19960131 Ver 1_Complete File_19960207

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
February 1, 1996

Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Mike Smith:
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:

Subject: Nash County, Replacement of Bridge No. 2 over Pig Basket Creek on
SR 1003, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1003(15), State Project No.
8.2320701, TIP No. B-2850.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. Bridge number 2 over Pig Basket Creek on SR 1003 will be replaced
along existing alignment. Traffic will be detoured onto existing roads during construction.
The project will result in (0.19 acres) of wetland and surface water impacts.
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). The provisions of Section
330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the
project.
&UL
J
We anticipate that 401 General 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.
FEB 7 196

-40k 4?
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Mr. Scott P.
Gottfried at 733-3141.
Sincerely,
C
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/spg
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. R. Dupree, PE, Division 4 Engineer
I J
Nash County
SR 1003
Bridge No. 2 Over Pig Basket Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1003(15)
State Project 8.2320701
T.I.P. No. B-2850 9 5 0 13 1
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
2 ?.,?
- Z,?6
DAT KH. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
anning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
06/0345- iL,? p k"-"
DATE Fop- Nicholas L. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
R
t
Nash County
SR 1003
Bridge No. 2 Over Pig Basket Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1003(15)
State Project 8.2320701
T.I.P. No. B-2850
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 1995
o•••p??H CA%?•,,
Documentation Prepared By: ?••?DFES p•?.•y9
MA Engineering Consultants, Inc. ??? ?'q •
SEAL
19732
*01 N
Shihchen (David) Fuh, Ph.D, PE ''?••,,??..••'
Project Manager
for North Carolina Department of Transportation
.A. Bissett, Jr., PE, Unit H
Consultant Engineering Unit
n . /-) _ .
Stacy Y. BaQdwin
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
Nash County
SR 1003
Bridge No. 2 Over Pig. Basket Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1003(15)
State Project 8.2320701
T.I.P. No. B-2850
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Design plans will be forwarded to the North Carolina State FEstoric 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.
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be implemented
to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Nash County
SR 1003
Bridge No. 2 Over Pig Basket Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1003(15)
State Project 8.2320701
T.I.P. No. B-2850
Bridge No. 2 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in
Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
For the Summary of Environmental Commitments, see page i.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 2 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The
recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 37 meters (121 feet) long and 9.2 meters
(30 feet) wide. This structure will provide two 3.6-meter (12-foot) travel lanes with 1.0-meter (3-
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 0.6 meters (2 feet) will be
paved, on each side throughout the project limits.
A temporary off-site detour (see Figure 2A) will be used to maintain traffic during the construction
,period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $484,400. The estimated cost of the project, as shown
in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program, is $376,000 ($350,000-construction;
$26,000-right-of-way).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the central portion of Nash County, approximately 4.0 kilometers (2.5 miles)
north of Nashville, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The area is rural woodlands and residential in
nature.
SR 1003 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System and
is a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1003 has an 5.4-meter (18-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 250 meters (800 feet) north
and 150 meters (500 feet) south from the structure. The roadway is situated approximately 6.4
meters (21 feet) above the creek bed.
The current traffic volume of 2000 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 4700 VPD by
the year 2018. The projected volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 4% dual-
tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 70 kilometers per hour (45 miles per hour) in the
project area.
Bridge No. 2 is a four-span structure that consists of a reinforced concrete deck on steel I-beams.
The substructure consists of reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. The existing bridge (see Figure
3) was constructed in 1954.
The overall length of the structure is 36.9 meters (121 feet). The clear roadway width is 7.2 meters
(24.0 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 15 metric tons (17 tons) for single vehicles and
20 metric tons (22 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 2 has a sufficiency rating of 27.6, 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 are located
on both sides of the roadway throughout the project area. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
No accidents have been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 2 during the period from April 1991
to March 1994.
Twenty school buses cross the bridge daily.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 2 were studied. Each alternative consists of a bridge 37
meters (121 feet) long and 9.2 meters (30 feet) wide. Typical sections of the approach roadway and
structure are included as Figures 4 and 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 off-site detour will be provided during the
construction period of the existing structure. The off-site detour will be 8.7 kilometers (5.4 miles)
in length (See Figure 2A). The design speed for this alternative is 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles
per hour). Alternative 1 is recommended because it is less costly and has less impact on the wetland
environment due to the additional roadway approach work for Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 - 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 north (upstream) of the existing structure. The temporary detour will consist of a bridge 26
meters (85 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide, located about 12 meters (40 feet) north of the
existing structure. The design speed of this alternative is 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour).
This alternative is not recommended because of the wetlands that would be impacted by the
temporary detour.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not acceptable
due to the traffic service provided by SR 1003.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Division 4 concurs that an off-site detour will be
the best alternative during bridge replacement.
The Nash County School Superintendent indicates that the maintenance of traffic off-site during the
