19950975 Ver 1_Complete File_19950911

2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Gordon
Cashin at [phone].
M STATE
-7_?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkkNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JP, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
September 7, 1995
i'C?L?QU
VP I 1 1995
• INETL.AiUDS ?;?..
Wilt Ek Lltlal_i
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Wake County, Replacement of Bridge No. 25 over Swift Creek on NC 50
TIP No. B-2870, State Project No. 8.140280 1, Federal Aid Project No.
BRSTP-50(l ).
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. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division
of Environmental Management, for their review.
21 ?#,
7
?
,

It ?
r y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
September 7, 1995
95q-75
R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
SECRETARY
SFP 1 l 19,95
WETLANDS G:,.
'H'ATER [1/ 1-1 I .`
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Wake County, Replacement of Bridge No. 25 over Swift Creek on NC 50
TIP No. B-2870, State Project No. 8.1402801, Federal Aid Project No.
BRSTP-50(1).
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. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division
of Environmental Management, for their review.

. ? r

2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Gordon
Cashin at [phone].
Sincerely, _
. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/gec
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
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Richard W. Fedora, PE, Project Planning Engineer

NC 50
Wake County
Bridge No. 25
Over Swift Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-50(1)
State Project No. 8.1402801
T.I.P. No. B-2870
R
1
i
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMMSTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
, ? 28-95
Dat? H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
rPlannin¢.and Environmental Branch
Date, Nicholas L Graf, P. t., Division Administrator
W Federal Highway Administration
NC 50
Wake County
Bridge No. 25
Over Swift Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-50(1)
State Project No. 8.1402801
T.I.P. No. B-2870
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
June 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Richard W. Fedora, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
W ct h Q.
Wayne lliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
k? Wot '••
FESSroN9.9 ••,;
SEAL _
20642 c
N61 NE?a''? ??•
NC 50
Wake County
Bridge No. 25
Over Swift Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-50(1)
State Project No. 8.1402801
T.I.P. No. B-2870
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
Bridge No. 25 in Wake County. It crosses over Swift Creek just below Lake Benson (Figure
1). NCDOT includes this bridge in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) as a bridge replacement project. NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) classify this project as a Federal Categorical Exclusion. These agencies expect no
significant environmental impacts.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 25 on new location as shown in Alternate 1, Figure 2.
NCDOT recommends replacing the existing bridge with a bridge approximately 50 meters
(164 feet) long with a 12.1-meter (40-foot) width. The structure will provide two 3.6-meter
(12-foot) lanes plus a 2.4-meter (8-foot) offset on each side. The project will require
approximately 560 meters (1,840 feet) of new approach roadway. The new roadway
approaches will have a 7.2-meter (24-foot) wide travelway plus 2.4-meter (8-foot) useable
shoulders, 1.2 meters (4 feet) of which will be paved. The grade of the new bridge will be
approximately 0.6 meter (2 feet) higher than the existing bridge. The completed project will
provide a design speed of approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
The estimated cost is $1,104,000. The estimated cost shown in the 1996-2002 TIP is
$1,105,000.
H. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not expect any design exceptions for this project.
III. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
High Quality Waters Erosion Control guidelines will be followed throughout
construction.
2. Existing piles will be cut down to the substrate. The approaches to the
existing abutments will be cut back to a 2:1 slope and re-seeded.
3. The existing structure will be removed so as not to allow debris to enter the
stream
4. Rock fill will be used for the fill section at each end of the new bridge.
5. If possible, steel piles will be used for the new bridge. A temporary bridge will
be constructed to drive these. The piles for the temporary bridge will be cut
down to the substrate after removing the temporary bridge.
6. All disturbed areas will be re-vegetated as early as possible. Herbicides and
pesticides will not be used.
7. Silt curtains will be used when cutting existing piles and abutments.
8. Stormwater from the new bridge will be directed over land rather than drained
directly into the stream.
9. No work will be allowed in the stream from 1 December to 31 March.
10. A final survey for dwarf-wedge mussel will be conducted before construction
begins. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be notified of the results.
11. The USFWS and NCWRC will be given an opportunity to review the plans
before construction begins. Immediately before construction begins, the
contractor will contact both agencies to notify each of the initiation date.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit No. 23.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NCDOT classifies NC 50 as a Principal Arterial in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
Near Bridge No. 25, NC 50 is a two lane paved road, 7.3 meters (24 feet) wide with
1.8-meter (6-foot) shoulders. Vertical and horizontal alignment in the area are fair. The deck
of Bridge No. 25 is 6.1 meters (20 feet) above the stream bed. Water depth is approximately
0.6 meter (2 feet) in the project area.
NCDOT built Bridge No. 25 in 1940. It has a reinforced concrete floor on continuous
I-beams. It has timber piles and reinforced concrete caps (Figure 3). It is 53.6 meters (176
feet) long with a 7.9-meter (26-foot) roadway width. It carries two lanes of traffic and the
