20001495 Ver 1_Complete File_20001128

? oaA SfAi£°?
aS? s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
April 26, 1999
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
>'? VV)
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Durham County, Replacement of Bridge No. 91 on SR 1809 over Lick
Creek. TIP No. B-2964, State Project No. 8.2351701, Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1809(2).
Please find attached the Categorical Exclusion and Construction Consultation for the
referenced project. The recommendation for replacement of Bridge No. 91 over Lick
Creek has changed since the Categorical Exclusion was approved. The original proposal
was to replace Bridge No. 91 on existing location with a single barrel reinforced concrete
box culvert. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) now proposes
to replace Bridge No. 91 on existing location with a new bridge. The new bridge will be a
cored slab structure approximately 114ft long with two spans of 57ft. The new approach
roadway will be a 7.2 meter (24 foot) travelway with shoulder widths of at least 2.4
meters (8 feet). Traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads during construction.
A temporary work pad will also be required for this project. Temporary impacts to the
surface waters from the temporary causeway total 0.013 acre. The temporary causeway
will be constructed of clean rock and will be removed from the streambed to the greatest
0
2
extent practical without extensive disturbance of the existing streambed after construction.
Some residual may remain. Construction plans detailing the proposed causeway are
depicted in the attached drawings.
No wetlands will be impacted by the proposed construction. 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 reque g an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accord , e with
33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued 13 December 1996, by the Corps of Engineers. .
The NCDOT is also requesting a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary
Construction Access and Dewatering) authorizing the construction of the causeway. The
provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in
the construction of the project.
By copy of this letter, the DOT also asks that the appropriate General 401 Water Quality
Certification be issued by the Division of Water Quality for this construction activity. If
you have any questions, please contact Mr. Lindsey Riddick at [phone],,1 extension
315.
Sincerely,
,t/. C - xuj?- ?L
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Whit Webb, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P. E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. A Allsbrook, P. E., Division 5 Engineer
i

DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 33
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE
APPROPRIATE FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NCDOT
2. MAILING ADDRESS: P O Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611-5201
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER: William D. Gilmore, P. E.
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Durham NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Durham
1

SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Bridge No. 91 over the Lick Creek on SR 1809
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Lick Creek
RIVER BASIN: Neuse
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER
OF PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF
401 CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0.0

2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0.0 EXCAVATION:
FLOODING:
OTHER:
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.00
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION :
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): N/A FT
WIDTH AFTER: N/A FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: -Temporary placement of stone in channel
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N/A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY):
Construction of a new bridge over the Lick Cree
Road construction equipment
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: To improve safety of the traveling
public by replacing a sub-standard bridge
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE
CARRIED OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE
WETLAND IMPACTS): N/A
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?'
YES [X] NO (I
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESSI!SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18,
21, 26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? rural
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN TIE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
.
LA
,
c,1 G1,?.,,

L? yeti

OWNER' S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
LeasbiurR ? I an Son ??.... ...,..,
-71 Casv,l le v v Il • YRoxbor0 I s -+ * 1. dlebu(R arrenton 11 --"1 62 l I I;A , Brooksdale ew,s ' .x
url G R A N V LE bR a+ R E
Locust NIP + 6 Roseville b S to
k' 0 1 c t1 r s
tile, ISO `lF,ogsboro 49 '.?Prck'...d i5A q i.8 r\I ), .k Grey s ne
•ntowers 1 + 9 Berea b3? 7 13
?10 1ai P E RS O N Oxford 3 a suss L u Henderson ElberonCreek
dgevnle 5T t s
q / I ashy urdle . berlake ® Gitlbu,g/ Arcola
; Inez
i 'rospeC ' + I Cadonton Mills '* I Providence 3 ? , 1 1 ,1/ If 3 rEpiO `? • Es
< I
mill - _ IS7 ?\ Monsh _ Alert
5 5 t , R Yemont'z..i. 9 13 1Klttrell'/
11 et 1T{''' +
;? 86 Caldwell '\ I CAA+v S'fem. a /7. ?1 ??w. rWOOd
aUTMFR t entemil
`t\ `?.dke ? d--?q I Ingleside C , 5
)ee , ?.?• I' + 57 , Baha a S.H,yhre • Nester Wilton 561 Aven
r i
I Cedar r 4 r ?, I
Elan ./ ' Grove t Schley r+ 01 ro Butner + F R A N L I N 1
olleg. 5', IS 16 ?pq t ?LdwsburQQ
O J, Mebane f - flsnd ?5 1 IS Creedmoor Franklmton N ®r 9
a , peer E + + ? z"? n I Il orthside / 56 Sat 56 Castahs
u > h . illsbbrougH RHA,,
lolevI'll le Justice .34 50 58
nc raham. 119 KORAN EJ DU+rlam YounesviNe 39,10 $91 ,/ f0
3 , ? Swso to ] forest 1A S 401
°-
* o.? + 81 5t I 1 _?+ z Z New Hope Spring Momeye z
?tIALA lAN i ,• Chapel ill ' ' 1 8 04toy 1 ' ?rop:LoRe :I! 5 Z nvs Bunn Nooe ash
K? ' ) S t0 Bdboa Io1,?Re.. f'onJ.r 6111 +
ppsvdle a ,auans ?7rrhnf0:' ", I ) 55 / Rrw°rcF
14 Tr• nglr . si •y \ J prey yes s 98 i 1
II \ r .?` ?' 1 2 I - = 1° Neuse o rtes ! _
i0 a 1•J• Rolesv111e l 1 5 .
II Eh Whitney "°nrr°,. .. I - 51?I 4 abo?! Cresho?ins ?• 9 401 Pilot / + u
o •J s, 04 Lake % ,+ ;3 6d! 23
?1 - •-v r v c
49 Snow Camp ` '•?Lukeu ,1 love Nets /
E Wakefield 1 ' 97 f
5 Stanhope
o'r.? r. Q' ? ,c ? • • I ? Mdlbrook + Lizard + SRI o n .
Scale of Miles tp /?o?1sv111? _{, f zJ 31 5 1 Aaleigh 64 Lick 7 ebul 5 n r .51 + vO`1O' j
0 S 15 20 30 i + ry 264 .7-4?) SgTe p 648 idd?ese, M.+.?T
?•? Knightdale Rock 3 a, e •
0 70 20 30 40 48 , /6 bd \ t {Z S lp en ell i 23 39,\'Z) Sim A64 .
Scale of Kilometers Rock f s .?
^c^ epurls`arn3 nines a•+d aperol?mately 11 kdemet<,y t Apex f_uk.• 1 ,Garnlsr - 1 ! + Idge?
Coe
1 ti,
as '1 r : y s Il ?'? ?((
1x 70
/ tam l.s ti:
70
FAI
J0
i
i Ibq¢ it
117
70
v f^ ' ,voe 1002 / v. 22s7. N
r .-5 .1 .3 1904 +V
fiel _1001
t 0 t 2 0 4 PJUM P
0 0.5
35° ss
SCALE FOR ENLARGEMENTS
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1 N I DURHAM COUNTY
V 1 (71 T
PROJECT: 8.2351701 (B-2964)
MAP REPLACEMENT OF BRG # 91
OVER LICK CREEK ON SR 1809
SHEET j- OF 3
84

79 lee.
7 leo7 '?1
Roper
?ovy i0o7 ..n.
91
i
of 36° 00'
2126
213
V B TO. wAKE FOREST --
.3 .1
1
206
'6 1605 •? ? ?.
C121 ~
1901 ? ?!
87 -
7
7 2.0.91
Is
2102
v

O

+ g cr
00 Q w
w
z
LL.
o z
z
N w
w w
~
Q O
~ N
N CL

O cr
W O
t u
z
D
N
0
O
O
3
U
1
+

I

I i
I
I
I

U Lq -
0 Ln U
Z

-
co +
+
Lt f _
F- I
O N
Z
w '
J X
W -
Y O
m x v
LL. -
F
II
F _
' 17
I
V
I
LIC I CREEK
^7
O
zQ .
I CO
°o
O
?r
O..
a
N
N
Q
J
V
>- o II
Q? I
O ?Z
0- p I
W ?
H
I.
`I
w c?
U O Z
cr N_
Co + X
Z .Li W
w U
J F I
CO
a
F I
1
LL-
z
o
00
Q ?

L
i U

o
I C?
w
a
,I II w a. =
o I II = L Z (A (7
0 ?.

-
N L.LJ
M
E-+
fsl
I Q O M °o w U ?I
QQ 40 E-?
I II ``' O ? E- ® W U ,
- w o
U a. ti -J NI
I II ? Z
I F
II A

?3
M

o

U

?

?

w
I I ? ( o ? 9 ?
I =

I I I - = Z
I I I m

I I I I ?

I
I o

I
I I
,

I?

cD/
R
c
CK

1
-'
U a - w

i
E x
F N
w

t/ U
0 Y
Z
{ w Q
\ co
w
O
I? I
I I" I
I I I
i cI
ZI
I I oI
I I
°
?? I ' I
i
T I
Imo, ? -\ -
w N
CL CD
I ? \
p U w
M = a °O
i ° ``
O
F w
U
I
I
W
.? W
?F
Q
a?' 3
WW
FU
WW
Fa
O h
z
cz
O NI to NI OBI NI 0I 0.4
Q ?x z m?
l Y o Z? O ? O
M I F'' O 2 V
wp wov i ??
w° ° m I Q II z O
CO w CO ,.+r, I g j
- I N
Z z' I (n F- LLJ
J J
N m w W W w 00 U o
x o I ?o CDC
wiF - I?.s? 3IN ? ll
C7
WN
I I - - ~Ln
I L
I +
I I O
? I I I
I 4?., /S \ Q
Q0
m CO
Ln O
V) O °+
cr? F-
°'
N
w GO C)
a m
Y I w C' Q
a o LLJ F- (\j
U, 1 O ?'
U-) N
II
w
00
p ' I
rl) > 3 J
+ Cl m+ w
w O w v
lr7 Z 1 I Z I-
- O I I
U C, i =
LL
w J Z
i
iJ v CO ' ?.. I Z F-
1 In
N w O ..?
x ix
1 I w U
I ? oo .a E"'
z Q z
0 1 I ?I U N
p I w W
w I x
ON I. o
CL
0 0
`+
M_
F F
r.? n..?
U U
k '
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION FORM
T. I. P. Id. No. B-2964
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Consultation Phase: Construction
b. Project Description: Durham County, SR 1809, Bridge No. 91 Over Lick
Creek
C. Federal Project No.: BRZ-1809(2)
State Project No.: 8.2351701
d. Document Type: Categorical Exclusior. 11-21-96
Date
II. CONCLUSIONS
The subject environmental document has been reevaluated as required by
23 CFR 771. It has been determined that the current proposed action is essentially the
same as described in the Categorical Exclusion. Proposed changes, if any, are noted
below in Section III. It has been determined that anticipated social, economic, and
environmental impacts were accurately described in the above referenced document unless
noted otherwise herein. Therefore, the Administrative Action remains valid.
III. CHANGES IN THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES
When the Categorical Exclusion (CE) was approved on November 21, 1996, the
recommended alternative consisted of replacing the bridge along the existing alignment
with a triple barrel (3 @ 10 feet x 9 feet) reinforced concrete box culvert with an off-site
detour for traffic. Since the approval of the CE, more detailed hydraulic analyses have
been conducted. The recommended alternative has been changed to replacing the bridge
with a new bridge along the existing alignment with an off-site detour for traffic. The new
bridge will have a length of 114 feet and will have a clear roadway width of 26 feet. The
roadway approaches will be improved for approximately 200 feet on each end of the
bridge.
The Best Usage Classification for Lick Creek, as designated by the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), has been reviewed. Since the approval of the CE, the water
resource classification of WS-IV NSW has not changed (see attachment).
n ?
At the time of the approval of the CE, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) listed three (3) federally protected species, smooth coneflower, Nlichaux's
sumac, and bald eagle, for Durham County. The most recent USFWS list for federally
protected species (January 15, 1999) has been reviewed; and there has been no change for
Durham County (see attachment). The biological conclusion of No Effect rendered for
these species remains valid.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will apply for a Section 404
Nationwide 23 permit from the Corps of Engineers for this project.
IV. LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts.
Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds in Sedimentation Pollution Control
Guidelines (Title 15A NCAC 4B.0024) will be evaluated because the crossing is within
1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of and drains to Falls Lake. ACTION: The Erosion and
Sedimentation Plan for this project has been designed in accordance with the Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds in Sedimentation Pollution Control Guidelines.
V. COORDINATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch personne' have
discussed current project proposals with others as follows:
Roadway Design Engineer: Tim Jordan, PE, Roadway Design 4-20-99
Date
Permit Coordinator: Lindsey Riddick, Project Development 4-21-99
and Environmental Analysis Branch Date