construction period is preferable (see Appendix).
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
3
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended) Alternative 2
Alternative 1
Structure $ 283,000 $ 283,000
Roadway Approaches 62,000 62,000
Detour Structure and Approaches 0 525,000
Structural Removal 23,000 23,000
Engineering and Contingencies 57,000 132,000
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities 59 400 70,800
Total $484,4001 $1,095,800
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 2 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2, with a
new structure having a length of approximately 37 meters (121 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 0.6 meters (2 feet)
will be paved, on each side will be provided on the approaches (see Figure 4). A 9.2-meter (30-foot)
clear width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the current North
Carolina Department of Transportation Bridge Policy. SR 1003 is classified as a rural major
collector, therefore, criteria for a rural major collector was used for the bridge replacement. This will
provide a 7.2-meter (24-foot) travelway with 1.0-meter (3-foot) shoulders across the structure. The
design speed is 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour).
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic off-site is acceptable because of low traffic
volumes using SR 1003 and the short length of additional travel required along existing secondary
roads. The use of a temporary on-site detour will also impact and damage wetlands due to the
construction of the temporary detour approaches.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length of
approximately 37 meters (121 feet). 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 26, 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 Pig Basket
Creek and on areas surrounding Pig Basket Creek. Forested wetlands are associated with this
community. The canopy is composed of sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), willow oak (Quercus
phellos), yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), American elm (Ulmus
americana), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), and black willow (Salix
nigra). The sub-canopy include the canopy species plus redbud (Cercis canadensis). The
shrub/sapling layer is composed of raspberry (Rubus spp.), and saplings of red maple, green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and willow oak. The herb/vine layer is composed of greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), grape
(Vitis spp.), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), and smartweed (Polygonum spp.).
Urban/Disturbed:
This community classification includes bridge and roadside margins, powerline right-of-ways, and
residential lawns in the vicinity of the project. The residential lawns are composed of fescue grass
(Festuca spp.) with canopy species of loblolly pine, white pine (Pinus strobus), southern magnolia
(Magnolia grandj7ora), and flowering dogwood (Cornus florida). The bridge and roadside margin
area is characterized primarily by invasive vines, grasses and herbs including: trumpet creeper, fescue
grass, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison ivy, greenbrier, foxtail (Setaria spp.), and
aster (Aster spp.). The shrub/sapling layer is sparse and composed of raspberry.
5
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 Pig Basket Creek and associated ecotones serve as valuable habitat. The
forest bordering Pig Basket 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 white-tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Mammals likely to inhabit the area include striped skunk
(Mephitis mephitis), mice (Peromyscus spp), and cottontail (Sylvilagus f loridanus).
The observed bird species are typical of rural setting where a patchwork of habitat types are available.
Species encountered in the forested areas and nearby Pig Basket Creek include pine warbler
(Dendroica pimis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), and
common crow (Cowes braehyrhynchos).
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis), Carolina anole (Aeolis carolinensis), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and Fowler's
Toad (Bufo a oodhousei).
Aquatic:
Pig Basket Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for recreational fishing.
Game fish species present are redbreast sunfish (Leponiis auritirs), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus
americanus), catfish (kialurus spp.), and warmouth (Chaenobryttus gulosus).
The creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for amphibians and
aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), northern dusky salamander
(Desniognathus fiiscus), frogs (Rana spp.), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), northern water
snake (Nerodia sipedon), and redbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster).
Physical Resources
Soil
Nash County is located within the Upper Coastal Plain and Piedmont Physiographic Province. The
divide line between the Upper Coastal Plain and Piedmont is a zone extending through, Salem,
Nashville, and Bailey, North Carolina. Topography is variable and characterized by gently rounded
uplands with a few nearly interstream divides covered with discontinuous Coastal Plain sediments.
6
Elevations in the immediate project area range from 39.6 meters (130 feet) along the creek bottom
to 42.6 meters (140 feet) along the roadside.
The county is underlain by intact igneous and sedimentary rocks which underlie the soil deposits and
weathered rock in Nash 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 Meggett loam and Norfork loamy sand
soils in the floodplain and along the creek. Meggett loam soils are poorly drained and frequently
flooded while Norfork loamy sand is found in drainageways. Meggett loam soils have map units that
are hydric soils or have hydric soils as a major component. Norfork loamy sand soils have map units
with inclusions of hydric soils or have wet spots.
Water
Bridge No. 2 crosses Pig Basket Creek approximately 9.7 kilometers (6 miles) downstream from its
origin in eastern Nash County, North Carolina. Pig Basket Creek flows east to Stoney Creek which
empties into the Tar River. Pig Basket Creek and subsequent receptor systems are part of the Tar-
Pamlico 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).
Pig Basket Creek is Class C NSW stream, indicating waters best used 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.
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) report one discharger (Stalling Oil Company/ Freshway #2) 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 information is not available
for the immediate project area.
7
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of Pig Basket Creek observed in the vicinity of the
proposed bridge replacement project.
TABLE 1
Stream Characteristics and Ecological Classifications
Characteristic Description
Substrate Mud
Current Flow Stagnant
Channel Width 7.2 meters (24 feet)
Water Depth 30 centimeters (1 feet) to 1.2 meters (4 feet)
Water Color Brown
Water Odor Malodorous
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Sycamore, willow oak, yellow-poplar, red maple,
American elm, loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, black willow