posted load limits are 19 metric tons (21 tons) for single vehicles and 22 metric tons (24 tons)
for Truck-tractor Semi-Trailers (TTST).
According to Bridge Maintenance Department records, the sufficiency rating of Bridge
No. 25 is 7.0 of a possible 100.0 with an estimated remaining life of six years.
The current traffic volume is 7,100 VPD, projected to 15,500 VPD for 2017. Truck
percentages are 2% TTST and 3% dual-tired vehicles. Speed limit in the area is 80 km/h (50
mph).
Traffic Engineering records indicate two accidents occurred in the vicinity of Bridge
No. 25 between 1 January 1991 and 30 November 1993. The accident rate during this period
was 21.3 acc/100 MVM. This compares to a statewide average of 195.5 acc/100 MVM on
similar roads during a period from 1991 through 1993.
The Transportation Director for Wake County Schools indicated there are 12 school
bus crossings daily (six buses crossing in the morning and afternoon).
V. ALTERNATES
There are two build alternates for replacing Bridge No. 25 (Figure 2):
Alternate 1 (Recommended) will replace the bridge on new location approximately
15 meters (50 feet) downstream of the existing bridge (see Figure 2). The replacement
structure will be a bridge approximately 50 meters (164 feet) long with a 12.1-meter (40-foot)
width. The structure will provide two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes plus a 2.4-meter (8-foot)
offset on each side. This alternate will require approximately 560 meters (1,840 feet) of new
approach roadway. The new roadway approaches will have a 7.2-meter (24-foot) wide
travelway plus 2.4-meter (8-foot) useable shoulders, 1.2 meters (4 feet) of which will be
paved. The grade of the new bridge will be approximately 0.6 meter (2 feet) higher than the
existing bridge. The design speed will be approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
Alternate 2 would replace the bridge at the existing location. The replacement
structure would be a bridge approximately 75 meters (245 feet) long with a 12.1-meter (40-
foot) width. The structure would provide two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes plus a 2.4-meter (8-
foot) offset on each side. The design speed for this alternate would be approximately 100
km/h (60 mph). Traffic would be maintained on a temporary on-site detour during
construction. The detour structure would be a bridge approximately 28 meters (90 feet) long
and downstream of the existing bridge (see Figure 2). The detour alignment would be
approximately 366 meters (1,200 feet) long.
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical. The bridge would continue deteriorating
until unusable. This would require the closing of the road, or continued intensive
maintenance.
VI. COST ESTIMATES
TABLE 1 shows the estimated costs and component costs of the alternates.
TABLE 1. COST ESTIMATES
COMPONENT ALTERNATE I
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATE 2
BRIDGE $367,400 $548,800
BRIDGE REMOVAL 29,600 29,600
TEMPORARY DETOUR
(STRUCTURE AND
APPROACHES --------- 388,400
ROADWAY AND
APPROACHES 493,000 119,200
ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES 135,000 165,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $1,025,000 $1,251,000
RIGHT OF WAY $79,000 $33,000
TOTAL $1,104,000 1,284,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 25 on new location approximately 15 meters (50
feet) downstream of the existing bridge as shown in Alternate 1, Figure 2. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 25 with a bridge approximately 50 meters (164 feet)
long with a 12.1-meter (40-foot) width. The structure will provide two 3.6-meter (12-foot)
lanes plus a 2.4-meter (8-foot) offset on each side.
The recommended bridge on new alignment will be shorter than a bridge on existing
location because the channel is much narrower downstream than at the existing crossing.
The bridge should be designed with provisions for future widening. This will allow for
easier improvements if future traffic requires more than two lanes.
The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 100 km/h (60
mph). It will require approximately 560 meters (1,840 feet) of new approach roadway. The
new roadway approaches will have a 7.2-meter (24-foot) wide travelway plus 2.4-meter (8-
foot) useable shoulders, 1.2 meters (4 feet) of which will be paved. The grade of the new
bridge will be approximately 0.6 meter (2 feet) higher than the existing bridge.
NCDOT recommends Alternate 1 because it will cost less than Alternate 2 and allow
traffic to maintained on the existing bridge during construction. This will be more familiar to
drivers than a temporary detour alignment.
The division engineer concurs with the Alternate 1 recommendation.
Construction of Alternate 1 will not increase the 100-year flood elevation by more
than 30 centimeters (12 inches). Figure 4 shows the 100-year flood boundaries. Construction
of Alternate 1 will not place significant amounts of fill in the floodplain area.
VIII. NATURAL SYSTEMS CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS
A. Overview
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from the
following sources: North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) water
quality classification (Meuse River Basin), DEM Point Source Discharge Report for the Neuse
River, DEM Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) survey for the Neuse
River, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Garner, N.C.), Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species and North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NC-NHP) data base of uncommon and protected species and unique habitats and
aerial photography (scale 1:1200) finished by the NCDOT.
A contract biologist for NCDOT conducted field surveys along the proposed
alternates on 23 April 1994. The biologist observed plant communities likely to be impacted
by proposed improvements for significant features. The biologist identified wildlife using a
number of observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations
(binocular), and recording identifying signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, and burrows). The
biologist conducted cursory surveys of the aquatic habitats using a long-handled triangular
sweep net and identified and released captured organisms. The bases for impact calculations
4
are 24 meters (80 feet) for the new alignment of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2--Alternative