FHWA Engineer: John Schrohenlohr, PE, Area Engineer r
4-20-99
Date
SoL
VI. NCDOT CONCURRENCE
Project Development Engineer Date
? 111/
[Manager, Project Developmen and Environmental Analysis Branch Date'
Durham County
SR 1809
Bridge No. 91 over Lick Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1809(2)
State Project No. 8.2351701
T.I.P. No. B-2964
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADM NISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
t 2A&
DATE
-? Nicholas L. raf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
I Z iL y
DATE
Durham County
SR 1809
Bridge No. 91 over Lick Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1809(2)
State Project No. 8.2351701
T.I.P. No. B-2964
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November, 1996
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
Owl
11, 4,9
i2JA4d °0 o
°
°
Lisa Hilliard, P.E. a
Project Manager - Ko & Associates 1 d® °
0
°
iR&P
?a
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
(.cam
L. Gail rimes, P. ., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Ez.
. P'-? ?-- Philip S. Harris, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Durham County
SR 1809
Bridge No. 91 over Lick Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1809(2)
State Project No. 8.2351701
T.I.P. No. B-2964
Bridge No. 91 is included in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement 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
1. All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds in Sedimentation Pollution Control Guidelines
(Title 15A NCAC 4B. 0024) will be evaluated because the crossing is within 1.6 kilometers
(1.0 mi) of and drains to Falls Lake.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 91 will be replaced in its existing location with a culvert. During construction traffic will
be detoured on SR 1902 and NC 98.
The estimated cost for the proposed improvement is $332,000 . The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $270,000 including
$20,000 for right-of-way and $250,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1809 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The
proposed project is located in a rural area of southeastern Durham County approximately 304 meters
(1000 ft) south of the intersection of NC 98 and SR 1809 (Figure 1). The area in and around the
study corridor is primarily forested.
Near the bridge, SR 1809 has a 6.7 meter (22 ft) unpaved roadway width with no shoulders. The
roadway approaches slope downward from south to north. The horizontal alignment is tangent on
the bridge with a 120 meter radius (14.5 degree) curve approximately 160 meters (525 ft) from the
bridge to the north. The south approach is tangent. The roadway is situated approximately 3.4 meters
(11 ft) above the creek bed.
The traffic volumes were 100 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1995 and projected to be 400 vpd for the
design year 2020. The volumes include I% truck-tractor semi trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired (DT)
vehicles. The speed limit is not posted and assumed to be 72 kilometers per hour (45 mph).
The existing bridge was built in 1961 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists! of four timber joist
spans. Bridge deck construction is a creosote timber floor deck with an asphalt wearing surface. The
substructure consists of creosote timber pile end bents and interior bents with timber caps.
The overall length of the bridge is 21.0 meters (69 ft). Clear roadway width is 5.8 meters (19.2 ft).
The posted weight limit is 7257.6 kilograms (8 tons) for single vehicles and 13,608.0 kilograms (15
tons) for tractor trailer trucks. SR 1809 is unpaved.
Bridge No. 91 has a sufficiency rating of 39. 1, compared to a rating of 100 for: a new structure.
Two accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from April 1, 1992 to
March 31, 1995.
On overhead electric lime crosses the stream west of the bridge and a telephone line crosses the stream
east of the bridge. There are no utilities attached to the bridge.
School buses cross this bridge a total of four times daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
No alternatives were considered for replacement of the bridge in its existing location. Utilizing the
existing roadway provides the best alignment and the lowest cost. A relocated alignment would result
in excessive cost and undesirable horizontal alignment. The approaches will be''paved for 30 meters
(100 ft) from each end ofthe culvert. Temporary, on-site detours were considered west (Temporary
Detour 1) and east (Temporary Detour 2) of the existing bridge. Based on a' benefit-cost ratio of
0.07:1, an on-site detour is not reasonable (see Section VII.). During construction traffic will be
detoured on SR 1902 and NC 98, a distance of 5.8 kilometers (3.6 mi) (see Figure 1).
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternative was also considered but would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1809.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates, that rehabilitation of
the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
2
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternative studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
Alternate A
with on-site
detour Alternate A
-with off-.site
detour
(Recommended)
Structure Removal $8,190.00 $8,190.00
Structure $101,400.00 $101,400.00
Roadway Approaches $93,540.00 $93,540.00
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $61,870.00 $61,870.00
Engineering and Contingencies $35,000.00 $35,000.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easement / Util. $32,000.00 $32,000.00
SUBTOTAL $332,000.00 $332,000.00
Temporary On-Site Detour $174,500.00 NA
TOTAL $506,500.00 $332,000.00
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 91 will be replaced on its existing location with a triple barrel 3.0 meter x 2.7 meter (10
ft x 9 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert. The approaches will be improved for 30 meters (100 ft) on
each end of the culvert. Traffic will be detoured on SR 1902 and NC 98 during construction, a
distance of approximately 5.8 kilometers (3.6 mi) (see Section VII.).
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
VII. TRAFFIC DETOUR
The Division Engineer concurs that traffic can be detoured on existing roads during the construction
period. A four month road closure period is anticipated. The oil site detour roadway and bridges
are adequate to accommodate affected traffic during the construction period.
A road user analysis was performed for detouring traffic on existing roads based on 100 vpd and an
average of 5.8 kilometers (3.6 mi) of indirectional travel utilizing SR 1902 and NC 98 (See Figure
1). The cost of additional travel would be approximately $13,000 during the four month construction
period. The estimated cost ofproviding an on site detour is $174,500, resulting in a benefit-cost ratio
3
of 0.07:1. This ratio does not indicate justification to maintain traffic on-site during the construction
period.
Methods
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including the applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle mapping
(Bayleaf and Southeast Durham, N.C.), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland
Inventory mapping (NWI), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) (formerly Soil
Conservation Service) soils information (USDA 1976), and 1994 aerial photography (scale: 1:1200)
furnished by NCDOT.
The principal investigator for natural resources was Kevin Markham with Environmental Services,
Inc. Mr. Markham received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Marine Biology from the University of
North Carolina, Wilmington. He has eight years of experience in coastal ecosystems evaluations,
wildlife surveys, wetland delineations, mitigation planning, and threatened andendangered species
issues.
The site was visited on March 27, 1996. Communities likely to be impacted by proposed
improvements were walked and visually surveyed for important features. Surveys were conducted
within a study corridor approximately 91.4 meters (300 ft) in width, symmetrical to the existing
alignment. However, impact calculations are based on the approximate right-ofLway and temporary
construction easements. Special concerns evaluated include potential habitat for protected species,
wetlands, and water quality protection in Lick Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When apptopriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular; plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three
parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas are characterized
according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitat used by
terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were
determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation
(Martof et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Menhinick 1991; Hamel 1992). ! Recreational fishing
potential was determined by utilizing Fish (1968). Water quality information, for area streams and
tributaries was derived from available sources (DEM 1991, DEM 1993). Quantitative sampling was
not undertaken to support existing data.
A USFWS listing of federal protected species with ranges which extend into !Durham County was
obtained prior to initiation of field studies. In addition, NHP records documentinEg presence of federal
or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
4
Physiography and Soils
Durham County is situated in the Piedmont physiographic province. Topography is characterized by
rolling hills with some steep slopes parallel to the major streams. Elevations in the study corridor
vicinity range from approximately 91 meters (300 ft) just north of the study corridor at the
intersection of SR 1809 and NC 98, to approximately 79 meters (260 ft) along the creek bottom
(USGS Bayleaf/Southeast Durham, NC quadrangles). The study corridor is in the Triassic Basin
geological region and is underlaid by arkosic sandstone (DNRCD 1985).
Soils in the study corridor are Altavista silt loam (Aquic Hapludults), Chewacla/Wehadkee soils
(Fluvaquentic DystrochreptslTypic Fluvaquents), and Pinkston fine sandy loam (Ruptic-Ultic
Dystrochrepts). Chewacla/Wehadkee are on the national list of hydric soils (USDA 1991). The
Altavista series is a moderately chained soil typically found on stream terraces. Permeability in this
series is moderate. Seasonal high water table is approximately 0.8 meters (2.5 ft) below the surface.
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils are somewhat poorly drained and are typically found on major stream
and river floodplains. These soils are flooded frequently for brief periods. However, except for one
small pocket in the southwest corner of the study corridor, the Chewacla series does not demonstrate
hydric conditions.
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within the Neuse River Drainage Basin (USGS hydrologic unit
03020201). Bridge No.91 crosses Lick Creek approximately 0.3 kilometer (0.2 mi) south of the
junction of NC 98 and SR 1809. The creek flows from west to east through the study corridor before
turning northeast and emptying into Falls Lake. Lick Creek has been assigned Stream Index Number
27-11-(0.5) by the N. C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (DEM 1993). A best
usage classification of WS-IV NSW has been assigned to the segment of Lick Creek (DEM 1993)
within the study corridor. The designation WS-IV denotes the stream is protected as a water supply
in a moderately to highly developed watershed, with strict requirements for point source discharges.
Local programs exist to control non-point source and stormwater discharges. Additional appropriate
uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with water on an incidental or
infrequent basis. The NSW designation indicates Nutrient Sensitive Waters. Within areas with this
designation, no increase in stream nutrient levels over background levels is generally permitted.
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, or WS-H waters occur within 1.6 kilometers (1
5
mi) of the study corridor. Lick Creek is within 1.6 kilometers ( 1 mi) of Falls Lake critical area. Falls
Lake is designated WS-IV and HQW. No permitted point source discharges occur on Lick creek
(DEM 1991). Lick Creek is not a North Carolina state designated Natural and Scenic River, nor is
it a nationally-listed Wild and Scenic River.
The Benthic Macromvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates . Species
richness and overall biomass are considered to be reflections of water quality. There is one BMAN
special study site, identified as DEM site 55, located approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) upstream
from the study corridor. This site received a bioclassification rating of Fair (E?tM 1991).
Stream Characteristics
Lick Creek is characterized as broad and shallow, averaging approximately 7;6 meters (25 ft) in
width and approximately 0.6 meters (2.0 ft) in depth. The stream meanders slightly within the study
corridor. The steep bank slopes are approximately 1.8 to 3.7 meters (6 to 12 ft) in height. Flow is
slow to moderate and the water exhibited no turbidity at the time of this survey. The stream bed is
composed of gravel and sand. Approximately 9.1 meters (30 ft) west of the bridge, an unnamed
tributary empties into Lick{ Creek.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts on water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction related activities. Adverse impacts will be minimized by implementing the NCDOT Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs), as applicable, during construction.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from proposed
improvements. The proposed culvert will allow for continuation of present flow rates thereby
protecting stream integrity.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Uniformity of the plant communities in the project vicinity result in two classifications: mesic
hardwood forest, dominating floodplain areas, and urban/disturbed land within power line right-of-
ways and along road sides. The plant communities are described below.
Mesic Hardwood Forest
This community characterizes the floodplain areas of Lick Creek. The canopy is dominated by
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), and
American beech (Fagus grandifolia). River birch (Betula nigra), American Sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), and Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) also occurs in the southwest section of the study
6
corridor. The midstory/shrub layer is composed of ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), dogwood
(Cornus florida), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and strawberry bush (Euonymus
americanus). Herbs include field garlic (Allium sp.), and heartleaf (Hexastylis virginica).
Urban/Disturbed Land
This community includes disturbed roadside margins and areas beneath power lines. Vegetation in
these areas is composed of a variety of species such as red maple, tulip poplar, devils' walking stick
(Aralia spinosa), cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and blackberries (Rubus spp.), as well as successional
grasses and herbs.
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the proposed right-of-way and temporary construction easements. A summary of plant
community impacts which may result from construction activities is presented below.
Table 1. Estimated plant community impacts.
PLANT CONRAUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACTS
in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Temp. Detour 1 Temp. Detour 2
Mesic hardwood forest 0.13 (0.31) 0.17 (0.42) 0.20 (0.49)
Urban/Disturbed Land 0.40(l.00) 0.02 (0.06) 0.00 (0.00)
TOTAL: 0.53(l.31) 0.19 (0.48) 0.20 (0.49)
Impacts to plant communities as a result of Alternative A are restricted to narrow strips immediately
adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments. Approximately 0.13 hectare (0.31
ac) of natural plant community will be impacted.
The off-site detour alternative is not expected to result in impacts to plant communities due to the
utilization of existing roads. Temporary on-site detour alternatives exhibit minor variations in the
distribution ofpotential impacts to plant communities. Temporary Detour 2 will impact slightly more
of the natural forested plant communities than Temporary Detour 1. Impacts to plant communities
as a result of either detour alternative are temporary.
Construction of the proposed alternative is not expected to result in substantial adverse impacts to
the plant communities within the study corridor. No additional habitat segmentation is expected.
7
Wildlife
Terrestrial
The study corridor is currently characterized by natural forest vegetation with disturbed land located
in power line right-of-way and roadside margins Forested floodplains bordering Lick Creek have all
the necessary components (food, water, and protective covering) for wildlife species adapted to non-
fragmented forest habitat.
Mammalian species expected in the study corridor include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),
raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), and Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Avian species are typical of mesic and bottomland forest
communities. Noted species include Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), blue jay (Cyanocitta
cristata), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), red-bellied woodpecker (Mel nerpes carolinus),
downy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), American crow (Corvus brachyr*hynchos), Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), American robin (Turdus migratorius), song sparrow (Melospiza
melodic), and eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis). Reptiles and amphibians expected within the study
corridor include American toad (Bufo americanus), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus),
and five-Tined skink (Eumeces fasciatus).
Aquatic
Lick Creek typically has slow to moderate stream velocity. The creek is of limited recreational fishing
importance, primarily for sunfishes (Lepomis spp.) (Fish 1968). Nongame (species that may be
expected include redfin pickerel (Esox amencanus), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), and
rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides). Amphibians such as spotted salamander (Ambystoma
maculatum), red-spotted newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), chorus frogs (Pseudacris spp.), and
toads (Bufo spp.) are expected to use pools for breeding during spring wet periods.
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement of natural communities, the proposed culvert will not result
in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal populations. Maintenance
of regular flow and stream integrity will minimize potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitats
by the proposed bridge replacement. In addition, permanent and temporary impacts to downstream
habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimised by implementation of the
NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Lick Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 404 as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Creek waters are classified as
palustrine open water systems (POW).
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at
or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). Based on this
three parameter approach, jurisdictional wetlands are restricted to a small area in the southeast section
of the study corridor. This community exhibits characteristics of palustrine forested, broad-leaved
deciduous, temporarily flooded wetlands (PFOI A). The following table summarizes wetland impacts
which will result from in-place bridge replacement and temporary detours.
Table 2. Estimated Wetland Impacts.
WETLAND TYPE ESTIMATED HAPACTS
in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Temp. Detour 1 Temp. Detour 2
PFO 1 A: 0.00 (0.00) 0.03 (0.07) 0.00 (0.00)
Minor impacts to palustrine open water (POW) are expected as a result of bridge replacement by a
reinforced concrete box culvert. The POW impacts are 0.02 hectare (0.05 ac) for Alternative A, 0.01
hectare (0.02 ac) for Temporary Detour 1, and 0.01 hectare (0.02 ac) for Temporary Detour 2. No
wetlands will be impacted by in-kind replacement of the existing structure.
Permits
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated from project construction. In accordance with provisions
of Section 404 of the CWA, a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of dredge or
fill material into "Waters of the United States."
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of
the United States from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another federal agency or department
where:
(1) that agency or department has determined pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually
9
nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment; and,
(2) the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) prior to the issuance of a Nationwide Permit.I Section 401 of the
CWA requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States.
Miti ag tion
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature! of project impacts.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), proposed endangered, and
proposed threatened are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1913, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal protected species are listed for Durham County (August
23, 1996 USFWS list):
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) - E
Michaux's sumac (Rhus Michaux'i) - E
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) -T
Smooth coneflower - This species grows in calcareous, basic, or circumneutral soils on road sides,
clear cuts, and power line right-of-ways where there is abundant light and little herbaceous
competition. Fire-maintained woodlands also appear to provide potential habitat for the coneflower.
NEP records indicate that this species has not been documented within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of
the study corridor. Disturbed areas m the project study corridor are regularly maintained, providing
little or no opportunity for growing of this species. No specimens were noted during field surveys.
This project is not expected to affect smooth coneflower because shading of road sides by adjacent
forest trees and routine mowing reduce the suitability of road sides within the study corridor for this
species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Michaux's sumac - Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous shrub, which
tends to grow in disturbed areas where competition is reduced by periodic fire or other disturbances,
and may grow along roadside margins or utility right-of-ways. In the Piedmont, Michaux's sumac
appears to prefer clay soil derived from mafic rocks or sandy soil derived from granite (Weakley
10
1993). NIP records indicate that this species has not been documented within 1.6 kilometers (1.0
mile) of the study corridor. Stable, relatively undisturbed habitat is not present within the study
corridor for Michaux's sumac.
This project is not expected to affect Michaux's sumac because shading of road sides by adjacent
forest trees and routine mowing reduce the suitability of road sides within the study corridor for this
species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Bald Eagle - The bald eagle is found primarily in association with large lakes and coastal bays and
sounds where food is plentiful. Nest sites are built close to feeding grounds in large trees
(predominately pine or cypress), either living or dead. Eagles are opportunistic hunters and
scavengers, feeding on a wide variety of aquatic-dependent organisms including fish, snakes, small
mammals and large water birds. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the study corridor.
NHP records indicate that this species has not been documented within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mi) of the
study corridor.
This project is not expected to affect bald eagles due to the lack of foraging and nesting opportunities
in Lick Creek within the study corridor. Construction activities may temporarily displace any bald
eagles foraging in the vicinity; however, no documented nesting activity will be disrupted.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal species of concern - The August 23, 1996 USFWS list also includes a category of species
designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection for the species listed. NHP files do not document any FSC within the study corridor. The
following are listed as FSC for Durham County:
Common Name
Atlantic pigtoe
Green floater
Yellow lampmussel
Panhandle peeblesnail
Septimas's clubtail dragonfly
A liverwort
Butternut
Sweet pinesap
Tall larkspur
State Protected Species
Scientific Name Potential Habitat
Fusconaia masoni Y
Lasmigona subviridis Y
Lampsilis cariosa Y
Somotogyrus virginicus N
Gomphus septima Y
Plagiochila columbiana N
Juglans cinerea N
Monotropsis odorata N
Delphinium exaltatum N
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina 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
11
et seq.).
NHP records indicate two state-listed Special Concern species, four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium
scutatum) and Douglass' bittercress (Cardamine douglassii), both of which have been documented
within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) downstream from the study corridor. The proposed project is not
expected to have adverse long-term impacts on these species. Impacts to these species will be
avoided/minimized to the greatest extent possible and notification to the NHP will be given prior to
construction.
IX. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requiries that for federally
funded, licensed, or permitted projects, having an effect on properties listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment.
In a concurrence form dated May 9, 1996 the Federal Highway Administration, NCDOT, and the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred that there are no properties,
including Bridge No.91, in the area of potential effect (APE) listed in or eligible for the National
Register (see Appendix for Concurrence Form).
In their April 22, 1996 letter, the SHPO stated that there are no known archaeological sites in the
proposed project area and it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places will be affected. They recommended no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project (see Appendix for SHPO letter). Therefore,
the NCDOT has not conducted nor will conduct any archaeological work in connection with this
project.
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially unsafe bridge.
Inconvenience to motorists will be negligible since traffic volumes are low and other connecting
roadways in the immediate vicinity are available.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
12
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No significant
change in existing land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The project is included within Falls Lake State Recreational Area, part of which is a registered natural
area and subject to Section 4(f). However, since the project consists of replacing a bridge in its
existing location with a culvert, Section 4(f) does not apply. There are no other publicly owned parks,
recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the
vicinity of the project.
Since the project will consist of replacing an existing bridge in its existing location with a culvert, the
Farmland Protection Policy Act does not apply.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
Noise levels could increase during demolition 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 Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title
23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required. ,
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.
Durham County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program The bridge is
located in an Approximate Study Area. The Flood Boundary and Fooodway Map is included in the
Appendix. This map indicates the approximate limits of the 100-year and the 500-year floodplains as
well as the 100-year floodway. Since the proposed culvert will be an in-kind replacement, it is not
anticipated that this project will have a significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain and
floodway nor on the associated flood hazard to the adjacent properties and buildings.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.
13
REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USFWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Tech. Rpt.
Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS. 100 pp.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (DNRCD). 1985. Geologic Map
of North Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1991. Biological Assessment'of Water Quality in
North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water
Quality, 1983-1990. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, andlNatural Resources,
Water Quality Section. Raleigh.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Neuse River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh. 312 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R Bell 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Schafale, M. P. and Weakley, A. S. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1976. Soil Survey information provided by the Durham
County SCS office, North Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 74 pp.
14
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. In cooperation
with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Soil Conservation Service.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working Draft of November
1993. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 575 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
15
Y >
r
V Q
2 '^
. y. V ,
316' 05'
C?
t 1
9
w 4F
If I4
I POP. 100,539
I1 ,