Wetlands Palustrine Forested
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined
in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters and wetlands will be impacted by
project construction. Approximately 0.07 hectares (0.19 acres) of Palustrine forested broad-leaved
deciduous wetlands (see Cowaidin et al. 1979) will be impacted (filled) by the construction of the
recommended alternative. Wetlands were associated with hydric soils (Chroma 2) north of the
existing structure in forested wetlands and disturbed areas.
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 Nash County as of March 28, 1995.
8
TABLE 2
Federallv Protected Species for Nash Count
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon E
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana E
Brief descriptions of these species' characteristics, habitat requirements, and relationship to the
proposed project are discussed below.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Status: E
Family: Picidae
Listed: 10113/70
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 pinethardwood 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 alternative. Also, a review of North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area.
It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Red-cockaded woodpecker.
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
9
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
A mussel survey conducted 30 meters (100 feet) above and 100 meters (328 feet) below the proposed
project alignment revealed no evidence of live mussels, or shell evidence of mussel fauna.
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 dwarf wedge mussel.
Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana)
Status: E
Family: Unionidae
Listed: 7/29/85
The Tar River spinymussel probably ranged throughout most of the Tar River Drainage Basin before
the area was settled during the 1700's. By the mid-1960's, its known range had been reduced to the
main channel of the Tar River from Spring Hope in Nash County to Falkland in Pitt County. By the
early 1980's, its range in the Tar River was restricted to only 12 miles of the river in Edgecombe
County. One additional reproducing population has been discovered in Swift Creek. The preferred
habitat of the Tar River spinymussel is relatively fast-flowing, well oxygenated, circumneutral pH
water, relatively silt-free, uncompacted, gravel/coarse sand substrate, and sites prone to significant
swings in water velocity.
The Tar River spinymussel is one of only three species of unionids which have spines on their shells.
Mature individuals usually attain a shell length of about 60 millimeters. The shell has a smooth and
shiny surface with fine concentric sculpture. Each valve is usually ornamented with from one to
several short spines, although not every individual will possess them.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A mussel survey conducted 30 meters (100 feet) above and 100 meters (328 feet) below the proposed
project alignment revealed no evidence of live mussels, or shell evidence of mussel fauna.
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 Tar River spinymussel.
10
Federal Candidate Species:
There are seven C2 federal candidate species listed for Nash County. The North Carolina status of
these species is listed in Table 3.
TABLE 3
Federal Candidate Species for Nash County
Common Name Scientific Name Suitable NC
Habitat Status
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata Yes T
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Yes T
Green floater Lasmigona subviridis Yes E
Yellow lampmussel Lanipsilis cariosa Yes T
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diaria Yes SC
Panhandle lily Lilium iridollae No C
Carolina Trillium Trillium Dusillum var. Dusillum No E
NC Status: SC, E, C, and T denote Special Concern, Endangered, Candidate and
Threatened, respectively.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but
for which there is not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. These species are mentioned here for information
purposes, should they become federally protected in the future. Specific surveys for any of these
species were not conducted, nor were these species observed during the site visit.
State Listed Species:
Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S.
113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202. 12 et seq.).
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.
11
TABLE 4
to Plant Communities for Alternative 1 in Hectares (Acres
Permanent I
Floodplain Hardwood Forest 0.07 (0.19)
Urban/Disturbed 0.15 0.37
TOTAL 0.22 (0.56)
Note: Permanent Impacts are based on a 24-meter (80-foot) corridor of the alignment.
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacement are restricted to narrow strips adjacent
to the existing bridge and roadway segments. Alternative 1 is not expected to result in significant
adverse impacts to plant communities. Bridge and approach improvements for Alternative 1 occur
primarily within disturbed roadside, residential and powerline right-of-way areas and floodplain
hardwood forest edges which currently do not support significant communities.
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 Pig Basket Creek and nearby low-lying
areas will receive disturbances next to the existing bridge area. Pig Basket 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.
12
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 be implemented. The
United States Army Corps of Engineers will make the final determination on any mitigation
requirements.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack
of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land
use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
13
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely
affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easements from any land protected
under Section 4(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(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation provided
documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office. 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. There are no soils
classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity of the project.
14
Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within these
classifications.
The project is located in the area of Nash County, which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 is not applicable because the
proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse
effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, the impact on noise levels and
air quality will not be substantial. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plans for air quality
in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for noise analysis of Title 23 CFR Part 772
and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy
Act.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Nash County is a participant in the National Flood.Regular Insurance 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, one family residence is located within the limits of the 100-year
floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
15
?#0
1
i POP. 314
b
1424 ?
1003
9
43

