19960260 Ver 1_Complete File_19960318

TRANSMITTAL SLIP

rn REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
?m7
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION.
? NOTE AND FILE :? PER OUR CONVERSATION.
? NOTE AND RETURN TO' ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR. APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
?. :PLEASE -ANSWER ? FOR YOUR'-COMMENTS.
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE - '? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATES ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT.
COMMENTS:
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
?
.

.- a

960200
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JPL DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 tV SECRETARY
401 1SS?D
March 8, 1996

Mr. Mike Smith
{y 4 `
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers `
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Smith:
SUBJECT: Johnston County, Replacement of Bridge No. 91 over Middle Creek on
SR 1504, TIP No. B-2992, State Project No. 8.23 Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1504(2).
Attached for your information are copies of the project planning reports 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 he followed in the construction of the
project.
We anticipate that a 401 General Water Quality Certification will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the documents to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
e

it
2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Gordon Cashin
at [phone], Extension 315.
GEC/plr
Attachments
Sincere] ,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: Mr. Ken Jolly, 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. R. Dupree, Division 4 Engineer
:y
•
?I!
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.: B-2992
State Project No.: 8.2311701
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1504(4)
A. Protect Description :
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 91 on SR 1504 over Middle Creek in Johnston
County. The bridge will be replaced at the existing location with a new bridge
approximately 50 meters (165 feet) in length. The bridge will be 8.4 meters (28 feet)
wide. This will allow for a 6.6 meter (22 foot) travelway and a 0.9 meter (3 foot) offset on
each side. The bridge will be constructed at approximately the same grade as the existing
structure. The approach roadway will be 6.6 meters (22 feet) wide with shoulder widths of
at least 1.2 meters (4 feet). Shoulders will be increased to at least 2.1 meters (7 feet)
where guardrail is warranted. Traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads during
construction. (See Figure 1).
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 91 has a sufficiency rating of 26.2 out of 100.0 and an estimated
remaining life of 2 years. The deck of Bridge No. 91 is only 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide. The
existing bridge is posted at 8 tons for single vehicles and 15 tons for Truck-tractor Semi-
trailers. For these reasons the existing bridge needs to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
Type II Improvements
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking weaving,
turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including
safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)

io
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
® Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate
capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is not a
substantial increase in the number of users.
2

M
10, Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when located in a
commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street
capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise impact on
the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types of
land acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA
process. No project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process
has been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. High Quality Waters Soil and Erosion Control measures will be
implemented and maintained throughout project construction to mimimize
or eliminate the possibility of water quality degradation during project
construction.
3. Right-of-way widths will be reduced as much as possible to minimize the
amount of property required from Crantock Farm.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 450,000
Right of Way $ 17.000
Total $ 467,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 400 VPD
Year 2018 - 700 VPD
3
Y ? K

w
M
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach roadway will be 6.6 meters (22 feet) wide with shoulder widths of
at least 1.2 meters (4 feet). Shoulders will be increased to at least 2.1 meters (7 feet)
where guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
Based on initial design, it appears that the design speed will be approximately
100 km/h (60 mph).
Functional Classification:
SR 1504 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
Division Office Comments:
The Division Office recommends SR 1504 be closed during construction and
traffic be detoured along SR 1501 and NC 210 during construction.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists only of Type I improvements, the following
checklist does not need to be Completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES. NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any ? x
unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? 0 x
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of ?
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
4

5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? El X
(
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely X
impacted by proposed construction activities? 7 (7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding ?
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters X
(HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States ? X
in any of the designated mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage ? X
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the ?
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any X
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
X
resources? F
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ? X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing ? X
regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel x
changes?
5