2 impact calculations also include 18 meters (60 feet) of width for the detour alignment.
The proposed project occurs in a rural wrea of Wake County approximately 183
meters (600 feet) downstream of Lake Benson (Figures l and 2). Land use is woodlands and
urban/disturbed areas. Woodlands are concentrated along Swift Creek and adjacent to
roadside areas. Urban/disturbed areas are land adjacent to the existing bridge and road.
B. Soils and Topography
Wake County is 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 64 meters (210 feet) along the creek bottom to 76
meters (250 feet) along the roadside.
Intact metamorphic, igneous, and sedimentary rocks 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. There are several large rock
outcrops to the east of the existing bridge.
The dominant soils in the project area are fine sandy and silty clay loams
(Chewacla/Congaree Series) in the floodplain and sandy loam (Appling Series) in the upland
areas. Chewacla and Congaree soils are moderately drained and occasionally flooded.
Chewacla soils and Congaree sandy loam have map units which contain some specific soil
series that are classified as (B) soils with inclusions of hydric soils, or which have wet spots.
Appling soils are gently sloping to strongly sloping, deep, well-drained soils.
C. Biotic Communities
Four distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the project.
Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and physical
characteristics of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.).
Mixed Upland Forest is on sloping areas adjacent to NC 50 dominated by a mixture of
hardwoods and loblolly pine. The canopy contains sweetgum, tulip tree, loblolly pine, and
southern red oak. Sub-canopy trees include the canopy species plus white oak, red maple,
and winged elm, The shrub layer contains farkleberry, saplings of red maple and white oak. A
dense herb layer contains Japanese honeysuckle, greenbrier, Virginia creeper, poison ivy, and
trumpet creeper.
Alluvial Floodplain Forest is adjacent to Swift Creek and on sloping areas surrounding
Swift Creek. The canopy contains southern red oak, sycamore, river birch, red maple, and
water oak. The sub-canopy contains ironwood, red mulberry, and winged elm. The shrub
layer contains American holly and sweetgum saplings. The herb layer contains Japanese
honeysuckle, greenbriar, cane, Christmas fern, and ebony spleenwort.
The scrub-shrub community is below and adjacent to the existing bridge. Present
shrubs, vines, and grasses include silky dogwood, poison ivy, grape, and sedges. There were
areas of standing water within this habitat at the time of the survey.
The urban/disturbed community classification includes disturbed ditched and roadside
margins in the vicinity of the project. This area primarily contains invasive grasses and herbs
including: fescue grass, prickly lettuce, multiflora rose, Japanese honeysuckle, ragweed, wild
onion, dandelion, dogfennel, Carolina geranium, plantain, wild lettuce, kudzu, and little barley.
The shrub/sapling layer is sparse and composed of red cedar and sweetgum.
2. Wildlife
The project area consists of a combination of rural countryside and commercial
development. Clearing and conversion of tracts of land for agricultural, residential, and
commercial uses has eliminated much cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife
species near the project area. Even so, remaining natural plant communities in the area,
particularly the forested area, adjacent to Swift Creek, and associated ecotomes, do serve as
valuable habitat. The forest bordering Swift Creek has all the necessary components (food,
water, protective cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
The biologist noted the Virginia opossum and striped skunk by sighting or evidence
(tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.).
Observed bird species are typical of rural piedmont settings with a patchwork of
available habitat types. Species encountered in the forested areas and nearby Swift Creek
include Northern oriole, Pine warbler, and Common grackle. Species seen along the roadside
areas include Common grackle and Common Crow. The biologist observed two mallard
ducks on Lake Benson adjacent to the project area.
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake,
Carolina anole, eastern box turtle, and Fowler's toad.
Swift Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for recreational
fishing. Aquatic invertebrates include whirligig beetles. A number of small fish include
eastern mosquitofish and shiners. Other fish include largemouth bass, shad, sunfish, and
catfish.
During the field survey, the biologist observed one reptile, the yellow belly slider, on a
partially submerged log in Swift Creek. The creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable
benthic and riparian habitat for amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt,
northern dusky salamander, frogs, snapping turtle, and several snake species.
3. Biotic Community Impacts
Impacts on plant communities reflect the relative abundance of each system present in
the study area. The basis for estimated impacts is the entire proposed right of way. Project
construction often does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be
less. The following table summarizes potential plant community impacts that could result
from the project.
TABLE 2. Estimated Impacts to Plant Communities
Estimated Impact
Plant Communities Alternate 1 Alternate 2
permanent tem
porary
Mixed Upland Forest 0.70 ha 1.74 ac 0.10 ha 0.25 ac 0.21 ha 0.52 ac
Floodplain Hardwood
Forest 0.24 ha (0.60 ac) 0.04 ha (0.10 ac) 0.15 ha (0.36 ac)
Scrub-shrub 0.00 ha 0.00 ac 0.01 ha 0.03 ac 0.00 ha 0.00 ac
Urban/Disturbed 0.08 ha 0.19 ac 0.07 ha 0.18 ac 0.00 ha 0.00 ac
Total 1.02 ha 2.53 ac 0.22 ha 0.56 ac 0.36 ha 0.88 ac
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacement are to narrow strips
adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway segments. Alternative 1 would require greater
taking of plant communities. The biologist expects that neither alternate will result in
significant adverse impacts to plant communities. Bridge and approach improvements occur
primarily within disturbed right-of-way limits and mixed forest edges that currently do not
support significant communities.
The proposed action will not result in significant loss or displacement of known