SC 99

Keene
a
A`
2
J
O
0
, , m
awl i? '` fie
%i 'RESEA ARCH
,TIN
Q
ss
PARK t 1 IT 1906 `
... ' 1 N 3:
!O ?.
?-.
35' SS'
Z
.. x
20 Irl-53
• ?"'•? tl .1424
r'` 61 10 5
Yv.;y ..... .:ri.` ... f ; i?
O 1.0 ' 2.0 mA9s ® F?;;x•• I ?' n-. l
1111 All
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 km
Source: County Road Maps, qtr.} •? ?a <^
NCDOT, 1990 '3 1
40 0
41
Studied Detour Route Site Location Map Figure: 1
Bridge # 91
SR 1809 Over Project:
Lick Creek
Durham County, NC Date: AUG 1996
B-2964
BRIDGE NO. 91
DURHAM
COUNTY
B-2964
LOOKING NORTH

..may
LOOKING SOUTH

?J
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3
Federal Aid # P?tz2 ISoq ??,? TIP #
b• 2844
County DURHAM
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description V.E Wf, VR1DbE ?JJa. ?l1 iN tiR-1$? ovee- L t44L GREG
taV-loC-ULV xt)
On VA,? 11%, , 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 arc no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
? there arc no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects..
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are considered not eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the projects area of potential effects.
Signed:
the Division tdmif istrator, or other Federal Agency
Representative,
°(.Ift,
Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this fonn and the attached list will be included.

