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Thirty-five populations have been reported in North Carolina.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent on some sort of disturbance to
maintain the openness of its habitat. It grows only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight and
it does not compete well with other species such as Japanese honeysuckle. The North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program has a record for Michaux's sumac approximately eight miles from the
subject project study area.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows 0.2 to 1.0 meters in height.
The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile, oblong to oblong-lanceolate leaflets
that are each 4 to 9 centimeters long, 2 to 5 centimeters wide, acute and acuminate. It bears small
flowers in a terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which
develop from August to September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to
6 millimeters across.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The disturbed roadside margins along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant by
plant surveys along the roadsides were conducted on October 21, 1994. No plants were observed.
It can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this species.
11
Federal Candidate Species:
There are nine C2 federal candidate species listed for Wake County. The North Carolina status of
these species is listed in Table 3.
TABLE 3
Federal Candidate Species for Wake County
Common Name Scientific Name Suitable NC
Habitat Status
Southcastem bat tllyotis austroriparius Yes SC
Bachman's sparrow Ai nophila aestivalis Yes SC
Neuse slabshcll Elliptio judithae Yes E
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata Yes T
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Yes T
Green floater Lasmigona subviridis Yes E
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diona Yes SC
S%vect pinesap hlonotropsis odorata No C
Carolina Trillium Trillium nusilhun var. pusillunr No E
NC Status: SC, E, T and C denote Special Concern, Endangered, Threatened,
Candidate, respectively.
Candidate 2 (C2) species arc defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but
for which there is not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. These species are mentioned here for information
purposes, should they become federally protected in the future. Specific surveys for any of these
species were not conducted, nor were these species observed during the site visit.
State Protected 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.).
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records indicate no known populations of the state listed
species occurring within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project site.
Impacts
Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system present in the
study area. It should be noted that estimated impacts were derived using the entire proposed right-of-
way. Project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way and therefore actual impacts
may be less. Table 4 summarizes potential plant community impacts which could result from the
proposed bridge replacement.
12

TABLE 4
Impacts to Plant Communities for Alternative 1 in Hectares (Acres
Plant Communities Permanent Impact Temporary Impact
Floodplain Hardwood Forest 0.13 (0.33) 0.20 (0.50)
Urban/Disturbed 0.09 (0.23) 0.08 (0.20)
TOTAL 0.22 (0.56) 0.28 (0.70)
Notes Parnanent Impacts based on a 24-meter (80-meter) corridor of the alignment. Temporary
Impacts are based on an 18-meter (60-foot) condor of the alignment.
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacement are restricted to narrow strips adjacent
to the existing bridge and roadway segments. The Swift Creek Bluffs natural area abuts SR 1152
west of the existing bridge. The Swift Creek Bottomland natural area abuts SR 1152 east of the
existing bridge. The Swift Creek Bluffs natural area is classified by the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program as a Statewide significant site, while the Swift Creek Bottomland area is classified
as a Local significant site. Construction activities shall be contained within the existing right-of-way
on the west side of the bridge, to the maximum extent practical.The recommended temporary on-site
detour structure will be located to the east of the existing bridge, to minimize impacts to the Swift
Creek Bluffs natural area.
The proposed action will result in loss or displacement of known terrestrial plant or animal habitat.
Habitat affected by the proposed action include Urban/Disturbed and Hardwood Forested areas. The
Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by opportunistic plant species such as greenbrier and Japanese
honeysuckle and mobile species such as rodents, lizards and snakes that can recover quickly from
construction impacts. The hardwood forest areas bordering Swift Creek will receive disturbances
next to the existing bridge area. Swift Creek should continue to provide adequate habitat areas for
mammals, reptiles and birds.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will utilize the best management practices for the
proposed action to limit affects on the aquatic ecosystem. The disturbance of the creek bed and
sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life (fish, mollusks, and benthic invertebrates) both
at the project site as well as down stream reaches.
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities, which may
increase sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts will be minimized by the use of best management
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.
13
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a permit
will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters
of the United States". Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that
this project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit
authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically
excluded" from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions
which neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However, final
permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. Erosion and sedimentation
control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to minimize unnecessary
impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management Practices will also be implemented. Fill
material from the temporary detour within the floodplain will be removed and the area restored, to
the extent reasonably possible, to promote the regeneration of the pre-construction conditions.
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 impacts.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land
use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely
affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
14
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easements from any land protected
under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a
federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment. The project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(0 of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation provided
documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office. There are no structures over fifty years of age in the Area of Potential Effect (APE), depicted
in Figure 2. Correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Officer (see Appendix) indicates
that no National Register-listed or eligible properties are located within the area of potential effect.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to architectural resources, is
required.
David Brook, the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer in response to a scoping letter about
Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects (fifteen bridges), (CH 95-E-4220-0305), responded in a
memorandum dated December 19, 1994 that:
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 recorded 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.
When available, design plans will be forwarded to the NCSHPO for continued review of potential
impacts to unrecorded archaeological sites which may be located within the proposed projects area
of potential effect.
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. With the exception of the
construction of a temporary detour, 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.
15
This project is located in Wake County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham nonattainment area for
ozone (03) and carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the Environmental Protection agency (EPA).
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as "moderate" nonattainment
areas for 03 and CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as
"maintenance" for 03 on June 17, 1994, and "maintenance" for CO on September 18, 1995. Section
176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent
of the state air quality implementation plan (S.I.P.) The current S.I.P. does not contain any
transportation control measures for Wake County. The Capital Area 1995 Transportation
Improvement Program (T.I.P.) has been determined to conform to the intent of the S.I.P. The
Metropolitan Planning Organization (M.P.O.) approval date for the T.I.P. is July 20, 1995. The
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) approval date of the T.I.P. is October 4,
1995. The current conformity determination is consistent with the final comformity rule found in 40
CFR Part 51. There have been no substantial changes in the project's design concept or scope, as
used in the conformity analyses.
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.
Wake County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The approximate
100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 6. The amount of floodplain area to be
affected is not substantial.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result
in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
In the vicinity of the project, there are no structures located within the limits of the 100-year
floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.
16
APPENDIX