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area?
YES NO
I x
? x

(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land ?
use of any adjacent property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local ?
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness?
X ?
7 X
x
x
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, x
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)9
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes?
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action?
?X
X ?
?X
X ?
6
-1.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2992
State Project No. 8.2311701
Federal-Aid Project No.: BRZ-1504(4)
Project Description :
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 91 on SR 1504 over Middle Creek in Johnston
County. The bridge will be replaced at the existing location with a new bridge
approximately 50 meters (165 feet) in length. The bridge will be 8.4 meters (28 feet)
wide. This will allow for a 6.6 meter (22 foot) travelway and a 0.9 meter (3 foot) offset on
each side. The bridge will be constructed at approximately the same grade as the existing
structure. The approach roadway will be 6.6 meters (22 feet) wide with shoulder widths of
at least 1.2 meters (4 feet). Shoulders will be increased to at least 2.1 meters (7 feet)
where guardrail is warranted. Traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads during
construction. (See Figure 1).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)
? .: •ZTIJ? :..P j /
e YD i? .: ? h P ? ?
??'IrP S N(! 14 '? ya t' r.
Approved:
1-22-.745-
Date

/-ZZ-
Date
Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
Proje t Planning Unit Head
-u" T I •
Date Project Planning
For Type II (B) projects only:
Date Fop,

8
Federal Highway Administration
i .-r<
mrEdu AsChW O 6 ros{rro
2 3
70 l 1 Nf 4e
O H. T 80?
l® ??
! l ,
50 a old • Pin
F ? .+. 9 2 It Pint Laval
°
9s` ! 70A
\?• Aw tordn,r Mus-. 4 Pfi
?? 10 1 HOW La" ® s 2 !
V ? v r
?? our acs
lop e ? •? ?.
9
,l`
.s b ,0>.
3 10
•3 CN
?l l ®l
s
\' >?? P Fqs 1 I S \'? t t
;o Po
\° '?
04
.2 ys I o
/BRIDGE N0.91 \u, 0
.6 \-? A
V ..5 i
\° Fqs '3
\p Aj PPS b
.00
S i? •8 ci
2.6 ' FA t .3
m
3 \? .4?? \e ° 1.2 y \Ti
i
?p •v? \s rr N
? id !? ? ?`? ? bus v? ? .
Q
5 \? -p •! \? .4 PAS .9
16
N
b
\°e •9 Creek
.7
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
\° \D \°? TRANSPORTATION
o \`rs DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
}_ ; N ?• ?? PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
O
\? BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 91
3 ON SR 1504 OVER
-/-7 ?•: MIDDLE CREEK
° JOHNSTON COUNTY
T.I.P. NO. B-2992 FIG.1
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE 0 kilometers . 1.6 0 miles 1

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS WITH
HISTORIC SITES
F. A. PROJECT BRZ-1504(44)
STATE PROJECT 8.2311701
T. I. P. NO. B-2992
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No. 91 on SR 1504 over Middle Creek in Johnston County.
Relative to the Crantock Farm property.
YES NO
1. Is the proposed project designed to improve the
operational characteristics, safety, and/or physical
condition of the existing highway facility on essentially x ?
the same alignment?
2. Is the project on new location? F-1 x
3. Is the historic site adjacent to the existing highway? X F]
4. Does the project require the removal or alteration ? x
of historic buildings, structures, or objects?
5. Does the project disturb or remove archaeological
resources which are important to preserve in place ? x
rather than to recover for archaeological research?
6. a. Is the impact on the Section 4(f) site considered x ?
minor (i.e. no effect, no adverse effect)?
b. If the project is determined to have "no adverse
effect" on the historic site, does the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation object to the determination ? x
of "no adverse effect"?
7. Has the SHPO agreed, in writing, with the assessment x ?
of impacts and the proposed mitigation?
EIS?
f F x
an
8. Does the project require the preparation o

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not to be feasible
and prudent: YES NO
1. Do nothing
Does the "do nothing" alternative: F-1 a correct capacity deficiencies? x
or b correct existing safety hazards? F-I x
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? F-I x
and (d) create a cost or impact of extraordinary measure? F? X
2. Improve the highway without using?the adiacent
historic site.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes in standards,
use of retaining walls, etc., or traffic management x ?
measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
G substantial adverse environmental impacts
or (ii substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental, or
economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
or (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are of
extraordinary magnitude

Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new location without x ?
using the historic site.
(a) An alternate on new location would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve the
existing problems
or (ii) substantial social, environmental, or
economic impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in project cost
or engineering difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or difficulties of
truly unusual or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning to minimize x ?
harm necessary to preserve the historic integrity of the
site.
2. Measures to minimize harm have been agreed to, in x ?
accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, by the FHWA,
the SHPO, and as appropriate,the ACHP.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are described as follows:
Right-of-way widths will be reduced as much as possible to minimize the
amount of property required from Crantock Farm.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer x
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation N/A
c. Property owner N/A
d. Local/State/Federal Agencies N/A
e. US Coast Guard N/A
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on December
23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable to this
project. There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic site.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and the measures to minimize harm
will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has-been successfully completed with local and state agencies.
Approved:
x_22-9t' '
Date *A-Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch NCDOT
/ Date Divis' Adrni strator, FHWA
r

?•SWEo
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 24, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 91 on SR 1504 over Middle Creek,
Johnston County, B-2992, Federal Aid BRZ-
1504(4), State Project 8.2311701, ER 95-8406
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
GE!
MAR 2 8 )995
2iy DIVISIGN OF s?
Gi HIGHWAYS b
1RON:
On March 15, 1995, Debbie Bevin 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, Crantock Farm, which is located within
the area of potential effect, was placed on the state study list on October 14,
1982. Since then we have had no involvement with the property. We
recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate the property for
National Register eligibility and report the findings to us,
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.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
.addressed our comments.
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.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

Nicholas L. Graf
March 24, 1995, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
G??V
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
August 25, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for Bridge No.
91 on SR 1504 over Middle Creek, Johnston
County, B-2992, Federal Aid Project BRZ-
1504(4), State Project 8.2311701, ER 96-7190
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of July 28, 1995, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Christine Trebellas concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Crantock Farm. This farm is eligible under Criterion C for its fine Greek
Revival farmhouse. Please see our additional comments in the attachment.
The report in general meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior. Specific concerns and/or corrections which need to be addressed in the
preparation of a final report are attached for the author's use.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800,
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachment
• H F. Vick 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g?P
.
cc.
B. Church

ATTACHMENT
Historic Structures Survey Report for Bridge No. 91 on SR 1504
over Middle Creek, Johnston County, B-2992,
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1504(4), State Project 8.2311701, ER 96-7190
Crantock Farm
We believe the property may also be eligible under Criterion A for agriculture as a
farm complex that demonstrates the evolution from owner-occupied subsistence
farming to the tenant farming system. Please provide us with additional
information about the farm complex, including photographs of the outbuildings. We
recommend that you consider the farm as a collection of buildings, linked by a farm
lane to each other and related to landscape features such as the surrounding tilled
fields, the farm pond, and Middle Creek.
v
le
y° r ?s
¢?Fo?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 17, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report Addendum for
Replacement of Bridge No. 91 on SR 1504 over
Middle Creek, Johnston County, B-2992, Federal
Aid Project BRZ-1504(4), State Project
8.2311701, ER 96-7732
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr.. Director
Thank you for your letter of October 18, 1995, transmitting the historic structures
survey report addendum by Christine Trebellas concerning the above project.
We are unable to concur with the report's conclusion that the Crantock Farm is
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places only under Criterion C for
architecture. The original report focused on an architectural evaluation of the
farmhouse and provided a less than adequate discussion of the historical
significance of the farm as a whole. The report stated that "the changing
occupation and farm production of Crantock Farm represent no event, activity, or
theme of agricultural significance," but did not elaborate. Based upon the lack of
information in the report, we requested further evaluation of the farm itself and
asked whether it might reflect the evolution from subsistence to tenant farming
which was discussed in the summary of Johnston County's agricultural history.
While we suggested this theme as a possibility, we did not mean to imply that this
was the only significant agricultural trend that might be represented by the
property.
As outlined in previous correspondence, we do not believe eligibility requirements
other than the National Register criteria are appropriate for the Section 106 process
because such requirements are not based on adequate historic contexts and
definitions of property types. In this case, the report developed eligibility
requirements to address a single narrow theme, with the result that the addendum
does not adequately evaluate the farm within the broader context of Johnston
County's agricultural history.
From the additional information provided in the addendum, it appears that after the
Civil War, Crantock Farm developed into a substantial and prosperous farming
complex that included cash and subsistence crops, as well as ginning and milling
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601=2807
Nicholas L. Graf
November 17, 1995, Page 2
operations. The report does not evaluate the significance of the farm in these
terms, and information about the farm's current boundaries and rural landscape
features remains sketchy.
Given what we know about the farm, however, we believe it is eligible under
Criterion A for agriculture as well as Criterion C, and that its boundaries extend, at
least, on both sides of the road and to Middle Creek. Because of the limited scope
of the proposed bridge replacement, we believe additional research to determine
precise boundaries is unnecessary. We also belieye that the project as proposed,
with an off-site detour and replacement in place, will not affect the historic
property and that a Programmatic 4(f) could be used.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act 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.