FAS I 1425
Suttons

Store b
1435
1417
: :
/ .
• ::-

BR IDGE NO. 2 1438
v.
h' ?
1438 1003 Ln 1603
5
? m .
16051
^ 16p6 r
a -_ ;t; I•:
r'
1417 1437 .5
7 5
1603
?n 1436 1437. .9 1607
1.1 j ?tl .3 ?.
1432. 1604 iy C
1432 c-> 9
1664

14 I
1435 1433

1673 ?
b 602
4 ?

?. 1434 b
.7 1601 .
0 031 1433
A b'4
Stoney ,ee 1675
1610
.? - :•^\•--? F ?.. 167'7
_
' 1603

.?
= -
US :::.. 64 :a
7 X16
1770
.
S''° ' .
.6 AS
2
FA 1770.
6
.
BU
: t 64 1814 1145
o

`
Westry

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
a TM'M1.
`. BRANCH
Nash County
SR-1003 over Pig Basket Creek
Bridge #2
B-2850
FIGURE 1
r. Nash County
4/ ' e , S1 , sS o SR-1003 over Pig Basket Creek
°
310
32 Bridge #2 1530 j .9 1477 B-2850
F - ,531 tool -
'J L2
u c-
1 _ tail;+;-. e ? 1414
I a 1 c RED OAK 1529 .2
rata
h
t NkGS 1424 !O POP. 314 \? 'O 6 0 1527
1425 ' S J.A 1639 •?? 1003 1531 1510
f?• 1425 9 ' 43.' ?.. 1527 1510
1626 1475 .6 J 1517 1531 Q -o
c FMS 1596
lazs Drake
t:;:• Isla
too. + Suttons -:A tsn•. -
142a .6 Store J r :r ri 6 3 8
4 14 30 ~ 1436 C:., 1524 1524j,
!
?71
1524
p. :-}:-.... .:-.: .J _ -? <:, 1590 O'
% a?:::?::?':-::?: 1589 ?,nC
436
?'
o '°°' ALTERNATIVE 1
„ B
U RIDGE NO. 2 b
.6 -•? 111
(RECOMMENDED) :::, 1s26
1440 ?- - 5 ;" Y OFF-SITE DETOUR DORTCHES
1436 437 • ?OP. 885 -:},
r. D
j ;?% ¦¦¦¦¦ 1607
7\ t l 432 9 - l3 1664 ¦ t-:
c•:
t .+;.1431 1_ ff=s?{•e/ 1495 14]]B y 1 6 /._' 1661?? I F''- 1? t'to
Corinth
m Leek : 1 V•?. >
1473 \ 1.0 ?:•.. ;? • `'•o
Union Hill 1602 1609
Ch. ?\.
'torre 1434.
!J \ h b ` _ ::.:'.'..-,.`•''%-I
58 1004 "35 1.433 LS 1544 .I
\ 6 1302 Cr. ? -
FAi
NA HVILLE "?`? Ston 1 !? Leto b '
pop. 3,033 1 2.3 f r:
' ` `? .??.. S.:. I.J ?• r' 160] 1611
1301 • 64 ' 6.a tiyj 1770 .7 V ?• ° .
1 2 .8 f b AS 1610 ?s.?-...-;• S ..
y a
19_93 994 '•f .6 `• U V .6 ; "71770 _
?" J •t 1908 FAS °' 1 e 1 a 1145
.3 A
Wei :. i
o 1906 ? pf ' .• ..