nsr
Apex

50
IP ( ?
'[V n f 6:./Firs _
(r.(ngle $r UrH ,' F Q
• 1 r ' 10 IP
??' 2 Ntusc RoftsriUC ??
*F 01 Crc ha 9 601 Q
V l?-
Rr LO
u u A (?? waMelitl t
i MdlO?oo?A lucid l¢M s
McCult'e s
iw,llow Sp?nx
.oYer Vume
?® ?? 55 ?.
?# ®
t?lgn
64
E n
D
l
Ion
((
eele0 61P
1, ale Rock 1 e, 4
Apo J'
t Garner ?
FYti]
r A.bwryl
87
Y
4

0
0
0
0
4
0
i
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONh1ENTAL
BRANCH
er N'
Wake County
SR-1152 over Swift Creek
Bridge #289
B-2871
FIGURE 1

MlTmll?

i i? 5 r Ii .
SIDE VIEW
NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH

o
z
uU
2 LL)
z
6. >-
U
L!j
¢
j
O

0

? 00
I CA
OQu.
j ONz?
U I- , 00
cn
CL cn 3ozz- .4 o Gq
a ??-z? 3 N w

°zo c
V)

L

J
z z
O p
U
U
w
N W
cq

U
Z vLLJ C14vv
Q Lo c
`
a. X CL O o N N
cv
Q W Q CC O. M'' .-n
J
U J N
U R
CL a

F- ?

--? J
C N ^
? L
3
O
?
X O

Q
•
cn a CL
s v
o
:
3 L
N O
t

ca D
J a F-
II II II
Y J LL I-

w

c:.
o
?
F' d
r z
.? w
? N Z
d
?
¢
a
w

U
oax ?' 45
o
a p ON
-
.-. U
; x
U O c
tj> c?'o N
() ,
x a. z U o W

E ' o?Z?? 3Noa
r.
v zE-nn.w
N V)
? ?rf,r
?i
(
V
U
°
M
N Ci
F-
V)
Z
0
Z
0

U
W ?
H
..
o _ Q 0 O
' u
C
4
E N
?D u
U_
a a. a
0 L) > > >
? o 0 0
o00
M m
O F- N V
i
-o
0
?
Cz,
? •--N
v

V COO
N
v co
>
00
00
C\
-
C\ CN
Q O

y ~ ~
N
0
r•?
H
U

w

C7
w
Wake County
Town of Cary ? SR-1152 over Swift Creek
Bridge #289
trat ,r-ritorial Jurisdiction- ----i- Q B-2871
370238
LL Wake County
Z u, -'
ZONE X Y ;th Unincorporated Areas
?t.
370368
? ;"=ZONEX??.
1F .? ZONE X
t it4
'?•tl ar t ? v r ' e??i ifs" ?`:r r+,?t^k +'?`jr ? ??' ??'lK
1 s
elf"t?1?4 + ?' ..