terrestrial plant or animal habitat. Habitat affected by the proposed action includes
Urban/Disturbed and Hardwood Forested areas. Opportunistic plant species such as
greenbrier and Japanese honey suckle and mobile species such as rodents, lizards, and snakes
that can recover quickly from construction impacts use the Urban/Disturbed area. 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 proposed action can potentially have substantial affects on the aquatic ecosystem
unless the contractor maintains strict sediment control measures. The disturbance of the creek
bed and sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life, (fish, mollusks, and benthic
invertebrates) at the project site as well as downstream.
D. Water Resources
Bridge No. 25 crosses the middle reaches of Swift Creek approximately 183 meters
(600 feet) downstream of Lake Benson. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) has proposed the formation of a Critical Habitat area for dwarf-wedge mussel in
this part of Swift Creek. This designation would carry with it a High Quality Waters
classification as well. Swift Creek flows east 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
(DEM 1993). The current classification for Swift Creek is Class C NSW stream, indicating
suitability for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture, and a supplemental classification for nutrient sensitive waters which require
limitations on nutrient inputs.
A Critical Area (CA) occurs approximately 183 meters (600 feet) upstream of the
project site. The CA occurs from the water supply intake on Lake Benson upstream of Swift
Creek. A public water intake is near the dam of Lake Benson. The Division of Environmental
Management--National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) report lists one
source (Pope Industrial Park) 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 a high the number of different types of organisms and
the presence of many intolerant species. Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the
more sensitive species and leads to a community structure quite different from that in an
unstressed waterbody. There is no BMAN information available for the immediate project
area.
7
Swift Creek originates in northern Wake County approximately 27 kilometers
(17 miles) above Bridge No. 25. The stream is approximately 6 meters (20 feet) wide below
the existing bridge. Depth varied from approximately 30 centimeters (1 foot) to 0.6 meters
(2 feet). During field investigations, flow was slow below the bridge. Substrate is silt with
25-centimeter (10-inch) boulders scattered throughout the creek. There is a large rock
outcrop to the north and adjacent to the creek near the existing bridge.
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related
activities that may increase sedimentation and turbidity. High Quality Waters erosion control
measures will minimize impacts during construction.
Precautions must be taken to prevent construction activities from impacting the water
intake on Lake Benson located approximately 183 meters (600 feet) from the project site. No
construction activity should occur that causes backflushing of turbidity into Lake Benson.
E. Jurisdictional Issues
1. Wetlands and Surface Waters
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 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. The following table summarizes potential wetlands which will be impacted
(filled) from the proposed bridge replacement.
TABLE 3. Estimated Imnacts to Wetlands
Estimated Impact
Wetland Type Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Palustrine forested
deciduous 0.01 ha (0.03 ac) 0.04 ha (0.09 ac)
Palustrine scrub-shrub 0.00 ha 0.00 ac 0.01 ha 0.03 ac
Total 0.01 ha 0.03 ac 0.05 ha 0.12 ac
The biologist identified wetland communities 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 (12.5 percent or greater duration) of the growing season.
Section 404 impacts to wetlands will occur. A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR
330.5(A)23, for impacts to surface waters of Swift Creek, is likely to be applicable if the
NCWRC certifies that construction of this project will not adversely affect these waters.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification is also required prior to issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require compensatory
mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of the Army.
2. Federally Protected Species
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988)
protects species with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT). As of 28 March 1995, the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service lists the following federally protected species for Wake County:
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - E
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon - E
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii - E
Brief descriptions of these organisms characteristics and habitat requirements are
provided 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
Lake Benson is approximately (183 meters) 600 feet from the project area. Suitable
habitat exists surrounding Lake Benson for nest sites. There is human activity nearby the lake
including residential and commercial development which would discourage bald eagle nesting.
The biologist conducted surveys along the shore of Lake Benson on 23 April 1994 to
determine the presence or absence of this species. The biologist found no evidence of bald
eagles during the survey. Also, a review of NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no
records of this species in the project area It can be concluded that project construction will
have no impact on the bald eagle.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides realis
Status: E
Family: Picidae
Listed: 10113/70
This federally Endangered woodpecker is found in scattered locations throughout the
southeast.. Nesting habitat consists of open pine stands (minimum age 60 years) or mixed
pine/hardwood stands, (50 percent or more pine). Longleaf pine (Pim alustris 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
NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the project 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.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has proposed a