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 22, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: _ David Brook
Deputy State t'tori
c P
reservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 91 on SR 1809 over Lick Creek, Durham County,
B-2964, ER 96-8567
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1996, concerning the above project.
We are aware of no structures of historic or architectural importance within the general
area of the project. We recommend that an architectural historian on your staff identify
and evaluate any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, 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.
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.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ???
State of North Carolina
I= _1V7V1 RIT
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 • 0
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ED AAMMUNdanaftodft
? H N F :1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 15, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Phil Harris
From: Eric Galamb4
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
The Water .Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
DOT consider the following generic environmental commitments for bridge
replacements:
A. DEM requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction for this project in the area that drains to streams having
WS (water supply), ORW (outstanding resource water), HQW (high quality
water), B (body contact), SA (shellfish water) or Tr (trout water) classifications
to protect existing uses.
B. DEM requests that bridges be replaced in existing location with road closure. If
an on-site detour or road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be
removed to pre-construction contour and revegetated with native tree species at
320 stems per acre.
C. DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
D. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland
impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts may be required.
E. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
cc: Monica Swihart
Melba McGee
bridges.sco
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
O?pPSME14TOFTyF?y? United States Department of the Interior
a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office G E I r
a Post Office Box 33726 Y
?4RC„ a Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
March 27, 1996
MAR 2 b 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick Z Givt51GH (;;
Planning and Environmental Branch HIGHWAYS
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201 ''?RONNIE?f
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Various counties, North Carolina (TIP Nos. B-1204, 2514, 2533,
2818, 2861, 2862, 2873, 2964, 3011, 3035, 3085, 3274, 3392, 3410)
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of March 13, 1996 requesting information from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced projects. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C.661-667d) and Section 7,of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves
as comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting
and/or certification processes for this project.
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
calls for the replacement of fourteen bridges in various Eastern North Carolina
counties.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all
people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-
specific comments at this time. However, the following recommendations should
help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable as outlined in the Clean water Act section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Bridge replacements should maintain natural water flows
and circulation regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage.
Habitat fragmentation should be minimized by using the existing disturbed
corridor instead of a new alignment. 'Impact areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices 'and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should occur outside of anadromous fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at the time
of public notice issuance. Resource agency coordination should occur early in
the planning process to resolve land,use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental
documentation for this project include the following (the level of detail should
be commensurate with the degree of environmental impacts):
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project including a
discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. An analysis of the alternatives to the proposed project that were
considered, including a no action alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the action
area of the proposed project which may be affected directly or
indirectly;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that
are to be impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or
draining. Wetland impact acreages should be differentiated by habitat
type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corns of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent,
that would be likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed
project. Also, an assessment should be included regarding the extent to
which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural
resources and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative
adverse effects;
6. Techniques which would be employed to design and construct wetland
crossings, relocate stream channels, and restore, enhance, or create
wetlands for compensatory mitigation;
7. Mitigation measures which would be employed to avoid, minimize, rectify,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the
project. These measures should include a detailed compensatory
mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species that are known to occur in Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus,
Cumberland, Duplin, Durham, Greene, Pender, Pitt, Robeson, Scotland, Wayne, and
Wilson counties. Habitat requirements for the Federally-listed species in the
project area should be compared with the available habitat at the proj=ect site.
If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field
surveys for the species should be performed, and survey methodologies and results
included in the environmental documentation for this project. In addition to
this guidance, the following information should be included in the environmental
document regarding protected species (the level of detail should be commensurate
with the degree of environmental impacts):
1. A specific description of the proposed action to be considered;
2. A description and accompanying map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
3. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of the
associated habitat that may be affected by the action, including the
results of an onsite inspection;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat:
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action
and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of Federal,
State, and private activities in the project and cumulative effects
area;
C. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification;
d. Cumulative impacts of future State and private activities (not
requiring Federal agency involvement, that will be considered as
part of future Section 7 consultation);
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential effects;
6. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed
species or associated habitat including project proposals to
reduce/eliminate adverse effects;
7. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is
not likely,to adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered
species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the service has
sufficient information on their biological status and threats to their survival
to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under the ESA,
Federal a§encies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy
or modify proposed critical habitat. Species of concern include those species
for which the Service does not have enough scientific information to support a
listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing at the present time.
Species of Concern receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes
available indicating they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places
the species under the full protection of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey
if its status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent
for the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress made in the planning process, including
your official determination of the impacts of this project.
Attachments
cc: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
NMFS
FHWA
USACE
EPA
FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:3-26-96/919-856-452'0 ext 19/wp:BMAR96.SCP
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 74**A
Division of Parks & Recreation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N f?
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Dr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director
August 12, 1996
Memorandum
TO: - Phil Harris, Project Engineer
FROM: Stephen Hall 4? I
SUBJECT: Draft Nationwide Section 4(f) Evaluation -- Replacement of Bridge No. 91
over Lick Creek, SR 1809, Durham County
REFERENCE: TIP No. B-2964
The Corps property located on either side of the bridge has been identified by the Natural
Heritage Program as a Priority Natural Heritage Area. The Division recommends that
disturbance to the adjoining forest be minimized as much as possible by replacing the bridge
along the existing alignment. In order to maintain Lick Creek as a wildlife travel corridor,
we further recommend that this crossing should be spanned by a new bridge, not by culverts.
An area beneath the bridge on both sides of the creek should be left as bare earth rather than
covered with rip-rap.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, - - TVA,
Health and Natural Resources AAM?4&
Division of Parks & Recreation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Dr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director
September 4, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Phil Harris
Department of Transportation
FROM: - Marshall Ellis N1 k ? ?. 6Z
Planning and Natural Resources Section
SUBJECT: Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for Bridge #91 on SR 1809 over Lick
Creek, Durham County. Reference Number B-2964.
The Division of Parks and Recreation has reviewed this project and does not have any objections
to the plans outlined in the Section 4(f) evlauation. However, since this stream flows into Falls
Lake State Recreation Area, we would like to offer the following comments:
1. The division's Natural Heritage Program database has no records of rare species or high
quality natural communities at this site. However, we note that there are high quality examples
of bottomland forest and Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest along Lick Creek downstream
of this site.
2. There are several areas downstream along Lick Creek that have been designated as high
quality sites by the Natural Heritage Program and local conservation organizations. Much of
the vegetation in and around these natural areas is reasonably undisturbed.
Based on these points, the division requests that best management practices be carefully
administered to minimize erosion and siltation during the construction phase. Also, the division
requests that only native species be used to revegetate the site following construction.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Please contact the Division at 733-
4181 if you need additional information.
/me
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
May 15, 1996
Page 4 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects" in various Eastern
North Carolina counties
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
For additional information, please contact the following individuals:
Raleigh Field Office -
Jean Manuele at [phone], Extension 24, for Wilson County
Eric Alsmeyer at [phone], Extension 23, for Durham County
Washington Field Office -
Mike Bell at [phone], Extension 26, for Greene, Pitt, and Wayne
Counties
Wilmington Field Office -
Scott McLendon at [phone] for Brunswick, Cumberland, Columbus,
Robeson, Scotland, Duplin, Pender, and Bladen Counties
3. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROJECTS: POC - Dan Keir, Natural
Resources Management Section, at [phone]
The Natural Resources Management Section concurs in the Bridge No. 91
ioplacam"ant vvci Lick Craak in Durhal,, County. nowevei, this 1C?JIGI CIIICIII 11Idy
involve Corps lands from the Falls Lake project: We request review of preliminary
plans and environmental reports so that we can grant the NCDOT an easement, right-
of-entry, or other real estate requirement if the work is outside of the Department's
existing right-of-way. Requests for lands use should be submitted to
Mr. Lloyd Williamson, Project Manager, at Falls Lake. The address is as follows:
Mr. Lloyd Williamson
Falls Lake Project Manager
11405 Falls of the Neuse Road
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587-9599
Tel: [phone]
P. 0. Box 29b3b• 1<iielgn, 114 U1 n , ?-ut?m
• ? + a.?.swt
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAm
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GovERNop,
May 25, 1999
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeye
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear SY,
r•
d4
p ? a
NoRR[s TOLSON
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Johnston County, Replacement of Bridge No. 124 on SR 1330 over
Middle Creek. TIP No. B-3671, State Project No. 8.2312201, Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1330(3).
Please find attached the Categorical Exclusion for the referenced project. The North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 124
with a bridge approximately 46 meters (150 feet) in length and 9.1 meters (30 feet) in
width on new alignment to the west of the existing bridge. The new bridge. will provide
two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot) shoulders. The approaches will
include two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders. The shoulders
will widen to 3.3 meters (11 feet) where guardrail is required. Total project length will be
approximately 700 meters (2300 feet). Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge
during construction.
No wetlands will be impacted by the proposed construction and surface water impacts
will be restricted to that necessary for construction of bridge footings. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion"
(CE) 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
r
ot

with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued 13 December 1996, by the Corps of
Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will
be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2734 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, for their review
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Teryn Smith at [phone],
extension 333.
Sincerely,
U C- ?-
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development anc
Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/plr
Attachment.
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Whit Webb, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P. E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. R. Dupree, P. E., Division 4 Engineer

y
Johnston County
Bridge No. 124 on SR 1330
Over Middle Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1330(3)
State Project 8.2312201
TIP # B-3671
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date
.4;* William Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
I I B-Swj i JM414e2,?
DateterNicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
a
v
Johnston County
Bridge No. 124 on SR 1330
Over Middle Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1330(3)
State Project 8.2312201
TIP # B-3671
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
January 1999
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
/r
Jeff I g
Pro' ct Tanning E ineer
114 h e '?771' -" -)? /-/ y-
Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Johnston County
Bridge No. 124 on SR 1330
Over Middle Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1330(3)
State Project 8.2312201
TIP # B-3671
Bridge No. 124 is located in Johnston County on SR 1330 crossing over Middle
Creek. It is programmed in the Draft 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) as a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Aid Bridge
Replacement Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No
substantial environmental impacts are expected.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 124 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a bridge
approximately 46 meters 4150 feet) in length and 9.1 meters (30 feet) in width on new
alignment to the west. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction.
The new bridge will provide two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot)
shoulders. The approaches will include two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter
(8 foot) shoulders. The shoulders will widen to 3.3 meters (11 feet) where guardrail is
required. Total project length will be approximately 700 meters (2300 feet). Based on
preliminary design work, the design speed for the permanent alignment will be 80 km/h
(50 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $ 1,173,000 including $ 1,150,000 in
construction costs and $ 23,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the
Draft 2000-2006 TIP is $ 702,000.
II. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) including the
implementation of High Quality Waters (HQW) erosion control (Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds) will be installed and maintained throughout project construction.
Drainage on the bridge will be designed so that runoff is not directly discharged
into Middle Creek. During construction, wet concrete will not contact stream water.
Mr. Tim Savidge of NCDOT-Planning and Environmental Branch (919-733-
3141), Mr. David Cox of the NCWRC (919-528-9886), Mr. John Alderman of NCWRC
(919-542-5331), and Ms. Candice Martino of USFWS (919-856-4520x18) will be invited
to the preconstruction meeting held before the contractor is ready to begin project
construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 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." A Nationwide Permit 33
CFR 330.5(a)(23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States
resulting from the project.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification will be obtained prior to issuance of the Section 404 permit.
Further archaeological work will be conducted to relocate and define the
boundaries of sites 31JT292 and 31JT293, and on the levee south of Middle Creek to
determine if significant archaeological resources are present. If these sites are determined
to be significant, and they cannot be avoided by construction, archaeological data recovery
may be necessary to mitigate adverse impacts. Additional consideration under Section 4(f)
of the Department of Transportation Act will very likely not be required, as the
significance of these sites lies in the information that can be retrieved through data
recovery.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions will be likely.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1330 is classified as a Rural Minor Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Traffic volume is currently 2600 vehicles per day (VPD) and is
projected to be 5300 VPD in the year 2025. There is no posted speed limit on this section
of SR 1330. There are 17 school buses that cross the bridge a total of 41 times per day.
The existing bridge was completed in 1949. It is 32 meters (105 feet) long.
There is approximately 5.2 meters (17 feet) of vertical clearance between the bridge deck
and streambed. The two travel lanes provide 5.8 meters (19 feet) of bridge roadway
width.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 8.6 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted 17 tons for single
vehicles and 24 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST's).
2
The horizontal and vertical roadway alignments south of the bridge are both good.
Directly north of the bridge is a horizontal and a vertical curve. The approaches to the
bridge have a pavement width of approximately 5.5 meters (18 feet). Shoulders on the
approaches are approximately 1.8 to 2.4 meters (6 to 8 feet) wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch reports that from December 1994 to December
1997, 8 accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge, including 5 running off the
road type and 2 sideswipes. In the spring of 1998, there was an accident involving 3
fatalities in Middle Creek at the existing bridge. The weekend following the fatal
accident, two cars collided in a head on crash at the bridge site.
V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are two "build" options considered in this document. They are as follows:
Alternate 1 would replace the existing Bridge No. 124 with a bridge
approximately 46 meters (150 feet) in length at approximately the same location and
roadway elevation. Traffic would be maintained on site using a temporary detour
alignment to the west of the existing bridge. The on site detour would require a
temporary bridge approximately 27.4 meters (90 feet) in length.
Alternate 2 would replace the existing Bridge No. 124 with a bridge
approximately 46 meters (150 feet) in length on new alignment west of the existing
roadway. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
Any alternative involving road closure would not be justifiable. Road user cost
analysis indicates that vehicles routinely using SR 1330 would experience a travel cost
increase of approximately $ 1,264,000 if the road were closed. This cost is based on
2600 vehicles per day traveling an average additional distance of approximately
9.6 kilometers (6 miles) for a nine month construction period. According to the current
estimated costs, closing the road and replacing the bridge at existing location would cost
approximately $ 240,000 less than Alternate 2, which would maintain traffic during
construction. Comparing the user cost of $ 1,264,000 to the $ 240,000 cost of
maintaining traffic on site results in a benefit-cost ratio of approximately 5.3. Therefore,
from a road user analysis perspective, maintenance of traffic is economically justified.
"Do-nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating
bridge is neither practical nor economical.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
COMPONENT ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2
New Bridge Structure
Bridge Removal
Roadway & Approaches
Temporary Detour
Engineering & Contingencies $ 380,000
24,000
203,000
393,000
150,000 $ 380,000
24,000
466,000
0
130,000