Sin.Eerely,
r
P
Da id rook
AiA4
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
? 1.4
1 TL !l N!I-T C,•.R te? T
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT 111
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
25 May 1995
IME IORANI)UM: Wayne Elliott. Unit Head
Eridze Unit
FROM. Gerard \icrcrc Fnr,ir`nTlmcn-?1 RiniQoicr??/??/.
Environmental Unit l
SU'DiECT: investlgatlon 02 natural resources for the
S proposed replacement of Bridge No. 91 over
No. B-2992: State Project No. 8.23,11,01: Federal
Aid No. B Z-1504(=).
ATTENTION: Wayne Fedora. P.E.. Project Manager
INTRODUCTION
The follcn inc report is sub:,aitted to air: in the
preparation of a Pro°rammatic Cat ego rica I Exclusion (PC:E)
In this report there are terse descriptions of data
concerning water resources, biotic communities. wetland
issues, permitting information, and federally-protected
species.
This project encompasses the replacement of Bridge No.
91 over Middle Creel: on SR 1504. The bridge will be renlaced
on its existing location with road closure detouring traffic
along existing routes during the construction peri.od. The
proposed project is located approximately 3.1 km (5.0 mi)
northwest of the town of Four Oaks and 1.6 km ( 1 .0 mi ) north
of NC 210.
WATER RESOURCES
Middle Creek flows in an easterly direction and unites
with Swift Creek approximately 7.3 km (4.5 mi) east of the
proposed project. From this confluence the waters of both
systems empty into the Neuse River.
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
In the proposed project area the paters of diddle Creek
are slightly stained and moderately flowing. The depth of
the channel ranges from 0.2-1.3 m (0.5-4.0 f.t) with a
substrate of sand and silt, however gravel predominates in
areas of more rapid stream flow. The substrate is nearly
f
.0? -
1
dominated by this _gravel beneath the existing bridge where
is conc=. ?:e - T..e S--° C`: a ., -i _5 c'JO .t 1? J
m^(=10.O ft) wide with significant braiding on the
northeastern ('upstream) side of the crossing, making an
overall measurement difficult for that a7ea. This
characteristic is-due to an old impoundment constructed
irr..mediately upstream of the proposed project. This structure
has C.i?crteC: flow, thus, modifying the stream channel(s) and
its water body.
The Department of Environmental Management (DT -NI) assigns
S---ms best usa?e Classifications and this portion of Middle
Creek has been given a class of C NSW. Class C refers to
waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
i 1S;.ln°? wildlife. secondary racreat ion anu a__:r icui tur° \S `'.Y'
d?nirts caters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
r SuP.7)"1e 0r
WS-11 )tenor Vutstan(. in°_ Resource eaters (.oR ) occur within 1.6
km (1.0 mi) of the project study area.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section of the report consists of a brief
description of the biotic communities found within the
.project area and those species which were observed by Gerard
%iaters. \CDOT Biologist. on May 1S, 199 . Although these
descriptions ray exceed the detail called for by PCE
documentation, this investigator feels it,necessary due to
the quality of the site. Scientific nomenclature and common
names are provided for each animal and plant species
described; subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
Terrestrial Communities
The two distinct biotic communities identified in the
project study area are levee forest and man-dominated
community.
Levee Forest
This community type forms on a moderate to well drained :-
floodplain adjacent to a perennial stream. During and -
immediately following storm events the water level of the
stream may.rise to inundate the associated floodplain for a
relatively short period of time. As a result, the soils
' found in these communities.are primarily of coarse materials
conducive to..good drainage
The plant-species found-in this community have-adapted
to this hydrologic cycle. The dominant members of the canopy
consist of river birch (Betula nisra) and sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis) with several representatives of tulip tree
(Li.iodendron tulipifera), willow oak (Quercus -hellos) and