Critical Habitat Designation for Swift Creek and its tributaries from its confluence with
Middle Creek in Johnston County to Lake Benson dam in Wake County. A review of NC
Natural Heritage Program data revealed records of this species in Swift Creek downstream (in
Johnston County) of the subject project study area. As an agent of the Federal Highway
Administration, NCDOT initiated Section 7 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service
and concurred on commitments to protect the dwarf-wedge mussel in the project area (the
Appendix includes a copy of the concurrence letter dated 12 May 1995).
Michaux's sumac (Rhus 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 NC Natural Heritage Program has a record for Michaux's sumac
approximately eight miles from the subject project study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The disturbed ditched and roadside margins along the project offers suitable habitat for
this species. The biologist conducted plant by plant surveys along the roadsides on 23 April
1994. The biologist observed no plants. A review of NC Natural Heritage Program data
revealed a record of this species near Walnut Creek in Wake County. It can be concluded that
construction of this project will not impact this species.
F. Air and Noise
The project is located in Wake County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham
nonattaimnent 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 a "moderate" nonattainment area for 03 and CO. However, due to
improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as "maintenance" for 03 on 17 June
1994. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects
conform to the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does
not contain any transportation control measures for Wake County. The Capital Area 1995
10
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) has been determined to conform to the intent of
the SIP. The WO approval date for the TIP is 25 October 1994. The USDOT approval date
of the TIP is 24 February 1995. The current conformity determination is consistent with the
final conformity rules found in 40 CFR Part 51. There have been no significant changes in the
project design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analysis.
The impact on air quality will be insignificant. If the project disposes of vegetation by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of
the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and the
National Environmental Policy Act. The project requires no additional reports.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will have no
significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction.
IX. CULTURAL RESOURCES CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS
A. Land Use
1. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies, or their
representatives, to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime
and important farmland soils, as designated by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS).
Land which has been previously developed, or is planned for future urban development by the
local governing body is exempt from the requirements of the Act. The proposed bridge
replacement project is within the jurisdiction of the City of Garner. The city has the area
planned for residential development. Therefore, no further consideration of potential impacts
to farmland is required.
2. Parklands and Refuges
There is no parkland in the project area; therefore, the project will not affect any
parkland.
The City of Raleigh owns property below the Lake Benson dam up to the existing
highway right of way. The City leases the property to a private individual. This individual has
denoted the property a waterfowl refuge. This individual prohibits public access to the
property. Because the property is privately owned under terms of the lease, and because there
is no access to the whole public, this property is not a Section 4(f) property. Therefore, the
project does not require a Section 4(f) evaluation for this property.
In addition to the property not being considered 4(f), the Recommended Alternate will
be on new location farther away from the Lake Benson dam and this property. Therefore, the
project will not impact this individual's use of the property as a waterfowl refuge.
B. Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resource
In terms of historic architectural resources, the Rand Farm is within the area of
potential effect of the project. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed their
survey file for this property and believe it is not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places since it has little historical or architectural significance. There are no other
I1
properties over fifty years old in the project area. The SHPO recommends no surveys for
historical resources.
Because the recommended alternate is along a previous roadway alignment, the SHPO
recommends no archaeological investigation for the project. The Appendix includes
correspondence stating the SHPO comments.
NCDOT and FHWA conclude this project will not affect historic architectural or
archaeological resources.
C. Relocations
This project will not require the displacement of any residence or business.
X. CONCLUSION
Based on the above discussion, NCDOT and FHWA conclude that the project will
cause no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the project may be processed as a
Categorical Exclusion.
12
FIGURES
tP X
?? lP r: l ' • ......
"A U ?'•'r: ! D
FAU
?? o :•, .;FAU FAU
m -ft- 2.1 G
FAI
0'
FAU
?-V
'MATCH LINEv..
/A
o? AP lz `L
'•: :. G
\D
IO
A
Iro
..? lp0\ 1 C i .;•.•. } I'''mo ^ ?r );
0
\g ass
I.:; RAILWAY ( :'''•'• •'n?
•.? eft i , cn \ ? i::? •'??' r ?•:'::; O.. .a
JD3
Ice)
Z n / 1.8 r
x'11'1 ? s
? G•', c L.,, .....:: • ,.,;.;:: :; : FAU
F
?, (] I•?.r .. i. " .? : `? R9 CFA FA
Cl) > FA(
t"M I' f(E : - SN
-A c F
p 'Y-rj/ 10
?ATC INE P T :: a I :;., G C
is i ? r.;:::' - ?••:
4 2 +1;;: D FAIa so
5 FA5 FAU
•'`` ?:' v ?A 9R 1:: 0
06 o
O
10-
o r y O, x'p 'ate '
0 0- \T?N
1 r 1::
o p. \ ? q a ?'•. G
FAI 3.
\P S 1 `?? \?OV eO D O°v? ?v? d N U x s xs??
?a• '? - g w F C A-
°? I \° , Ck tic
o
oo ro d Z ?, ?? ?? H _l D
Fo p rr?? C + hd }'l
chi Ww (n \? Cn ocl N, n.?
C) cn
+
I y a' 0 -.
n, r? o x?y. q q ,.
r O Fi.. pf_ e" d e
00
jO O .mod `'-' \?\sr\? \ O a0
\? e
in C•,yyy `? 'b
G' Hr f j. _
%
r-o BRIDGE NO. 25
L WAKE COUNTY
B - 2870