Total Construction $ 1,150,000 $ 1,000,000
Right of Way $ 23,000 $ 24,000
Total Cost $ 1,173,000 $ 1,024,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 124 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a bridge
approximately 46 meters (150 feet) in length and 9.1 meters (30 feet) in width on new
alignment to the west. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction.
The new bridge will provide two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot)
shoulders. The approaches will include two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter
(8 foot) shoulders. The shoulders will widen to 3.3 meters (11 feet) where guardrail is
required. Total project length will be approximately 700 meters (2300 feet). Based on
preliminary design work, the design speed for the permanent alignment will be 80 km/h
(50 mph).
Neither alternate would impact wetlands. Alternate 1 would have a greater effect
on surface waters due to the temporary detour. Either alternate would require further
archaeological investigations. Alternate 2 would provide a safer roadway alignment than
Alternate 1.
The division engineer recommends Alternate 2. There has been considerable
concern over the safety of the bridge approaches due to the frequency and severity of
4
accidents near the bridge. The alignment for Alternate 2 improves the safety of the
northern approach by providing a flatter curve.
NCDOT recommends Alternate 2 because it maintains traffic throughout
construction, is the most economical, and improves the alignment and safety of the
roadway.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the
existing inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in Section II of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT 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 construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. There will be no
relocatees. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
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 bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
There are underground fiber optic and telephone lines running parallel to the
bridge on the east side. Utility impacts will be low.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Johnston County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have a substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
The project is located in a rural region of western Johnston County. The road
connects the Cleveland community to Interstate 40. There are no urbanized land uses in
the project area. Land in the project area is classified as agricultural/residential.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impacts of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils. The Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) was asked to determine whether the alternates under consideration will impact
prime or important farmland soil. The NRCS determined that the proposed bridge
replacement will not impact prime or important farmland.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended that an
architectural historian with NCDOT determine whether the boundaries for the Polenta
Historic District extend into the project's area of potential effect. After examination by
NCDOT and review by the Federal Highway Administration and SHPO, it was agreed
that there are no properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic
Places within the project's area of potential effect.
During an archaeological study within the proposed construction corridor, two
prehistoric sites were identified, 31 JT292 and 31 JT293. Preliminary investigations
indicated that these sites may contain significant information about the prehistory of the
area. Additional archaeological investigation will be needed at both sites, as well as
along the levee south of Middle Creek where prehistoric ceramics were recovered.
Archaeological work will define site boundaries and assess the significance of these
sites. If these sites are determined to be significant, and they cannot be avoided by
construction, archaeological data recovery may be necessary to mitigate adverse impacts.
Additional consideration under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act will
very likely not be required, as the significance of these sites lies in the information that can
be retrieved through data recovery.
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Regional Characteristics
Johnston County lies in the eastern central part of North Carolina in the middle
and upper parts of the Piedmont physiographic region. About 15 percent of the county is
on the flood plains and terraces along the Neuse River and its tributaries. Elevations
range from about 22.9 meters (75.0 feet) to 112.9 meters (370.0 feet) above sea level.
The Neuse River bottom has very little relief. The large interstream areas in the eastern
and southern parts of the county also are nearly level and have low relief.
Soils
There are two soil types located in the project area. A brief description of each
soil type is provided.
• Wedowee sandy loam 8-15 percent slope (WoD) This well drained very deep soil is
found on side slopes in the uplands of the Piedmont. It has moderate permeability
and water capacity. The shrink-swell potential is moderate and it has rapid surface
runoff. The depth to bedrock is about 60 inches. The main limitations are slope and
runoff, severe hazard of erosion and slope. The Capability Subclass is IVe.
• Wehadkee loam, frequently flooded 0-2 percent slope (WT) This poorly drained
very deep soil is found on flood plains generally along streams. Permeability is
moderate, and available water capacity is high. Surface runoff is slow, and the
seasonal high water table is at the surface or within a depth of 1 feet. This soil is
frequently flooded for brief periods throughout the year. The main limitation of this
soil are flooding and wetness. The Capability Subclass is VIw. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (June 1991) lists this soil as Hydric.
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources,
along with their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to
surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
Best Usage Classification
Water resources within the study area are located in the Neuse River Drainage
Basin. There is one water resource in the project area as SR 1330 crosses Middle Creek.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which reflects water
quality conditions and potential resource usage. Middle Creek [DEM Index No. 27-43-
15-(4), 5/1/88] is classified as C NSW. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. NSW
(Nutrient Sensitive Waters) refers to waters that require limitations on nutrient inputs.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1
or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 kilometer
(1.0 mile) of the project study area.
Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
Middle Creek at SR 1330 is approximately 13.7-15.3 meters (45-50 feet) wide.
The substrate in the study area is composed of sand, silt and clay. The stream bank
vegetation consists of the same species as the surrounding levee forest community.
Water Quality
This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project area.
Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point sources
and nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are made based on
published resource information and existing general watershed characteristics. These
data provide insight into the value of water resources within the project area to meet
human needs and to provide habitat for aquatic organisms.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the
DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses
long term trends in water quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by
sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrates organisms, which are
sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa
present of intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and a taxa
richness value (EPT S) is calculated. A biotic index value is also calculated for the
sample that summarizes tolerance data for all species in each collection. The two
rankings are given equal weight in final site classification. The biotic index and taxa
richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor measure
of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment. There are no BMAN data sites
located in the project area.
Point Source Dischargers
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by
the DEM. All dischargers are required to register for a permit. The DWQ NPDES report
lists no permitted discharger into Middle Creek directly upstream or in the project area.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities
associated with project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts are clearing
and grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers
and pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement installation. The following impacts to
surface water resources are likely to result from the above mentioned construction
activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased
erosion in the project area.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in highway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
strictly enforced during the construction phase of the project. Limiting instream activities
and revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading can
further reduce impacts.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section
describes the biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the
relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. The composition and
distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications.
Representative animal species that are likely to occur in these habitats (based on
published range distributions) are also cited.
Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities, disturbed/maintained, levee forest, and pine
plantation exist within the project area.
Disturbed/maintained
Disturbed/maintained lands are intensively managed where human structures or
activities preclude natural plant succession. These areas include a fallow field and
maintained roadside and extend along the majority of the project. The dominant species
in this community include fescue, wild geranium, jasmine, trumpet creeper, Virginia
creeper, shepherd's purse, broomsedge, and scattered saplings of the levee forest
community.
Pine Plantation
This community is located on the northwest side of SR 1330 at the beginning of
the project. The maintained roadside to the south and east and the levee forest to the
north border it. The community is dominated by young loblolly pines.
Levee Forest
The levee forest extends along both sides of Middle Creek in the project area.
The pine forest to the southwest and a disturbed/maintained residential yard to the
northeast border it. This community contains a canopy of ironwood, river birch,
sycamore, water oak, black cherry, black gum, sweetgum, and loblolly pine. The
understory includes flowering dogwood, elm, red maple, American holly, sassafras, and
loblolly pine saplings. The shrub layer consists of japanese honeysuckle, coral
honeysuckle, catbrier, poison ivy, river oats, grape, and ebony spleenwort.
Terrestrial Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area.
The following table summarizes potential losses to these communities, resulting from
project construction. Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived
based on the entire proposed right-of-way width of 24.4 & 18.3 meters (80.0 & 60.0 feet).
However, project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less.
10
Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities.
Community Impacted Area.hectares (acres)
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Disturbed/Maintained Roadside 0.20 (0.5) 0.90 (2.2)
Levee Forest 0.10 (0.3) 0.20 (0.6)
Pine Plantation 0.06 (0.1) 0.20 (0.5)
Total Impacts 0.36 (0.9) 1.3 (3.3)
Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic community of Middle Creek will result from the
replacement of Bridge No. 124. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance
of aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate, water quality, stream banks). Disturbance of aquatic
habitats has a detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species
diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic
habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic communities.
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Clogging of feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms, gills of fish, and the burial
of benthic organisms.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Mortality among sensitive organisms resulting from introduction of toxic substances
and decreases in dissolved oxygen.
• Destabilization of water temperature resulting from riparian canopy removal.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from an increased
sediment load.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by minimizing riparian canopy
removal, limiting instream construction, revegetation immediately following the
completion of grading activities, and strict adherence to BMP's.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two substantial
regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These
issues retain particular importance because of federal and state mandates that regulate
their protection. This section deals specifically with the impact analyses required to
satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part
328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
II
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all
standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to the public.
Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. There are no wetlands found in the project area.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of
the stream that is located within the proposed right-of-way. A length of 24.4 meters
(80 feet) of Middle Creek and 0.04 hectares (0.09 acres) of stream bed will be impacted
by the proposed permanent bridge replacement. The temporary bridge required in
Alternate 1 would impact 18.3 meters (60 feet) of Middle Creek and 0.03 hectares
(0.07 acres) of stream bed.
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project.
As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various
regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in
whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department
has determined the pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
• (1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,
and;
• (2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's
or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ
prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Section
401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
12
construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is
a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of he United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to
wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction to median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States, specifically
wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under
Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of.
More than 0.45 hectare (1.0 acre) of wetlands will require compensatory mitigation;
And/or more than 45.7 meters (150.0 linear feet) of streams will require compensatory
mitigation.
13
No wetlands will be impacted by the project. Impacts to surface waters will be
minimized as much as practicable. Written approval of the final mitigation plan is
required from the DWQ prior to the issuance of a 401 Certification. Final
permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human development. Federal
law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires
that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be
subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species
may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of 14 May 1998, the FWS lists three federally protected species for
Johnston County. A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements for
these species along with a conclusion regarding potential project impacts is provided.
Federally Protected Species for Johnston County.
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Note:
• "Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
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 cape, neck, and throat. The RCW uses open old growth stands of
southern pines, particularly longleaf pines for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested
stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other
stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are
>60years old and are contiguous with pine stands of at least 30 years of age. The foraging
14
range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with
suitable 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 to 30.3 meters (12 to 100 feet) above the ground and average 9.1 to 15.7 meters
(30 to 50 feet) high. They can be identified by a large encrustation of running sap that
surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The mature, open pine stands that the RCW needs are not present in the project
area. The pines that exist in the project area are too young to provide nesting habitat for
RCW and do not contain the large open tracts of foraging habitat required by the RCW.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was checked and there were no
records of existing populations of RCW in the project area. No habitat for RCW exists in
the project area. Thus, no impacts to RCW will occur from project construction.
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 3/14/90
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a distinguishable shell
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.
The dwarf-wedge mussel has been documented from portions of Middle
Creek. Middle Creek, however, continues to be degraded by various sources and
dwarf-wedge mussel has not been found in the creek in recent years. The subject
project was surveyed for the presence of mussel fauna on August 20, 1998. The
survey was conducted from approximately 40 meters downstream of the bridge to
just 10 meters above the bridge using SCUBA and took 1.5 hours to complete.
Water depth ranged from 1.5 meters to 3 meters. Water clarity was poor and
tactile methods were predominantly used. The substrate of Middle Creek in this
stretch is heavily sedimented with fine silt and occasionally coarse sand, and is
generally unsuitable for mussel fauna. Dwarf-wedge mussel was not located. The
introduced Asian clam is common at the site. Areas of suitable substrate were
found in Middle Creek approximately 6.5 kilometers downstream of the project
area (next bridge crossing). Elliptio mussels were easily located in these areas
and it is possible that dwarf-wedge mussel occurs downstream of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
15
Given the survey results, it is apparent that that dwarf-wedge mussel does not
occur within the project area. Because the dwarf-wedge mussel is historically known
from Middle Creek there is a slight potential for this species to occur downstream of the
project area. The implementation of High Quality Waters (HQW) erosion control
(Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds) and a deck drainage design that would
prohibit runoff directly discharged into Middle Creek should eliminate the potential for
an adverse impact to any dwarf-wedge mussel populations that might occur downstream
of the project area.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Date Listed: 28 September 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of the
leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of Michaux's
sumac are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on
female plants, are a red, densely short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac is dependent on
some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in
association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows
only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete
well with other species, such as Japanese honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
There is habitat for Michaux's sumac in the open disturbed areas found along the
roadside of SR 1330 in the project area. The project was walked and surveys for Rhus
michauxii were conducted by NCDOT biologists Hal Bain and Teryn Smith on April 24,
1998. No Michaux's sumac was observed. Therefore Michaux's sumac will not be
affected by the proposed project construction.
16

`Z! I,
1
11
i fb rtE A? t
r

t\ i
,% I
,8111
1 1 ? E?
w ca
n D
rr)
1 i
' ? s ? o a?i II
1=r
)? cF cd p 'd en
U 8 ^zJ e7
? _ 1
r,. p p
t ? ? O
' ? !?"1?,,,,,y1, s, r, . ?? y ? t ! t 1 I Qo ?tP t lp? `loo \ ?
pe,
1
?e,r;,r w; Ir, I+ 1 rl ,
? ?!: ? 11 r r
r3 Et ?t ,.. ? t r
?tt? ??,?? , .. I ' .._? ,I r 1. •? r , ` ? 1i y1 ,? l.c 1 '??,? t lip .r .. \
f I '?
I' i?? ?ii lj ?i I) ?? " 1 ? •?? ?, Ir i t '. ?C?y ? Yt t`? li ,..:,i d?l k'?t4: , i
ytl I? ?,? ' 3 1 ? / ! 1 r) l5 1r S ' ?'k Rl ?-Y !
.u., ':?i?t;,].-..- .. ??".,t,t.. a!asli'-:,, b„5..., _:d.n.. ?;'. ?. .?. .,,I L1,+9?-;:?„ Y'jil 'rt, ll? '.(i?' .r't` .i•.! j ?,?r. ? ,. rr'

>~ O

? 1 1

bb
i?