green ash (Frasinus nennsylvanica). Loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda) is *found sparsely interspersed in the canopy as well.
The understory is comprised of young-members of the canopy
species as well as red maple (Acer rubrum) and blueberry
(Vaccinium sp.).*. The herb/vine layer present is composed of
barnyard grass '(Echinochloa crus4alli), yellow-root
(\anthorhiza simDlicissima), giant cane (Arundinaria
Qizanteal, water penny •(Hvdrocotvle sp.), jewel-weed
(?mnatiens capensis), poison ivy (Toticodendron radicans).
anese honeys-` le
(muscadine rotundiiolia) aL
muscadine
(Lonicera iaponica), and greenbrier (Smilax sp.).
In this system evidence of racoons (Procyon lotor) and
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virgir.ianus) is present. These
s ecies commonly use this community type for foraging and
c ve't' opportunities. Birds seen in this habitat include the
14 -'Va,
observed feedins~on^the nectar of the.abundant-flowering of
Japanese honeysuckle), prothonotary garbler (Protonotaria
citrea), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and
Canada geese (Branta canadensis) which were seen to be
utilizing the abundant grater body by foraging on plant life
while hidden by streamside vegetation. These large waterfowl
also need wide streams like Middle Creek on which to land
undetected.
Man-Dominated Community
A community of closely cut herbs is present on both
sides of the roadway in the project area. The most common
herbaceous components were plantain (Plantaszo'sp..), fescue
(Festuca sp.), Bermuda grass (Cvnodon dactvlon) and Indian
strawberry (Duchesnea indica). The black racer (Coluber
constri'ct-or), a common predator found in this habitat,
forages on small mammals, birds, and insects. The red-tailed
hawk (Buteo iamaicensis) was also found to be patrolling this
habitat for unsuspecting reptiles and small mammals easily
seen in the low vegetation.
AQUATIC COMMUNITY
Middle Creek is the stream system in the project area
and it can be classified as a lower piedmont perennial
stream. This biologically diverse system appears to be a
high quality aquatic system due to its relatively undisturbed
state. _
Atany:.aquatic/semiaquatic species.were found in this
portion of .:Middle Creek. Many crayfish (Procambus sp.)-were
observed during the site visit as well as various aquatic
insect larvae. The mayfly family (Ephemeroptera) and the
caddisfly family (Trichoptera) were most frequently
represented. Plentiful insects and other aquatic
invertebrates provide a large forage base for additional