i
J

1
SIDE VIEW
rj 111.
?? ? Ba,??rrll Brunch
(Basin 20, Stream 10)
ib 50
ZONE AE
?,
;ev
6} 1'.O C
P S 'y µr d
?? i?•? ?q i $ 1 ??-•,? ?? a Dam
BRIDGE N( 25
h
239
/ e? 1 Muhlr•ee reek
?J _ , (Basin 20, ?rream 6)
100 - YEAR FLOODPLAIN OREGON TRAIL
ZONE X
e,. a
ZONE X
ZONE X
I ? W W
Town of Garner
Q;
I 370240
n of Garner
Swift Creek 221 A
torial Jurisdiction (Basin 20, Stream
370240 P ZONE X
FIGURE 4
i, YR
APPENDIX
United States Department of the Interior
L2-;P1 1? I/
O?L
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
May 12, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleig:'., NC 27611-52.01
¦
PRIDE I??
AMERICA
¦
C E /\
O
z SAY l 51995
2 o?v?S?O,? OF
CCPI4?GHWAY.,
P t
??RG?VIN??/
SUBJECT: Bridge replacement #25 over Swift Creek, Wake County, NC;
State Project #8.1402801 Tip #B-2870
Dear Mr. Vick:
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the above-
referenced proposed bridge replacement over swift Creek, Wake
County, North Carolina. Our comments are provided in accordance
with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
We appreciate your efforts to minimize any possible impacts to the
Federally-endangered dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
that is known to occur in areas of Swift Creek. Based on adherence
to the commitments listed below, the Service believes that this
project is not likely to adversely affect the dwarf-wedge mussel.
Environmental commitments from NCDOT include the following:
1. High Quality Waters erosion guidelines will be followed
throughout construction. _
2. All disturbed areas will be revegetated as early as
.possible. Herbicides and pesticides will not be used.
3. The existing structure will be removed so as not to allow
debris to enter the stream.
4. Existing piles will be cut down to substrate. The
approaches to the existing abutments should be cut back
to 2:1 and reseeded.
5. Silt curtains will be used when cutting existing piles
and abutments.
6. Stormwater from the new bridge will be directed over land

rather than drained directly into the stream.
7. A final survey for the dwarf-wedge mussel will be
conducted prior to construction and the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be notified of the
results.
8. The Service and NCWRC will have an opportunity to review
the plans prior to construction. Immediately before
bridge construction is to begin, the contractor shall
contact both agencies for notification initiation date.
9. No construction work will be allowed in the stream
between December 1 and March 31.
10. Rock fill will be used for the fill section at each end
of the new bridge.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been
satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered
in this review; (3) a new species listed or critical habitat
determined they may be affected by the identified action.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me
at 919-856-4520 (ext. 18). Thank you for your continued
cooperation with our agency.
Sincerely,
4+ Candace Martino
Acting Supervisor
N

rS_ ZD
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Huai. Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 11, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 25 on NC 50 over Swift Creek,
Wake County, B-2870, ER 94-8033
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
C E !\
O
14 P4,
x
?2 DIVISION ?V
NrGHV?A ?F Q?
FfV. O?"v1rnS?
On January 26, 1994, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds
concerning the above project. We reported our available information on historic
architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial
photographs at the meeting and for our use afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, the following property is located within
the area of potential effect for the project:
Rand Farm (WA 344). West side of NC 50, just south of Swift Creek. The
farm was. recorded during the 1990 Wake County historic architectural
resources survey by Kelly Lally.
We have reviewed our survey site file for Rand Farm and believe this property is
not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places since it has little
historical or architectural significance. No other properties over fifty years of age
appear to be located in the area of potential effect. Thus, we recommend that no
historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
It is our understanding that the proposed bridge replacemeltt is to be located to
the east on the alignment of an earlier bridge. If this alternate is selected and no
new ground disturbance is involved in the project, no'archaeological investigation
will be necessary.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how. NCDOT
addressed our comments.
109 East Jones Street - Rakish, North Cmoliw 27601.2807

Nicholas L. Graf
March 11, 1994, Page 2
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 819/733-4763.
Sincerely,
Q,.
David Brook
_?'Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
,I
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DA [
,/
3 1 9
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
F?? c Ga?am? ?? P't
FROM: I REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Nal t\e ?a Nam _
ACTION
_
? NOT[ AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS [I FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS C1 FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