ZONE

100 YEAR FLOOD LIMIT

ZONE
1
A
• fa
.
1
r
r 1
t j . 4
3
ZONE X
4i ? e 1
BRIDGE NO. 289
ZONE
SCALE: V=400'
FIGURE 6
1 1 ?
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
November 8, 1994
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
U
Q
PRIDE IN===O===
AMERICA

z• /V0
V
99?
n Vi i,,
r?`??'MCrrtPL?'?
This is in response to your letter of November 2, 1994
requesting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) comments on
15 proposed bridge replacements in various eastern counties in
North Carolina. These comments are provided in accordance with
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The Federally endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas) occurs in Moore County. Our records indicate
that one of the five populations is documented from below dam
at Highfalls, to the start of the reservoir near the railroad
crossing of Deep River northeast of Glendon, Moore County. A
second population occurs from the Deep River in Coleridge,
Randolph County to the start of the reservoir above Highfalls,
Moore County. As such, it appears that the Cape Fear shiner
may occur in the area of the SR 1456, bridge #82, over Deep
River, Moore County.
The endangered dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
occurs in Nash, Granville, and Wake Counties, and may
potentially occur in Fishing Creek in Granville County where SR
1609, Bridge #14 replacement is proposed, and in Swift Creek in
Wake County where SR. 1152, bridge #289 replacement is
identified.
The Tar Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) occurs in Nash
County with documented populations in Sandy Creek, Swift Creek,
and the Tar River below US-64 Alt. bridge.

For bridge replacements proposed in counties where Federally-
listed aquatic species are known to occur, the Service
recommends that instream construction activities be avoided.
In the event that such activities must occur, the following
conditions must be adopted to avoid adverse impacts to the
above-referenced species:
1) Immediately before construction is to occur a qualified
individual should survey for the Cape Fear shiner, the
Tar spinymussel and dwarf wedge mussels within the
project impact area, and 150 feet downstream of the
impact area. If either of the endangered mussels are
found, the Service and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) shall be contacted and a
relocation plan must be developed and approved by the
Service.
2) Regardless of whether the endangered mussels or the Cape
Fear shiner are discovered during your survey, we
recommend the use of instream silt curtains and
stringent bank erosion control. If trees must be
removed, we recommend that stumps and roots be left
intact for bank stabilization.
3) High Quality Waters Erosion guidelines will be
followed throughout construction.
4) Early permanent seeding of disturbed areas shall
occur.
5) The existing bridge structure will be removed so
as not to allow debris to enter the stream.
6) Stormwater from the new bridge shall be directed
over land rather than drained directly into the
stream.
7) All piles shall be driven and not drilled.
8) Immediately before construction is to begin, the
contractor shall contact the Service and NCWRC for
notification (due to possible changes in stream
conditions).
The following is a list of individuals whom the Service and the
NCWRC believe are qualified to conduct freshwater mussel
surveys:
1) Dr. Art Bogan [phone]
2) Dr. Eugene Keferl [phone]
3) Dr. Dave Michaelson [phone]
4) Dr. Dick Neves [phone]
5) Dr. Phil Stevenson [phone]
1
6) Dr. David Stansbery [phone]
7) Dr. Dave Strayer [phone]
We encourage the NCDOT to continue an informal consultation
dialogue with this office since instream work is generally
considered by the Service to cause adverse impacts to
freshwater mussels and fish. However, as you proceed with your
environmental planning process and more details are available,
the Service is available to have additional site specific
resource discussions.
If it is determined through your environmental analysis that
the proposed action "may affect" a Federally-listed species,
then formal consultation is required. If it is concluded that
"adverse effects" are not likely, the Service should review the
assessment and provide written concurrence with the
determination. We refer you to the Interagency Cooperation
Regulations (50 CFR 402) and the Act for Section 7 consultation
requirements.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and provide these
comments in the early stages of your environmental planning
process. If you have any questions please contact Ms. Candace
Martino at [phone] ext. 30.
Sincerely,
010i -
David Horning
Endangered Species Coordinator

JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
TO:
?. -"I T'7:DN :

a . SU1F
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
.'.ear:.