i-QO 1603 \e\ 1907 ? • r:.? S8 r? ( a::? ?- ?M:.:
- a
1702 1700 '?r _? .1 A •'Tt-:.:. ...:-• ?' •'i• .
1900 c .J .9 182 /oP/e 1 t ::?''•`?,'.+ 4:: `• ;+ r.
v ..;..iy v ..
.9 1904 - b r \. t v 1703 .4 18.77__ 7 r n t- i-:::: 6YP.
IIa5 1823 .2 301
:?, ; ,i•.
1909 / 1145 1001 K 1603 T ° 1700 \ M4
1707 Z,` 1705 .6 O -17_6_7 1- - o E1C1 • .:: -
1409 C I? "> 2.1 - tc?e.
.8 ?:Pp,F `?' \ ` •« 1544 tr:r(
.? / 1704
-lv2e \ 1e22 .e Selo v? ?:?
1
t o 1e221f J
7- .J. 17[0
! .6 .6 1001 \` c .1 j.• .2
1717 d
1927 •„ b / ?n •1r120? 1706 1e3tf'1709 1544
1306 - 1306 1603 R Riv 4 ,=
r h 1769 ° Langley
1703 Crossroads eit )e*?r
Mount \ \ 701
nA% 1756
1001 ? i \ - •• Q7
? SOS/ _?.:'tele 3 4 I .6 1 t.6 , J ''•
.d -- 18 - 1779.
1-v?o- s e1 1769.3' .1, 174!
Jo r _1778 Ino
10 - 21 vs1 ° v Croar ds 2 9
l.r ljSe 6 1e17 -
1716 I544 1 1000
b x'1755 ;110 .P -
1973 1717 1732
.3 1751 ? 17]2 •2 ?• •e?
O 1001 1929 1
1790 * • //'? r
r _ Sandy 160 \ / .9
Cross
Taylors ,\,° leoo d 179t v 'A 1006
;?`. 19]1 7
1
s Crossroads !o??. o DeaM Leta ?I1 v '?!s 173
..?.4..nin 1 6 b i'• a 1841 It r... .o /.
FIGURE 2A
SIDE VIEW
NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
FIGURE 3
o

z
w

z
o
<o
cn
F- N
F- 3 >
<ZxZ
U
ZOO[1l
y
_
O<W?
is
1 co ? o
to cn 3ozz, o =° CA00
CL d xypZCj ?a C N
I F z o as as

z 0 CL m O
0
L?

Z Z
O O
U _
~

w
?
cn

S
C9
S p

C3? U
Z
O H

C? U w

O p
N ..
... cV `D
m
cc
a
S
a
Q w O °
a
d? 1 oo co
en C
.J
U J
`
U ?
a `L
H
F-
0
d
CD
C ? ?p
N " G in
W 00 'p
N ^' a
Q
•
U)

CL Cl)

CL
y
.°
s 3 -o
.. 0 5

V) Z7 s °

U)
L
Cl)
cn
co co
.J a

d It 11 11
3 cn
Y a F-
w
LL
O
~ d
Z t....
?
Z
W
N
?
a
Q z
a, >- O
a a
o ?
U
0 :
X
Ode
E
c?
O (1?3kO

o a s U
U O Z
CL. O z v o 0o all"
V - o0 00
a n N
V
v x
!2 y a? im
L O
ZF-Aam
O
M
o
C4

loll,
,.

fV s
= N
? U
.
o
on
?
H
cn
2

O ?
O
z
o
w

w .. O

o Q O
cv ?
r. V
s
v Cy a

M

z
O

- H
-
N L
U
~
0 0 0
M° W ? O N O
o N N N V.
C `" V]