WATER
UtiLITY

JAMES li. HUNT, JR.
GOVPRNOR
STA"I-E Of= NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[WISION OF HIGI-IWAYS
P.O. 1;0X 25201. RAITIGI I. N.C. 27611-5201
1 March 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
Wayne Fedora
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT II
SrcRPIARY
Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 25 on NC 50
over Swift Creek, Wake County, B-2870
The Planning and Environmental Branch held a scoping meeting on
26 January 1994 to initiate the subject project.
The following is a list of those in attendance:
Wayne Fedora Planning and Environmental
David Cox NCWRC
Brian Williford Hydraulics
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Robin Stancil DCR-SHPO
Ray Moore Structure Design
Roland Robinson Roadway Design
Jim Wi lson Roadway Design
Sid Au try Location and Surveys
Darin Wilder Program Development
Wanda James Traffic Control
Buddy Gregg Division 5
Frank Powell City of Garner
The participants decided on two alternates for replacement: replace on
new location east of the existing alignment, and replace at existing location
with a temporary on-site detour approximately 15 meters (50 feet) to the east
of the existing centerline. The replacement structure will be a bridge
approximately 50.0 meters (164 feet) long with a 12.1-meter (40-foot) wide
travelway. The proposed roadway grade is approximately 0.6 meters (2 feet)
higher than that of the existing bridge. The detour structure would be a
bridge approximately 28.0 meters (90 feet) long.
0
I March 1994
Page 2
The Roadway Design Unit is preparing a cost estimate for each alternate.
In terms of historic architectural resources, NCDOT architectural
historians will need to survey the Rand Farm property in the project area to
determine eligibility and submit the information for review by SHPO. There
are no recorded archaeological sites in proximity to the bridge. The SHPO
requires more information before commenting on a survey for archaeological
resources.
In a meeting after the scoping meeting, Mr. Eric Galamb of the Division
of Environmental Management indicated that Swift Creek is classified as Class
C-nutrient sensitive. Normal soil erosion control methods will be required.
Mr. Galamb requested abandoned approach roadways be returned to natural grade
and re-vegetated.
Mr. Cox stated NCWRC supports a spanning structure and prefers
replacement in existing location. He recommends use of Best Management
Practices and minimizing fill if the replacement bridge is built on new
location. He also stated NCWRC would like to preserve access for anglers.
Such access presently exists, but may be eliminated if the bridge is replaced
on new location. Mr. Powell indicated the existing access is on land owned
by the City of Garner. He stated that Garner would not necessarily support
providing access due to liability and other issues. Mr. Cox indicated that
NCWRC would not likely take responsibility for maintaining such access. This
issue may be evaluated in the design phase if it is feasible in the design of
the project.
There is a forced sewer line on the east side of the project area.
Other utilities are on the west side of the project area.
Mr. Williford indicated there is evidence, including the remains of a
bridge abutment, of an earlier roadway alignment east of the existing
alignment. The relocation alternate may approximately line up with this
previously disturbed area.
The City of Raleigh owns land on each side of NC 50 in the project area.
Some of this land to the west of Bridge No. 25 is presently leased as a
waterfowl refuge. If there are project impacts to this area, Section 4(f)
involvement may apply.
According to the Geographical Information System map of the project
area, there is a Natural Heritage Point in the vicinity of the bridge, a
groundwater incident south of the bridge, a water supply intake upstream of
the bridge, and a water supply-watershed in the project area.
Right of way acquisition is scheduled for 19 April 1996, and letting is
scheduled for 15 April 1997.
WF/wp
Attachments

0
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHLET
DATE 1103 93
REVISION DATE: 03/01/94
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING:
PLANNING: X _
DESIGN:
TIP PROJECT:
F.A. PROJECT:
STATE PROJECT:
DIVISION:
COUNTY:
ROUTE:
PURPOSE:
DESCRIPTION:
('OMMEN'T'S :
B-28?0
BRSTP-50(1)
8.1402801
FIVE
WADE
NC 50
REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
NC 50. BRIDGE =25. WADE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE. OVER SWIFT CREEK
USGS QI:AI) SHEET: GAINER
ML;THOD (_-)I' RF.PLACI.;MLNT:
! . EXISTING LOCATTON - ROAD CLOSURE;
2. LX I ST l NG LOCATION - ON S I TE DETOVi,,
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHF-.R
WILL. THERE RE SPECIAL FC V' N(; PY ?1CN l C l PAf, T Tl' .
DEVELOPERS . OR ':)TLILi:S :' YL5 NO X
IF YES. BY 11 HOM AND WH:1"T AMOUNT: (S) l )
k

BRIDGE
PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 7.100 VPD; DESIGN YEAR _13,600 VPD
TTST 2 o DT 3 %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 52 Meters WIDTH 8.5 Meters
176 Feet 28 Feet
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 50 Meters WIDTH 12.1 Meters
164 Feet 39.7 Feet
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH x Meters
x Feet
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 28 Meters
90 Feet
OR
PIPE - SIZE Millimeters
Inches
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... S
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... S
FORCE, ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. S
TOTAL. COST .......................................S
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ S 650.000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ S _ ___50-1000
SUB TOTAL ........................................... $ _790n000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... S
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................S _00,000
I

9e13
Mdl
N
J
soft
e r _ MATCH Um9M
Ga
• r?E •r
off' V 0? c:/t
\o 4'0 as
mom.
i to 4Fa?
10 ?Nruee I 7 r
?[- Role7rilb I
iTr 1_ yrrshorr 9101
r.
I
IS,^ Eweeehel
illbrooe
7 r Z:flalei Word Litk9
?y4 J
enT,tdile Roceb? 9
VA r? r i/
t I ubw
II 1
r r e
e i
v
iYillow Span e
9

? .9 i
c 4 .7
FAS
7?f j? m NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
b? 7 r: o
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
9? +?' " -'p; l x PLANNING AND ENVIRONTIENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 25
ON NC 50 OVER SWIFT CREEK
WAKE COUNTY
LEGEND T. I. P. NO. B - 2870
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE 0 2km 4km FIG. 1
BRIDGE NO S
"•? G O
Cr. 4^ •••1 `?
t
s
/I
I
8
,I
n5O
j ? ?71! O
40'
O 75
I L:
048 ?
J
``?Ilf*? ? JIB i? _ ? - ?• / ??
I ? t
??(•//?Q III ,
;e Z5p Q /
O
X336
111
\\C
c= v
C
Q
x
v m \
I ? ? '?I Q
to 000 „ ? /' . z
FEET /
1
III '.Q ? l? /.:
Q
? II ? H ? •
11
it ' • ?\? . ? Q / / ? / \\1 ?
? 1• U . ? . 359 ? / ... '/O ' I ??
46
J, y NN
O I
? ... 27] l t? - i
171
200 / I
._`
3 45
-* _ I
STATE
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
December 15, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacing Bridge No. 25 on
NC 50 over Swift Creek, Wake County, B-2870
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for January 26, 1994 at 9:30 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part
If there are any questions about the meeting or
call Waynn?e Fedo qa Project Planning Engineer, at
WF/plr t4'k I? /? L
?1 f ? (,c [, ,- /?S PJ
Attachment
u
of our planning process.
the scoping sheets, please
733-3141.
7- V-3- / Z-
,h r ?
M - (C,& CV7?nt ,-- 7?)
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
6WOW
08A
1