species in the system like the pickerel frog (Rana
nalustris), eastern musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus),
pirate perch (aphredoderus sayanus), shiners (Notronis sp.),
and darters (Etheostoma sp.). These fish. species also play
an important role in the reproduction of native mussels by
carrying parasitic.juv..eniles (glochidia) that depend on
transportation and nutrients, primarily from gill slits.
Mussels (Family: Gnionidae) were seen to inhabit Middle Creek
in the project area. The introduced Asian clam (Corbicula
fluminea) was also found in abundance. This introduced
population has the potential to virtually eliminate any
native mussel populations in this stream by out competing
them for biological resources.
WETLANDS AND PERMITS
northeast of the existing structure. .-This area will probably
not be impacted by the proposed project due to its distance
from the bridge. Little or no impacts to wetlands are
anticipated in the.project area
A Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) ?3, for impacts to
surface waters of Middle Creek, is likely to be applicable if
the Wildlife Resources'Commission (WRC) certifies that
construction of this project will not adversely affect these
waters. This permit authorizes activities undertai:en,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole
or in part, by another Federal agency or department.
Projects are categorically excluded from environmental
documentation, because their construction will neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant
environmental effect. Final permit decisions lie with the
Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is
required prior to the issuance of the nationwide T23.
Sect ion 401 Cert i f icat ion al lows surf ace waters to be
temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or
other land manipulations.
4 '
PROTECTED SPECIES
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species
for Johnston County'
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wed.-e mussel E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its ranee).
Allasznidont.a heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
,Annul =amilY Lnicnidae
Date Listed: 3/14/90
Distribution in N.C.: Franklin..'Granville, Halifax,
Johnston, Nash, Vance, Wake, Warren, Wilson.
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a
distinguishable she'll noted by two lateral teeth on the right
half and one on the left half. The periostracum (outer
shell) is olive green-to dark brown in color and the nacre
(inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North
Carolina are found in various areas within the Tar and Neuse
River drainage basins. This mussel is sensitive to
agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants while
requiring a stable silt free streambed witfi well oxygenated
water to survive.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Cursory surveys indicate that mussel populations do
exist in this stream system. Moreover, the subject project
is suitable dwarf-wedge habitat and must be surveyed in order
to determine either the presence or absence of this protected
species.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
-.Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden,. Carteret, Chatham,
_ --Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare,..Duplin,
Forsyth,-Gates, Halifax, Harnett,-Hertford,
Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Janes, Lee, Lenoir,
Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover,-
Northhampton, Onslow, Orange. Pamlico,...
Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson,
Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Wai-_e, Wayne,
Wilson.
. 4*
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage
that is entirely black and white except for small red streaks
on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is
black and white with horizontal stripes.. The breast and
underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks.
The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the black
cap. Nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging
and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least
50'> pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with
of-her stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCS`. These
'birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years old and
ge contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age.
T'f?e''ioraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500
it1 th su tab1 _
nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees
and usually.in trees that are infected with the fungus that
causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-
15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. They can be identified by a large
incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW
lays its eggs in April. `lav, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 3S days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable nesting or foraging habitat exists within
the project boundaries, therefore the species of concern will
not be adversely influenced by the proposed project.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
File: B-2992
. W
s w
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
M MOR?IZTM TO:
ATTEN^TON:
-ROM:
.0j-
...57AT(e
•??" - Rio
S r? ?? r ??C
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
P.O. BOX 25201. &ALYEL% . N C. 27611=5201 O SECRETARY
:.c:Tt,..eL ! L, 195
Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
Wavne Fedora, Project Manager
rCi::ice:':l.a- Bi.Ci! C?gis l'.
T, M W. Sail i dce, Env'
Environmental Unt
jUBv-C, , Protected Muss _l Survey Resu, is for
Proposed Replacement of Bridge 11o. 91
on SR 1504 Over :Middle Creek, :;ohnston
Counts-, State Project No. 3.231_701,
B-299.
T.I.P. No.
The federally Endangered C-Warf-wedge mussel (:lasmi donta
hetercdon) (D IM) -s listed by =he U. S . Fish and Wild-11 fe
Service for Johnston County. The proposed project will
impact Middle Greet{. This creek was sur'leyed' for. the
cresence of mussels on September 01, 1995 by NCDOT biologist
^im Savidce. Survev methodol•oav included visual and tactile
searching by wading in the stream and snorkeling: A total of
64 common elliptio mussels (Elliptio sp.)and 2 veilcw lance
mussels (Elliptio lanceolata) were found during 1 mar.-hour
(--ahr). The introduced Asian clam (Corbicula ilumin_a) was
found to be very abundant, and is the most common bivalve in
phis stream. The yellow _ance is listed as a federal
candidate (C2) species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Given the survey results, it is apparent that the DR14 is
not present in this segment of Middle Creek. It can be
concluded that construction of this project will have no
impact of the dwarf-wedge mussel. Strict enforcement of Best
Management Practices (BMP's) for the protection of surface
waters is strongly recommended, to ensure that the mussel
fauna of Middle Creek is not adversely impacted.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D, Unit Head Environmental Unit
i Hal Bain.' Environmental Supervisor
File: 8-2992
;tile; Section 7 Aquatic Issues

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
TO: REF._ NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
-
ROM: - REF.. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
(/?
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION.
,.? NOTE. AND RETURN TO ME - ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS - ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE. REPLY. FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

.
r

JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
February 14, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:

RECEIVED
FEB 2 01995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
RqA A1nH
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacing Bridge No. 91 on
SR 1504 over Middle Creek, Johnson County, TIP No.
B-2992
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 March 15, 1995 at 10:00 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 of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Wayne Fedora, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
WF/Pl r
Attachment
?J 1?lr
g1t,tiJ Re
3/z?9s