O Ol) bl)

C)

CIS
O

C:t
r 1'..
Id r rt, ?.4 -.
f,.
jlr ;'r
P.? fort ,
n
I
1.:
# ) ?-
I
qq}} J y
t !'
}
t•. r?? r• .
I,
J 1 1
1 li
(

6 Irl ,i:,, l ? 1 1 - tAl " It "

v1.

SOUTH APPROACH LOOKING NORTH

MOD-

NORTH -
APPROACH LOOKING SOUTH
FIGURE 3
ATTACHMENTS
QP i
ENT Op United States Department of the Interior
C? ym
0 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
?qRC3 `aa9 Raleigh,
North Carolina 27636-3726
December 1, 1998
Mr. William D. Gilmore, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
ATTN: Jeff Ingham, Project Planning Engineer
RE: 1) Replacement of Bridge No.124 on SR 1330 over Middle Creek, Johnston
County NC, TIP No.B-3671
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife (Service) has reviewed your November 13, 1998
letter regarding the above-referenced project in Johnston County in North
Carolina. Our comments are provided in accordance with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Based on the North Carolina Department of Transportation's agreement to
implement High Quality Waters (HQW) erosion control, the Service concurs
that this project is not likely to adversely affect the federally-endangered
dwarf wedge mussel, or any other federally-listed species in the project
area.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been
satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7 consultation must
be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner
that was not considered in this review; (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Thank you for your cooperation with our agency.
40
DEC e 3
199
4
nfA a -

Sincerely,
Polo gical ervices Supervisor
John M. Hefner
FWS/R4:CMartino:cm:11-25-98/919-856-4520:WP51:NCDOT:Middle-Ck.NE
JIT9 wfv`?
d,., srvF a?
a=
r
ww,„wm`
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 8, 1999
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Re: Archaeological survey report for Bridge 124 on SR
1330, Johnston County, Federal Aid No. BRZ-
1330(3), B-3671, ER 98-8594, ER 99-7781
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of November 12, 1998, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Deborah Joy concerning the above project.
We agree with the recommendations that 31 JT292 and 31 JT293 should be tested to
determine their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, if
Alternative 2 is selected.
We are somewhat perplexed about the ambiguous nature of the find on the levee south of
Middle Creek. The recovered artifacts seem to meet the definition of a site provided in the
report, and yet no site number has been assigned. If there is some confusion, and these
finds do not represent a site, we can not agree to testing a non-site. Review of the report
suggests that the levee finds are, indeed, a site and require a site form and a permanent
site number. We also agree that this site needs further testing to determine its eligibility.
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,
y'
Davi Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: WV. D. Gilmore
T. Padgett
`10' i" 1 ?
"'N 14 1999
3 ?
HIGH
WA?
Y,
&_
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 03
'04
" n
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray Ap F'fr,"1r698
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 124 on SR 1330 over Middle Creek,
Johnston County, B-3671, Federal Aid Project
BRZ-1330(3), ER 98-8594
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
EI'
U
A?,
l 7 1998
ofV1?,+uP ?'
H1GHK,,',.SF
???RONM??L
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
March 26, 1998. However, Debbie Bevin met with Jeff Ingham of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on April 2, 1998, to discuss the
project and view the project photographs and aerial.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, the Polenta Historic District (JT 1243),
which is included on the state study list, is located to the north of Bridge 124. We
recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT determine whether the
boundaries for the Polenta Historic District extend into the project's area of
potential effect.
We recommend that an archaeological survey be conducted on all areas to be
affected by this project. This should include the new bridge site, any temporary
detours, bridge and construction areas, new alignment, and all lateral ditches.
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
April 15, 1998, 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,
}
v Da iv Pr o
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: -4 F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
TIP # Federal Aid # 1330 3) County ?3?tiyVl
CONCURRENCE FORM'?I
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
On ° , representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
x_ 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.
r
_ 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.
x
Signed:
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the histori al inf ation avai able and the hotogr f each property, properties
identified as ( - are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of therrr-is- necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
I '?-- , ioiiL
Repres tative, NCDOT Date
FHw for the Div' on Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
ICJ
Representative, S O Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
AS?
NCDENR
March 23, 1998
JAMES B. HUNTJR.
GOVERNOR
WAYNE MCDEVITT
SECRETARY
TO: Jeff Ingham, Project Engineer
DOT, Planning and Environmental
DR. PHILIP K. MCKNELLY
DIRECTOR - FROM: Stephen Hall S
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets -- Replace Bridge No. 124, SR 1330,
Johnston County
REFERENCE: TIP B-3671
The Natural Heritage Program database contains records for several species of rare
aquatic animals from Middle Creek. The most significant of these is the dwarf
wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), which is state and federally listed as
Endangered. Populations of this species have been found both upstream and
downstream from the proposed bridge replacement. State listed species recorded in
this reach of Middle Creek include the yellow lancemussel (Elliptio lanceolata) and
triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata) - both of which are listed as Threatened -- and
the eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), which is state listed as Special Concern.
In order to avoid impacts associated with sedimentation, we strongly recommend that
Best Management Practices for High Quality Waters be employed for this project.
Since these species are also vulnerable to concrete toxicity, we further recommend that
all concrete used in this project be fully cured before it comes into contact with the
water.

In order to ensure compliance with these recommendations, all contractors working on
this project should be clearly informed in writing of the need to follow these practices,
and all work should be closely monitored. Since a federally listed species is potentially
present in the project area, the US Fish and Wildlife Service should be consulted
regarding the need for additional means to avoid, minimize, or otherwise mitigate for
the impacts of this project.
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 2761 1-7687 PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 5090' RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Bill Ross, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
NC Dept. of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
C/o: William D. Gilmore
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
/••
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
January 19, 2001
DWQ # 00-1495
Durham County
Page 1 of 2
Re: Durham County, Replacement of Bridge No. 91 over Lick Creek on SR 1809,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1809(2), State Project No. 8.2351701; TIP B-2964.
Lick Creek [03-04-01; 27-11-(1.5); WS-1V NSW CA]
APPROVAL of Neuse River Buffer Rules AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE with
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Dear Mr. Gilmore,
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to impact
± 3,000 square feet of the protective riparian buffers for the purpose of constructing the flood
storage mitigation areas associated with the subject bridge replacement project as described in your
application dated 12/19/00. This approval shall act as your Authorization Certificate as required
within the Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). In addition, you
should get any other required federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project
including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your
application dated 12/19/00. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be
required to send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy
of this authorization and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all
conditions. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed below.
o "Grassed swales" with minimum slopes of 3:1 and constructed in accordance with the "NC
DENR Stormwater Best Management Practices" as described within your application must be
constructed for a minimum length of 230 linear feet in the northwest quadrant and 160 linear
feet in the southwest quadrant immediately prior to entering flood storage mitigation areas as
described within your application dated 12/19/00.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this authorization, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask
for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-
7447. This authorization and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
Non-Discharge Branch Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27669-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper
a
Page 2 of 2
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under the "No Practical
Alternatives" determination required in 15A NCAC 2B .0233(8). If you have any questions, please
telephone Bob Zarzecki at 919-733-9726.
Sincerely,
TCc: Michael Hosey, USACE, Jordan Lake
Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
F N Afi
at , '4 Michael F. Easley
Governor
S' v William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
G` `s sf `C
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
January 31, 2001
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1621
FAX:[phone]
FAX TO: ? %VP `[o,-U I FAX NUMBER: I
FROM: &6 Z4r,,."
PHONE: `43`3 -Ct }ZCo ? e-mail:
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
- z9cVq
'f-'V
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
Division of Water Quality 1617 Mai! Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone]
r

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
l? 1 ? J
aC?- o JS ?i> lgK '
,-v
APP -
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
December 19, 2000
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality -Wetlands
Attention: Mr. John Dorney
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
Subject: Durham County, Replacement of Bridge No. 91 over Lick Creek on SR
1809, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1809(2), State Project No. 8.2351701;
TIP No. B-2964.
Dear Sir:
As you are aware, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Operations Branch (Ops
Branch) and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) are working
together to perform compensatory mitigation for flood storage loss at Falls Lake
Reservoir. To compensate the Ops Branch for loss of flood storage, NCDOT proposes to
excavate material adjacent to the bridge replacement project to create flood storage. This
excavation work would necessitate a major variance of Neuse River Buffer Rules.
Representatives from Ops Branch, N. C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
and NCDOT met on November 28, 2000 to discuss the project. As mentioned in a field
review with Bob Zarzecki of your staff, the construction of the excavation area at a 3:1
slope will impact trees located west of the proposed excavation areas. These impacts to
trees are a not a preferred option by the Ops Branch. This option would also result in
greater impacts to the existing buffer along Lick Creek and its tributary.
Therefore, it was determined from this meeting and subsequent a-mails that Ops.,
Branch and NCDOT would not need to request a major variance if NCDOT includes the
construction of grass swales upslope of the proposed excavated areas. Instead,,
application for an Authorization Certificate would be needed.
Attached to this letter is a design plan for bridge and mitigation construction. The
excavated lies in the northwest quadrant [Station No. 14+50 to 15+10-L- (Right)] and the
southwest quadrant [Station No. 15+71 to 18+35-L- (Right)].
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] - TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH, NC

The drainage area for the northwest quadrant is 1.1 acres. The NCDOT plans to
construct, in the northwest quadrant, a grassed swale with at least 3:1 slopes from Station
No. 12+00 to 14+30 -L- (Right). The length of this grassed swale is 230 feet. This
length exceeds the required 110' of grassed swale that is required for this quadrant's
drainage area.
The drainage area for the southwest quadrant is 1.6 acres. The NCDOT plans to
construct, in the southwest quadrant, a grassed swale with at least 3:1 slopes from Station
No. 18+50 to 20+10 -L- (Right). The length of this grassed swale is 160 feet. This
length meets the required 160' of grassed swale that is required for this quadrant's
drainage area.
The NCDOT requests that the NCDWQ issue a minor variance of the Neuse River
Buffer Rules for the construction of this project.
If you have any questions about this project, please contact Mr. Phillip Todd of
my staff at [phone], Extension 314.
Sincerely,

W. D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/pct
cc: Mr. Michael Hosey, USACE, Jordan Lake
Mr. Bob Zarzecki, NCDWQ, Raleigh
1

DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
TIP No. B-2964
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): Buffer Authorize Cert
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: 1548 Mail Service Center
SUBDIVISION NAME;
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE:
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME
FROM MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore , P.E., Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Wake NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Oak Grove
27699-1548
(IF DIFFERENT
1
r'

SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Take NC 98 (from Durham) and make right onto SR 1809
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST.STREAM/RIVER: Lick Creek
RIVER BASIN: Neuse River Basin
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [} NO [X) IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
No
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [X NO IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION): See Cover Letter
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ } NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0.0 acres
2
J
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING:
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
EXCAVATION:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED:
N/A FT
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER:
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours):
WIDTH AFTER
FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE:
FT AFTER:
FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: . excavation within buffer zone
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING-DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): excavation within buffer zone to perform compensatory
mitigation for flood storage per U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Operations Branch)
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: improvements of public roadway
0.0 acres
FT
3
J

14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
No Wetland Impacts
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: see CE(ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: see CE
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [I (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
r
J
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS. LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Forested and within
lands administered by USACE Operations Branch
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
, 9x'+
( . o -D 1 nU'lA..
,,, ? OWNER'S/AGENT S SIGNATURE
12) lq [/-o,-
. I g/
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5

d??a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
December 19, 2000
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality -Wetlands
Attention: Mr. John Dorney
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
t
2
JAN 6 20Q1
I> sLt i?lu5 G 011P Subject: Durham County, Replacement of Bridge No. 91 over Lick Creek on SR
1809, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1809(2), State Project No. 8.2351701;
TIP No. B-2964.
Dear Sir:
As you are aware, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Operations Branch (Ops
Branch) and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) are working
together to perform compensatory mitigation for flood storage loss at Falls Lake
Reservoir. To compensate the Ops Branch for loss of flood storage, NCDOT proposes to
excavate material adjacent to the bridge replacement project to create flood storage. This
excavation work would necessitate a major variance of Neuse River Buffer Rules.
Representatives from Ops Branch, N. C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
and NCDOT met on November 28, 2000 to discuss the project. As mentioned in a field
review with Bob Zarzecki of your staff, the construction of the excavation area at a 3:1
slope will impact trees located west of the proposed excavation areas. These impacts to
trees are a not a preferred option by the Ups Branch. This option would also result in
greater impacts to the existing buffer along Lick Creek and its tributary.
Therefore, it was determined from this meeting and subsequent e-mails that Ops
Branch and NCDOT would not need to request a major variance if NCDOT includes the
construction of grass swales upslope of the proposed excavated areas. Instead,
application for an Authorization Certificate would be needed.
Attached to this letter is a design plan for bridge and mitigation construction. The
excavated lies in the northwest quadrant [Station No. 14+50 to 15+10-L- (Right)] and the
southwest quadrant [Station No. 15+71 to 18+35-L- (Right)].
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH, NC
The drainage area for the northwest quadrant is 1.1 acres. The NCDOT plans to
construct, in the northwest quadrant, a grassed swale with at least 3:1 slopes from Station
No. 12+00 to 14+30 -L- (Right). The length of this grassed swale is 230 feet. This
length exceeds the required 110' of grassed swale that is required for this quadrant's
drainage area.
The drainage area for the southwest quadrant is 1.6 acres. The NCDOT plans to
construct, in the southwest quadrant, a grassed swale with at least 3:1 slopes from Station
No. 18+50 to 20+10 -L- (Right). The length of this grassed swale is 160 feet. This
length meets the required 160' of grassed swale that is required for this quadrant's
drainage area.
The NCDOT requests that the NCDWQ issue a minor variance of the Neuse River
Buffer Rules for the construction of this project.
If you have any questions about this project, please contact Mr. Phillip Todd of
my staff at [phone], Extension 314.
Sincerely,