U ?
Q 11 11 II
1q, 00 00
O ?C,o
N
H
U

w

w
a '
?Aazw o
o to to
v °°
b
Z o
0
0
c

H
a
A?
0
0
a
w
0
1 0
0

0
0
C)_
II
Q
U
C/I
t7
9
W
C7
w
N
z

~W
J
J
W
O

DATE:
MARCH 24, 1995
TO:
DAVID S FUH, PHD. P.E.
Nash-Rocky Mount Schools COMPANY-
WO Eastem Avenue M A ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INC
Nashville, N.C. 27856 FAX NUMBER:
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone] FROM:
D WINSTEAD-TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR
BOB RAINES-ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT
NUMBER OF PAGES: (INCLUDING THIS OVER)
NOTES:
RE: NCDOT BRIDGE REPLACEMENT STUDY
T.Z.P. L.D. NO. B-2850
WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE ROAD CLOSURE.
FAX TRANSMISSION
.?'.t t Z
1? S
? C,
4
2p
DEC 2 2
t
O
1994
North Carolina Department or uulturai tcesources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 19, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State F- stohc Preservation Officer
Division of Arc 'k,00 1 Histo Pv
William S. Price.

SUBJECT: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects (fifteen
bridges), Multicounty, CH 95-E-4220-0305
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have reviewed the list of fifteen bridges planned for replacement. With the
exception of B-2830, Greene County on NC 1.23 over Contentnea Creek on which
we commented at a "meeting of the minds" in 1994, we have no record of having
seen these proposed projects.
Given our lack of staff in the Survey and Planning Branch to review the potential
impacts of these replacements on-historic buildings, we are unable to respond to
your request for comments at this time. We suggest you direct your consultants,
MA Engineering, to make an appointment with Renee Gledhill-Earley to check our
maps and files or have her review aerial photographs or maps of the project areas.
Our comments with regard to archaeological resources are as follows:
Bridge 23 on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek, B-2830, Greene County, ER 94-
8699
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the immediate project vicinity,
although the area south of the existing bridge contains a very high probability for
the presence of prehistoric resources. It is likely that we will recommend an
archaeological survey for this project, but we are unable to complete our review
without project details and location. Please forward them as soon as they are
available.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??
H. F. Vick
December 19, 1994, Page 2
Bridge 109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek, B-2852, Orange County
Archaeological site 31 OR438* * is likely to be affected by the proposed bridge
replacement project. This historic period mill dam is located across New Hope
Church north of SR 1734. We recommend that the project area be surveyed and
site 31 OR438* * be tested and evaluated for its National Register eligibility if it is
to be affected by the project.
Bridge 2 on SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek, B-2850, Nash County
Bridge 14 on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek, B-2828, Granville County
Bridge 13 on SR 1530 over Haw River, B-2802, Alamance County
Bridge 289 on SR 1152 over Swift Creek, B-2871, Wake County
Bridge 2 on SR 1529 over Haw River, B-2801, Alamance County
There are no recorded archaeological sites located in the project vicinity.
However, we are unable to assess the project's potential effects upon as yet
unrecorded resources without a project location. As soon as a location and
detailed project information (including new right-of-way, approach work, detour
structures) is available, please forward it to us so we may complete our review.
Bridge 37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek, B-1336, Richmond County
Bridge 15 on SR 1100 over Barnards Creek, B-2595, New Hanover County
Bridge 27 on NC 904 over Scipped Swamp, B-2807, Brunswick County
Bridge 37 on US 13 over South River, B-2819, Cumberland and Sampson Counties
Bridge 82 on SR 1456 over Deep River, B-2849, Moore County
Bridge 45 'on NC 211 over Raft Swamp, B-2860, Robeson County
Bridge 61 on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp, B-2863, Robeson County
Bridge 32 on SR 1433 and SR 1310 over Lumber River, B-2866, Robeson and
Scotland Counties
There are no known archaeological sites within the. proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Barbara Church
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways -
Department of Transportation Q1
FROM: Renee Gledhill-Earley
Environmental RevievJ oator
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 protects:
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.
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(5Replace Bridge
No. 15 on SR 1100 over Barnards Creek
OD'
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh. North Carolina 27601-2507 4 :
?
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 1152 over Swift Creek
Please distribute to the appropriate engineer and to Federal Highway
Administration. We have kept copies for our files.
RGE:slw
Attachments
TIP
fi- It, Federal Aid _ ? - too3 (13? County 0A,%+
CONCURRENCE FORIM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
r-eNAGE e41pC,?, t?o• 2 ou SR. tcn3 ovep- Pic. 5Asr-er CRecv.
On JAauaRY e& , MT:; , representatives of the

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review 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 properly, properties
identified as are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of therIH9 necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
y-L - 9s-
Representative, NCDOT Date
wA, f r e Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency

Representative, SHPO

Stile Historic Preservation

If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
Date
o1ty-
Date