R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
?!lYl_
i 'D
The =e(:e--ai_?,` --!Q . a-..? ?C:A t. vvCa__-4: ?d(:P ji U:=-=!.e - l•A• '?• ` r?'i-1 _:3
1S a!: :.
i . + .fir 't?'urP !i .1'.e : _
Sii•:-it LrCe::. t
r _ 3 ii oi t ti - Tom! .L :X :;ca i .° i• .: L 11:
r
7 1 7-
- -t!_eat - - -==-= ?- 'ice'
F, ?Ur'i- Lj-.= !'_.__.___.
!'t;?eC ?rOS Sln' :.: :VC J' r' _ __`-'C" --
- r?IiC 1..- ?:•t( -, r ?__°_::T:. y _ -r C+=
_ptic M11-1_sels _il-._?: _f f:cunci.
_. _ - ,
J:lt'3_ 1 . i 1' v?.:u'al-J ?i!l-1 _:1C :.J': •= ?•^11 %: ?'?. _ ?.. q '.A _l_1.
3UC:Ce The
_nrrOdL''_ed ?G1ar1 __wir: t^ :r; ilia *ytarii-!eal r•i1? fc:unccii
Boric tr to
?c
27010GICAL CCrIC? =OI' . ff _
y,., he survey restiits ;na_c :te rh&-- tlL!e DY^T.! is no? -re3ent
_n thls stret-,-h of -wilt Creek. It can IDe coi lude(d h, at
construction of this taro sect will have no imrnact of the
dwarf-wedge mussel.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D, Unit Head Environmental Unit
Hal Bain, E'nvircnr,ental Supervisor
71i1e: B-2871

V.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Parks & Recreation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Dr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director
October 4, 1995
Mr. David B. Hoff
MA Engineering Consultants, Inc.
4600 New Bern Ave., Suite 106
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Dear Mr. Hoff:
h) M (?al 172, 0 W [E
i It`11 ,?,
As we discussed in late August, it is my opinion that the replacement of the SR 1152 Bridge
No. 289 over Swift Creek will not have serious impacts on the Swift Creek natural area as
long as construction activities are contained within the existing right-of-way, or are located
to the east of the existing bridge.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Linda P. Pearsall, Head
Natural Heritage Program
LPP/gsr
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal OpportunayA(firmativo Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
r

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 ? CQ??
FROM. Renee Gledhill-EarleyP,
Environmental Revie oordinator
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-1530(1), Replace Bridge No.
f 13 on SR 1530 over Haw River
Brunswick County, B-2807, Federal Aid BRSTP-904(2), Replace Bridge No.
27 on NC 904 over Scippio Swamp
Cumberland County, B-2819, Federal Aid BRSTP-13(3), Replace Bridge No.
37 on US 13 over South River
Granville County, B-2828, Federal Aid BRZ-1609(1), Replace Bridge No. 14
on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek
Greene County, B-2830, Federal Aid BRSTP-123(1), Replace Bridge No. 123
on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek
More County, B-2849, Federal Aid, BRZ-1456(3), Replace Bridge No. 82 on
SR 1456 over Deep River
Nash County, B-2850, Federal Aid BRZ-1003(13), Replace Bridge No. 2 on
SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek
New Hanover County, B-2595, Federal Aid BRSTP-1100(5), Replace Bridge
No. 15 on SR 1100 over Barnards Creek
109 East Jones Street • Ralci,h. North Carolina 27601-2S07 v
'0-V, *,-
Barbara Church
February 21, 1995, Page 2
Orange County, B-2852, Federal Aid BRSTP-1734(2), Replace Bridge No.
109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek
Richmond County, B-1336, Federal Aid BRSTP-6491(2), Replace Bridge No.
37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek
Robeson County, B-2860, Federal Aid BRSTP-21 1(1), Replace Bridge No. 45
on NC 211 over Raft Swamp
Robeson County, B-2863, Federal Aid BRZ-1935(1), Replace Bridge No. 61
on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp
Scotland County, B-2866, Federal Aid BRSTP-1433(1), Replace Bridge No.
32 on SR 1433 over Lumber River
Wake County, B-2871, Federal Aid BRSTP-1152(2), Replace Bride No. 289
on SR 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
. " I r- .
TIP # ?2a7 l
Federal Aid # MSrP- 11r72(2) County WAKE
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
V-E-F Ic- t zv_ 1?#- Uq vk) 5e 1152 oyEy- `301Fr Uar-y-
On J A,oux i,2L , ?l1 S , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highwav Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of therrr-is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed
S,J^
Representative, NCDOT Date
FHwA, fie i ision Administrator, or other Federal Agency D to
?W -?
Representative, _S 11P0 Date
r_
)awlt, 0-- Z /6
State Historic Preservation Officer 1 Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.