W. D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/pct
cc: Mr. Michael Hosey, USACE, Jordan Lake
Mr. Bob Zarzecki, NCDWQ, Raleigh
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID: TIP No. B-2964
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): Buffer Authorize Cert
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: 1548 Mail Service Center
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27699-1548
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT
FROM MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore , P.E.
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Wake NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Oak Grove
1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Take NC 98 (from Durham) and make right onto SR 1809
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Lick Creek
RIVER BASIN: Neuse River Basin
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [} NO [X) IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
No
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [X NO [] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION): See Cover Letter
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ I NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0.0 acres
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: EXCAVATION:
FLOODING: OTHER:
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.0 acres
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water.contours): FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: excavation within buffer zone
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): excavation within buffer zone to perform compensatory
mitigation for flood storage per U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Operations Branch)
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: improvements of public roadway
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
No Wetland Impacts
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: see CE(ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: see CE
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [ ]
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [I
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Forested and within
lands administered by USACE Operations Branch
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
iAl, L w-D. (;i.
OWNER'S/AGENT S SIGNATURE
z
DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
Re: Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
Subject: Re: Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 08:25:37 -0500
From: Bob Zarzecki <bob.zarzecki @ncmail.net>
To: Phillip Todd <[e-mail]>
CC: "Todd St. John" <[e-mail]>,
"Hosey, Michael L II SAW" <[e-mail]>,
Steve Mitchell <[e-mail]>, John Hennessy <[e-mail]>,
John Dorney <[e-mail]>,
"Marshall W. Clawson PE" <[e-mail]>
Phillip,
As a follow-up to my phone message, I just wanted to clarify a couple of
points. First, the grassed-swale needs to be 110' long and this length
needs to be achieved prior to entering the excavated area or buffer (see
illustration below). Second, if you can provide the proper length of
grassed-swale we can approve the excavated area/ditch without the need
for a Major Variance. To do this you will need to send us your request
in writing and we will send you an Authorization Certificate for
approval. The request can be submitted by DOT since the activity is
within your right of way. If it extends outside you can still submit it
as long as the USACE gives you authorization to do so on their behalf.
(You can use the PCN form to submit this request.) Third, the
floodplain flow information that you provided is sufficient for our
approval. However, if you can not provide the 110' of grassed swale and
a Major Variance is required additional information may need to be
submitted.
[--------110' of grassed swale-------- ][-excavated area or 50-foot
buffer-][stream]
(not to scale)
Please call me if you have any questions. - Bob
Phillip Todd wrote:
> Bob:
> We are revising the roadway plans to include a grassed swale in
> the NW quadrant that is 110, prior to this swale entering the
> buffer. We will forward plans to you (or should the USACE do
> this since the variance request is on their property and they
> made the initial request?). Please let us know about that item.
> One claification is needed. In the third paragraph below, you
> mention something about flows through the floodplain. is this
> information the same information DWQ requested (and DOT provided)
> in an earlier email about how "The proposed bridge/road will not
> affect the flood plain for 2, 5 and 10 year storm events any more
> than the current bridge/road does" and how "The proposed
> bridge/road affects the floodplain to the extent that the current
> road/bridge does. There will not be any greater effect upon the
> floodplain with the proposed project. Currently, with a 25 year
> storm event, the road/bridge may be topped. With the current
> proposed project, the road/bridge will be raised such that a 25
> year storm event will not top the road; however, the bridge/road
> will be topped with a 50 year storm event"?? Please let us know
> so that we are sure that we are providing the correct, pertinent
> information.
> I am also assuming that all this information (new drawing,
> grassed swale areas, and effects upon flood plain from above
I of 6 12/8/00 8:25 AN/
Re: Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
> paragraph) will need to be in a formal letter to DWQ for the
> variance or can a supplemental letter to the USACE's application
> be provided? Please let us know.
> Phillip
> Bob Zarzecki wrote:
> > Phillip,
> > We are not asking the grassed Swale to be 11110' outside the
> > buffer". We are asking DOT to construct a grassed swale 110
> > feet long prior to entering the excavated area or at least the
> > 50-foot buffered area.
> > The need for the grassed swale is to allow the excavated
> > area/ditch to be constructed through the buffer. "New drainage
> > ditches, roadside ditches and stormwater outfalls provided that
> > a stormwater management facility is installed to control
> > nitrogen and attenuate flow before the conveyance discharges
> > through the riparian buffer" is an "allowable" activity (15A
> > NCAC 2B .0233(6)]. in this case we are considering the
> > excavated area as a "ditch" through the buffer. We.can only
> > allow this if you construct a "stormwater management facility"
> > (i.e., the grassed swale at a required length of 110' for the
> > 1.1 acres of drainage) before the buffer.
> > As discussed previously the only other way for the excavated
> > area/ditch to be constructed is to obtain a Major Variance from
> > the buffer rules. Stormwater Controls (such as the grassed
> > swales discussed above) and Buffer Mitigation are usually
> > required as conditions for any Major Variance approval. Also,
> > Staff believe that additional information regarding the flow
> > through the floodplain will be required prior to submitting the
> > variance request.
> > I believe that the grassed swale within the NW quadrant is the
> > last issue to resolve. (John H. and Todd?)
> > Please let me know if this answers all your questions.
> > - Bob
> > Phillip Todd wrote:
> >> We thought that we were doing good by eliminating the ditch
> >> in the NW quadrant entirely. Therefore, there would not be
> >> ANY discharge directed at any where.
> >> But, seeing as how it appears everyone is against the idea of
> >> eliminating the ditch and in favor of constructing a grass
> >> swale that is 110' outside the buffer, well, then we'll do
> >> that.
> >> What DOT asks is that DWQ let us know which option they
> >> desire in the NW quadrant; to not include ditch/grass swale
> >> or to include a grass swale. After DOT knows the option that
> >> DWQ desires to see implmented, then we can adjust the CAD
> >> file accordingly and provide everyone with a hardcopy.
> >> Also, was there anything else based on the info distributed
2 of 6 12/8/00 8:25 AM
Re: Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
> >> about 1 PM today that needs to be adddress? If so, let us
> >> know so that we can alter the CAD file all at once and then
> >> provide a hardcopy to DWQ.
> >> Please let DOT know.
> >> Phillip
> >> "Todd St. John" wrote:
> >> > I agree... that would be 110' outside the buffer I presume?
> >> > Bob zarzecki wrote:
> >> >> Phillip,
> >> >> I would like to see an illustration of this as well.
> >> >> However, it appears that you are not proposing any
> >> >> "grassed swales" within the northwest quadrant of the
> >> >> project. This is an important area to have the "grassed
> >> >> swale" stormwater treatment prior to entering the
> >> >> excavated area to avoid the variance. I'm not an
> >> >> engineer, but if your drainage area is 1.1 acres then you
> >> >> would have to come up with 110 feet of "grassed swale"
> >> >> prior to entering the 60-foot excavated area or at least
> >> >> the 50-foot buffered area (Todd, Agree?). it looks like
> >> >> you have the required amount within the southwest quadrant
> >> >> and have deleted the ditches through the buffers in the
> >> >> northeast and southeast quadrant. Please let me know if I
> >> >> understood your e-mail correctly.
> >> >> - Bob
> >> >> Phillip Todd wrote:
> >> >> > Bob:
> >> >> > DOT has reviewed the construction plans that were
> >> >> > presented to you at an on-site meeting that was held
> >> >> > last Tues, Nov 28.
> >> >> > Station No. 12+00 to 14+50 (Right). This is the
> >> >> > northwest quadrant of the bridge project. The drainage
> >> >> > area is 1.1 acres. The DOT proposes to eliminate the
> >> >> > ditch and the 15" CMP that is depicted on the plan
> >> >> > sheet.
> >> >> > The only work performed here would be the excavation of
> >> >> > the flood storage area [Station No. 14+50 to 15+10
> >> >> > (Right)] per the requirement of USACE Ops Branch. The
> >> >> > side slopes of the excavated area would remain 2:1.
> >> >> > Constructing a
> >> >> > 3:1 slope for the proposed exacated area would
> >> >> > necessitate removing trees, all of which are located in
> >> >> > the buffer area.
> >> >> > Station No. 18+50 to 20+40 (Right). This is the
> >> >> > southwest quadrant of the bridge project. The drainage
> >> >> > area is 1.6 acres. The DOT proposes to revise the ditch
> >> >> > details to a 3:1 slope, the linear length would be at
> >> >> > least 160 feet, and the
> >> >> > 15" CMP that is depicted on the plan sheet would
> >> >> > remain. The DOT believes that
> >> >> > this would quality as a "grass swale".
3 of 6 12/8/00 8:25 AN
Re: Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
> >> >> > The side slopes of the excavated area [Station No. 15+90
> >> >> > to 18+40 (Right)]would remain 2:1. Constructing a 3:1
> >> >> > slope for the proposed exacated area would necessitate
> >> >> > removing trees within the buffer area and outside of the
> >> >> > buffer area.
> >> >> > Station No. 11+50 to 14+80 (Left). This is the
> >> >> > northeast quadrant of the bridge project. The DOT
> >> >> > proposes to only have a ditch from 11+50 to 12+50.
> >> >> > Station No. 16+10 to 20+00 (Left). This is the
> >> >> > southeast quadrant of the bridge project. The DOT
> >> >> > proposes to only have a ditch from 18+00 to 20+00.
> >> >> > Please let me know your thoughts on this proposal.
> >> >> > Phillip
> >> >> > Bob Zarzecki wrote:
> >> >> >> Phillip,
> >> >> >> As a follow-up on the conversation between yourself,
> >> >> >> John Hennessy and I held today, the Division is of the
> >> >> >> understanding that your office will be providing
> >> >> >> information on the drainage area and associated
> >> >> >> required length of the proposed grassed-swales. The
> >> >> >> Division is requesting that your office provide
> >> >> >> information on the feasibility of constructing the
> >> >> >> required length of grassed-swales prior to entering the
> >> >> >> excavated floodplain area. At a minimum, the required
> >> >> >> length will need to be achieved prior to entering the
> >> >> >> 50-foot buffer area (assuming that the excavated,
> >> >> >> floodplain area meets the DWQ requirements). if you
> >> >> >> have any questions please contact John H. or myself at
> >> >> >> 733-1786.
> >> >> >> - Bob
> >> >> >> Bob Zarzecki wrote:
> >> >> >> > Phillip,
> >> >> >> > Unfortunately, I needed the information and time for
> >> >> >> > us to review it by last Thursday for it to be placed
> >> >> >> > on the agenda. I'll pass this information on to Todd
> >> >> >> > St.John and Staff for review. Please send us written
> >> >> >> > information regarding the potential for the
> >> >> >> > "grassed-Swale" option. We'll be glade to meet with
> >> >> >> > you to discuss other potential options (use of other
> >> >> >> > BMPs, Minor Variance, etc.).
> >> >> >> > - Bob
> >> >> >> > Phillip Todd wrote:
> >> >> >> > > Bob:
> >> >> >> > > I have responses to questions that you posed in
> >> >> >> > > referenced email. The responses have been placed in
> >> >> >> > > BOLD to signify DOT's response. I hope that these
> >> >> >> > > responses enable us to place the item on the EMC
> >> >> >> > > agenda in case we cannot resolve the project under a
> >> >> >> > > minor variance. Please let me know if the responses
> >> >> >> > > do not. I will email/fax you a proposed letter to
> >> >> >> > > hopefully resolve this project with a minor
> >> >> >> > > variance.
4 of 6 12/8/00 8:25 AM
Re: Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation