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 11 03 93
REVISION DATE:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING:
PLANNING - X
-- -- -
D E S I G N :
TIP PROJECT: B-2870
STATE PROJECT:
F.A. PROJECT:
DIVISION: FIVE
COUNTY: WAKE
ROUTE: N(-'--5-0-
PURPOSE: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGL
DESCRIPTION: NC 50. BRIDGE t25. WADE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER SWIFT CREEK
COMMENTS:
U'SGS QUAD SHEET: GARNER
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE _
?. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION _
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL, FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY.
DEVELOPERS. OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES. BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: (S) (?)

vp
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR
TTST % DT %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 52 Meters
176 Feet
VPD
WIDTH 3.5 Meters
28 Feet
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH Meters WIDTH
Feet
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH _x Meters
x Feet
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH Meters
Feet
OR
PIPE - SIZE _ Millimeters
Inches
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... S
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
Meters
Feet
TOTAL COST ....................................... $
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 650,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ _ 50,000
SUB TOTAL ........................................... $ _ 700,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $ _
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ __"00.0.00
w

AF
.awl .
n
° I
P'o/d oki
?Ntuit
I' 1. ?Aarr? ??
1 Rolesallt I
401 •??
nook ? Lizard rd Lick E Lick l
r
aiei 64
B
lmthtd'a Rock xM n
II?fI ?
i
uew F?°, -
8 „
i
It - n , ti

6/
Apex
1 h
,hill y I I 7
6
y1lH#Ry ,ntt McCuller r

irrnx r 101
L?
Mir iYputy var, Wlllaw Spn
9
55
.d

I
V Y?
Y?V
1„Q.fd
t
11
F

I
I
I
BRIDGE NO. 25
o % Ja
'a
LEGEND
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 25
ON NC 50 OVER SWIFT CREEK
WAKE COUNTY
T. I. P. NO. B - 2870
0 2km 4km FIG. 1
3951
36
l i
?0 j.? ti 1? V -? F.' I l ?" I II•
.73 I\
40'
L'
:., ...ake < l Q
y
X949 O O n J e Z50 1
x 336 G/1I \
?+ ? r r r ?I \ •O 372 ?J
•6 •\ 300. .I / / , 06
-"48UR1`-/,
x
.a 'J J
0
r,
0 w
• • Q /
FEET*!
u
0 11{ 1 383 X?a 8
O 11 J/ I V li-i
NOR, v
ads r4l\ it %
._J) j p „) A 1 1
JJJ ??
59 ??
3946 f ro ' /
350 I X 367 'J
? • 273 111 ? / /?
3945
LPD)
1 ` IS
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DA E
j c
)4
3? -
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Eris Q Gc a.? osn? b Etk
FROM:
REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
(n?

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

I
till-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGIIWAYS
GOVMNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGI 1. N.C. 27611-5201
7 March 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
WIIr9%
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SF( N 1ARY
FROM: Wayne Fedora
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Correction to Scoping Minutes for Replacement of Bridge
No. 25 on NC 50 over Swift Creek, Wake County, B-2870
The Planning and Environmental Branch held a scoping meeting on 26
January 1994 to initiate the subject project.
Mr. Fedora prepared scoping minutes dated 1 March 1994. These minutes
indicate the recommended replacement structure for both alternates is a
bridge approximately 50.0 meters (164 feet) long. This length is incorrect
for Alternate 2, replace in existing location with a temporary detour.
For replacement at the existing location, the Hydraulics Unit
recommends a bridge approximately 74.7 meters (245 feet) long.
Please note this change for your information. If you have any
questions, please contact me at 733-3141.
WF/wp
Attachment
0

50
s lA
f S'
J
1 t1 s
9
M ,
0 to ou
7
Role
sville
Aai r 9 401
Til
1? tW ` IS t . A
®; ?.. EweNafiel
Ma ei+ Word Lich!
Mornsvill L ' 7
11
itN dale Ragle cN 618
64
Apex * j
shill I I 2 1 ubur f
5 Mcculler ?! 8 ,.
rags s
401
w ° r,
usYVerm Willow Springs
\ 9
55 /
.?r

I C"
3
at ?? BRIDGE NO. 25
o A I ?
cjk
.3 QP
? \ 0 OJ
.9 4 •r/?
Cr. 4i 2 ?t ?
? o
b
5.0 `fin C;, V. I.? ? \v
.4 .2 • 9 1
Coll
?* rAS p?L ` NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Of
` o r'' lm TRANSPORTATION
o ti' 1 'c ?'• , 1 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
a ,?% '\%e _' I s PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 25
ON NC 50 OVER SWIFT CREEK
WAKE COUNTY
LEGEND
T. I. P. NO. B - 2870
. / FA-1 I
\ \ ??=
Z ? Swi(t
jL 'MATCH' _ M*
F` yak ??