WI
IL I -$
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT:
F. A. PROJECT:
STATE PROJECT:
B-2992 . DIVISION:
COUNTY:
ROUTE:
FOUR
JOHNSTON
SR 1504
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace Obsolete Bridge
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No. 91 on SR 1504 over Middle Creek
in Johnston County
PROJECT USGS QUAD SHEET(S): Powhatan
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 4009000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 30,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
I
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 430,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) , (%)
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR
- TTST % . DT %
EXISTING TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 42.4 Meters
139 Feet
COMMENTS:
VPD
WIDTH 7.3 Meters
24.1 Feet
PREPARED BY: Wayne Fedora, P.E. DATE 02/06/95
2 23 FAS
• 33-- 1573
15861
1571 Bethesda 4 r FAIA _
Ch. r:3 70 ' B-29Oti -4.
•s 5 1 "575 eedli O 1501 \? JOHNI STON COUNTY
1574 .4 -? 1573 `` . 1.0
.9 1572 Johnston County
\b
1571 1571 c? S 1572 Air art J?
2 1562 2 s 1571 171 ^ creed p 7 4
3
1563 1579
'?' .6 5 ? \ FXT ..
b 1.2 FP
Little Creek toto 0
2.5 Ch. 1578 b
1557 y
Creek N
1562 f FAS 1.2 1501
4 cP 1577 0.
561 Creek
.9 1341
1561 I V 1010 1504 M ' 04
A
Ld ? '
1576 1562 Br. M dle 03
1643;
Hopewell
.5 Ch. 1342
.5 Steep j6 1504
1503 w
i55 1010. 1505 1162
0 1330 Q
Fp,S (b Albert
b h ?P F
X?, 1513 0 3 2.5 1343 1
h •9 1506 1340 4
1507 1162
8 1347
51 h
1
S
1582 ?O 582 1504 ,, SaSSQY 4 b? N b
? 1330 1338
a 1507 FAS 1 S 1339 ww4m 1.1
6 1509
to h 1337 3 7 G{GG?
J `D 1336 `r 7 1335 \k o
•LP 1510 1336 1162
IS 1334 210 6,
v? 1335 1 <;
Q 1?
fi 1508
?b
1308 Rehoboth 1335
C 5a. 1.3 1334 ?aG
_ 1332
1330
b 1333 /
1581 Berea 1 8 / 1349 ,`?c?• 1
1518
1308 2 1350
e{ Creek
1 ?Ga? 1382 b Coats
ssroads 9 1329 ,. ^ 1365
1334 4
1.3 q 7 it' .3 1330 18
•71330 A .0 1333
1326 •3 ,4
1641 St." I $ b
Lg Marys" 1331 1328 Bernal
520- ? 1324 Grove •6 1.1 7! 1.6
o Ch. ? 1319 1328 ^ 1350
jf3,
+6 -1
0 ,? . o „, 1308 .. ^N
McGee s 132s
t
09.
ik
?d yya u?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
April 10, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Wayne Fedora, P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 91 on
SR 1504 over Middle Creek, Johnston County, B-2992
I held a scoping meeting on 15 March 1995 to initiate the subject
project.
The participants decided on one method for replacement: replace at
existing location with road closure. Traffic will be maintained on area
roads as shown in Figure 1. The replacement structure will be a bridge
approximately 50 meters (165 feet) long with a 8.6-meter (28-foot) wide
travelway. The bridge will provide two travel lanes with a 1.0-meter
(3.0-foot) offset on each side. It will be at approximately the same grade
as the existing roadway.
The estimated construction cost is $450,000.
In terms of historic architectural resources, the Crantock Farm is on
the SHPO study list for the National Register of Historic Places. SHPO
recommends a survey to determine boundaries and eligibility. The SHPO
recommends no archaeological survey.
The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission recommends the use of High
Quality Waters erosion control measures during construction. In addition, a
survey for the federally endangered dwarf-wedge mussel may be required.
The Division Construction Engineer concurs with closing the road and
detouring along area roads during construction.
There are currently two school bus crossings at the bridge each school
day. The Transportation Director for Johnston County indicated closing the
road would not cause problems for school bus operations.
The project requires no special bicycle accommodations.
The current project schedule includes right of way beginning December
1996 and letting in December 1997.
WF/plr
Attachments
M
April 10, 1995
Page 2
i
Attendance List--B-2992 Scoping Meeting:
Betty Yancey Right-of-Way
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Debbie Bevin DCR-SHPO
Allen Raynor Structure Design
Randy Carraway Structure Design
DeWayne Sykes Roadway Design
Darin Wilder Program Development
Tom Tarleton Location and Surveys
Christina Todd Traffic Control
Jesse Gilstrap Traffic Control
David Cox NCWRC
James H. Hoskins Division 4
Stephanie Briggs Planning and Environmental
Wayne Fedora Planning and Environmental

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT: B-2993 DIVISION: FOUR
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-2148(1) COUNTY: JOHNSTON
STATE PROJECT: 8.2311801 ROUTE: SR 2148
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace Obsolete Bridge
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No. 230 on SR 2148 over Little
Buffalo Creek in Johnston County
PROJECT USGS QUAD SHEET: Kenly West
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 200,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 20,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ....................................... $ 220,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST .................. $ 225,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED RIGHT OF WAY COST (T.I.P.)......... $ 20,000
CURRENT TOTAL COST ESTIMATE .......................... $ 245,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: (S) M
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 500 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 700 VPD
TTST 2% DT 3%
PROPOSED TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: 6.6-METER (22-FOOT) TRAVELWAY
PLUS 1.2 METER (4.0-FOOT) GRADED
SHOULDERS (2.1-METER/7.0-FOOT IF
GUARDRAIL IS USED)
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 15.9 Meters WIDTH 7.3 Meters
52 Feet 24.0 Feet
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: THREE BARREL 3.7 METERS X 3.0 METERS (12.0 FEET
X 10.0 FEET) RC BOX CULVERT
COMMENTS:
PREPARED BY: Wayne Fedora, P.E. DATE 04/05/95

- ?s 39 S
S 9
0 H* . 9 T Bag eY 1
s ? •6 108
7
W1 sons + J6 p f
/ _ w eid z?? .,
Pinks
(? 9 2 ` t2 Pine Level
A- G1-IM-1 70A
% to MI. 2.. 04 7 5 pie
` oaks r
6 9
N.6 Net. .01*
H ??'O SX ?` \ 10 1 de , ;? Vol
00,
a~?p s 1.0 Q 6 - 4 FAS ??
??? !' •q FP1.3 `o 1.4 TO WILSO
4
D 0
0 C,$
.a •9 c'_ F'9S j, ?. G
co) - 1.0
- \D? \\Jl\ P ? ?.
0C6 %
p
?J
TD T -A
? 3 \? ? A ib'
1.4 1.2
iJ .2
-13
7 .9
1.0 \9 4 9
.0 IRV
.9
D? f D \\??6 to .9\? a Y \? 6 fi
b BRIDGE NO. 230
D? 0
lo, I Jr
Creek
•2 C'' .7 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
iD ?i7, o. TRANSPORTATION
`D DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
?? ` ?D?? per , e 0 P"NNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
lie b BRANCH
9 BRIDGE NO. 230
6 7 ADO IX% ON SR 2148 OVER
LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK
JOHNSTON COUNTY
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE T.I.P. NO. B-2993 FIG. 1
0 kilometers 1.6 0 miles 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
'S6 10' '57 2 250 000 FEET '58 :V C..2 759 X60 78°!
° - Cem ./'.
+?r Williams; l .. ` /.
KENLEY WEST
::Cem _ 7-5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE -?
_ _ -?_,_._., l lam)
n ec -_' n
' ?• ? •. 11 ?-- „ em
Glendale Ch
t Grave ape - _ - - _ v a
O
_Cem:
2159 a tGrave 188 . /
° Cem
2? r
%
• • • ?? Susan 95
2
? j_ ? •::Cem .(
it.
„
{?
it.
178
CZ)
Cent: ?'•iP•
Beulahtown 2143 cCern • , • .
Holly Springgss ° ` -
Ch•
Lt' .? ?'?? „Cem
162
• •? - ? '155 r ? $ ?' ?' -/ '-cv?'' O••:C
' /' ? \ •0
%
• n -COAS
Sewage
= - - Disposal -- :
L
Aso---? _ _-_-
// / 2325 , . it
Bag.v
\ ?I IJ ii
J 169 • - ` ?? / urn.:: i 10 .
Line
_ Lowed
?? ° •: Cem $ --- /
?J I
Coast Cem
pro j ' - ?
`Cem•:
?i