> >> >> >> > > Phillip
> >> >> >> > > Bob Zarzecki wrote:
> >> >> >> > >> Phillip,
> >> >> >> > >> As a follow up to our phone conversation, our
> >> >> >> > >> Staff have some questions concerning the project
> >> >> >> > >> and how it affects the floodplain hydrology. We
> >> >> >> > >> believe that the EMC will require this information
> >> >> >> > >> for the variance review. Also, we need to know if
> >> >> >> > >> the "grassed Swale" option is a viable alternative
> >> >> >> > >> to the variance. If it is, then the project could
> >> >> >> > >> be designed to comply with the rules and avoid the
> >> >> >> > >> need for a variance. It is our understanding that
> >> >> >> > >> your office will provide us with information
> >> >> >> > >> regarding the feasibility of constructing grassed
> >> >> >> > >> swales that meet the DWQ criteria as identified
> >> >> >> > >> within the "DWQ Stormwater BMP" manual. We will
> >> >> >> > >> need to resolve these questions to complete our
> >> >> >> > >> review and "finding of fact" before we can place
> >> >> >> > >> the project on the EMC agenda per 15A NCAC 2B
> >> >> >> > >> .0233(9).
> >> >> >> > >> Staff Questions are as follows:
> » » » > »
> >> >> >> > >> * How will raising the road effect the
> >> >> >> > >> hydrology of the floodplain during the 2, 5
> >> >> >> > >> and 10 year storm events (compare existing to
> >> >> >> > >> proposed) ?
> >> >> >> > > The proposed bridge/road will not affect the flood
> >> >> >> > > plain for 2, 5 and 10 year storm events any more
> >> >> >> > > than the current bridge/road does.
> >> >> >> > >> * Specifically, will raising the road impede
> >> >> >> > >> surface water flow through the floodplain?
> » » » > »
> >> >> >> > > The proposed bridge/road affects the floodplain to
> >> >> >> > > the extent that the current road/bridge does. There
> >> >> >> > > will not be any greater effect upon the floodplain
> >> >> >> > > with the proposed project. Currently, with a 25
> >> >> >> > > year storm event, the road/bridge may be topped.
> >> >> >> > > With the current proposed project, the road/bridge
> >> >> >> > > will be raised such that a 25 year storm event will
> >> >> >> > > not top the road; however, the bridge/road will be
> >> >> >> > > topped with a 50 year storm event.
> >> >> >> > >> * Staff concerns are that blocking the flow may
> >> >> >> > >> cause upstream sedimentation within the
> >> >> >> > >> riparian areas and downstream destabilization
> >> >> >> > >> of the stream possibly leading to stream bank
> >> >> >> > >> erosion. These events may compromise the
> >> >> >> > >> health of the vegetation within the riparian
> >> >> >> > >> buffers and create additional sedimentation
> >> >> >> > >> within the Falls Lake Watershed.
> » » » > »
> >> >> >> > > I talked with Michael Hosey and he stated that
> >> >> >> > > downstream from the bridge there is an existing
> >> >> >> > > sub-impoundment for waterfowl.
> >> >> >> > >> I can be reached at 733-9726.
>»»»>>> -Bob
5 of 6 12/8/00 8:25 AM
Re: Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
. .

Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
6 of 6 12/8/00 8:25 AM
Re: Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
Subject: Re: Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 12:21:58 -0500
From: Bob Zarzecki <bob.zarzecki @ ncmail.net>
To: Phillip Todd <[e-mail]>
CC: "Todd St. John" <[e-mail]>,
"Hosey, Michael L II SAW" <[e-mail]>
Steve Mitchell <[e-mail]>, John Hennessy <[e-mail]>,
John Domey <[e-mail]>,
"Marshall W. Clawson PE" <[e-mail]>
Phillip,
We are not asking the grassed Swale to be "110' outside the buffer". We are asking DOT to construct a
grassed swale 110 feet long prior to entering the excavated area or at least the 50-foot buffered area.
The need for the grassed swale is to allow the excavated area/ditch to be constructed through the buffer.
"New drainage ditches, roadside ditches and stormwater outfalls provided that a stormwater management
facility is installed to control nitrogen and attenuate flow before the conveyance discharges through the
riparian buffer" is an "allowable" activity [15A NCAC 2B .0233(6)]. In this case we are considering the
excavated area as a "ditch" through the buffer. We can only allow this if you construct a "stormwater
management facility" (i.e., the grassed Swale at a required length of 110' for the 1.1 acres of drainage)
before the buffer.
As discussed previously the only other way for the excavated area/ditch to be constructed is to obtain a
Major Variance from the buffer rules. Stormwater Controls (such as the grassed swales discussed above)
and Buffer Mitigation are usually required as conditions for any Major Variance approval. Also, Staff
believe that additional information regarding the flow through the floodplain will be required prior to
submitting the variance request.
I believe that the grassed swale within the NW quadrant is the last issue to resolve. (John H. and Todd?)
Please let me know if this answers all your questions.
- Bob
Phillip Todd wrote:
We thought that we were doing good by eliminating the ditch in the NW quadrant entirely. Therefore,
there would not be ANY discharge directed at any where.
But, seeing as how it appears everyone is against the idea of eliminating the ditch and in favor of
constructing a grass swale that is 110' outside the buffer, well, then we'll do that.
What DOT asks is that DWQ let us know which option they desire in the NW quadrant; to not include
ditch/grass Swale or to include a grass Swale. After DOT knows the option that DWQ desires to see
implmented, then we can adjust the CAD file accordingly and provide everyone with a hardcopy.
Also, was there anything else based on the info distributed about 1 PM today that needs to be adddress?
I of 5 12/7/00 12:25 PM
Re: Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
If so, let us know so that we can alter the CAD file all at once and then provide a hardcopy to DWQ.
Please let DOT know.
Phillip
"Todd St. John" wrote:
I agree... that would be 110' outside the buffer I presume?
Bob Zarzecki wrote:
Phillip,
I would like to see an illustration of this as well. However, it appears that you are not proposing any
"grassed swales" within the northwest quadrant of the project. This is an important area to have the
"grassed swale" stormwater treatment prior to entering the excavated area to avoid the variance. I'm
not an engineer, but if your drainage area is 1.1 acres then you would have to come up with 110 feet
of "grassed swale" prior to entering the 60-foot excavated area or at least the 50-foot buffered area
(Todd, Agree?). It looks like you have the required amount within the southwest quadrant and have
deleted the ditches through the buffers in the northeast and southeast quadrant. Please let me know
if I understood your e-mail correctly.
- Bob
Phillip Todd wrote:
Bob:
DOT has reviewed the construction plans that were presented to you at an on-site meeting that was
held last Tues, Nov 28.
Station No. 12+00 to 14+50 (Right). This is the northwest quadrant of the bridge project. The
drainage area is 1.1 acres. The DOT proposes to eliminate the ditch and the 15" CMP that is
depicted on the plan sheet.
The only work performed here would be the excavation of the flood storage area [Station No.
14+50 to 15+10 (Right)] per the requirement of USACE Ops Branch. The side slopes of the
excavated area would remain 2:1. Constructing a
3:1 slope for the proposed exacated area would necessitate removing trees, all of which are located
in the buffer area.
Station No. 18+50 to 20+40 (Right). This is the southwest quadrant of the bridge project. The
drainage area is 1.6 acres. The DOT proposes to revise the ditch details to a 3:1 slope, the linear
length would be at least 160 feet, and the
15" CMP that is depicted on the plan sheet would remain. The DOT believes that
this would quality as a "grass swale".
The side slopes of the excavated area [Station No. 15+90 to 18+40 (Right)]would remain 2:1.
Constructing a 3:1 slope for the proposed exacated area would necessitate removing trees within
the buffer area and outside of the buffer area.
2 of 5 12/7/00 12:25 PM
Re: Lice: Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
Station No. 11+50 to 14+80 (Left). This is the northeast quadrant of the bridge project. The DOT
proposes to only have a ditch from 11+50 to 12+50.
Station No. 16+10 to 20+00 (Left). This is the southeast quadrant of the bridge project. The DOT
proposes to only have a ditch from 18+00 to 20+00.
Please let me know your thoughts on this proposal.
Phillip
Bob Zarzecki wrote:
Phillip,
As a follow-up on the conversation between yourself, John Hennessy and I held today, the
Division is of the understanding that your office will be providing information on the drainage
area and associated required length of the proposed grassed-swales. The Division is requesting
that your office provide information on the feasibility of constructing the required length of
grassed-swales prior to entering the excavated floodplain area. At a minimum, the required
length will need to be achieved prior to entering the 50-foot buffer area (assuming that the
excavated, floodplain area meets the DWQ requirements). If you have any questions please
contact John H. or myself at 733-1786..
- Bob
Bob Zarzecki wrote:
Phillip,
Unfortunately, I needed the information and time for us to review it by last Thursday for it to
be placed on the agenda. I'll pass this information on to Todd St.John and Staff for review.
Please send us written information regarding the potential for the "grassed-Swale" option.
We'll be glade to meet with you to discuss other potential options (use of other BMPs, Minor
Variance, etc.).
- Bob
Phillip Todd wrote:
Bob:
I have responses to questions that you posed in referenced email. The responses have been
placed in BOLD to signify DOT's response. I hope that these responses enable us to place
the item on the EMC agenda in case we cannot resolve the project under a minor variance.
Please let me know if the responses do not. I will email/fax you a proposed letter to
hopefully resolve this project with a minor variance.
Phillip
Bob Zarzecki wrote:
Phillip,
As a follow up to our phone conversation, our Staff have some questions concerning the
project and how it affects the floodplain hydrology. We believe that the EMC will require
3 of 5 12/7/00 12:25 PM
Re: Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
. _, '-k
this information for the variance review. Also, we need to know if the "grassed swale"
option is a viable alternative to the variance. If it is, then the project could be designed to
comply with the rules and avoid the need for a variance. It is our understanding that your
office will provide us with information regarding the feasibility of constructing grassed
swales that meet the DWQ criteria as identified within the "DWQ Stormwater BMP"
manual. We will need to resolve these questions to complete our review and "finding of
fact" before we can place the project on the EMC agenda per 15A NCAC 2B .0233(9).
Staff Questions are as follows:
How will raising the road effect the hydrology of the floodplain during the 2, 5 and
10 year storm events (compare existing to proposed)?
The proposed bridge/road will not affect the flood plain for 2, 5 and 10 year storm
events any more than the current bridge/road does.
Specifically, will raising the road impede surface water flow through the
floodplain?
The proposed bridge/road affects the floodplain to the extent that the current
road/bridge does. There will not be any greater effect upon the floodplain with the
proposed project. Currently, with a 25 year storm event, the road/bridge may be
topped. With the current proposed project, the road/bridge will be raised such that a
25 year storm event will not top the road; however, the bridge/road will be topped
with a 50 year storm event.
• Staff concerns are that blocking the flow may cause upstream sedimentation within
the riparian areas and downstream destabilization of the stream possibly leading to
stream bank erosion. These events may compromise the health of the vegetation
within the riparian buffers and create additional sedimentation within the Falls Lake
Watershed.
I talked with Michael Hosey and he stated that downstream from the bridge there is
an existing sub-impoundment for waterfowl.
I can be reached at 733-9726.
- Bob
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
4 of 5 12/7/00 12:25 PM
DEC-96-2666 1444 NCDOT
? ?
o
e D
b t0 C11
i• ?
?

>~ C N

e 171
rt I ?:1

? a
171
? ? I
I I
??

• VJS) 4
7 E ? I ?
? =

IMP
PI 1 ?
?
? -
y
tic
O
O
? s
•
?M,
r
y
z
?TT
m

Z -{
m
^mG
" ? 19 fAH?
?1 y Pao m
N p m ?i z
0 rrr -r m
a _
liy O m ? -
p o ?• ? m
.? s
?i
K? y
1111.11

? J
l
1 b F6i
919 256 4168 P.91/62
I
xv pig
m
D
P
m y"
n
m ? y
en ? r
m a ?
01
0
1 ~ co
e
N
R
N
15+00 SM
4`a
rNro
w?
K
I"
I ?Jc
Np
m ?
C
D
v?
? y
y
71 ? ?
r?
z 't
m
1? C
b
d
r:..'« t
4 i7

.'F;a?
k

iA y

f?
d•
k
r] i
J?
K
o ?m
* 1
05

f
Tr .7
W
Ipw
f
DEC-06-2000 14:44 NCDOT
V N
N ?
sg
n
? u
s
A
O
rri
e L $? ?
P m
c
¦
*b

-L- PO -Sta. 2017
TOTAL P.02
Q
?i
rn
r
i
V
? U
o C
(A
0 0.
?I

N
4f3.0 N NN -7 m
?Nro _

?
7p

919 250 4106 P.02/02
V l/
ti
nr.p
M r 1?
Y s
u,^
S
20+00
N u
N
0
w
N
O
O
w
0
`C1
O'
0
Cn
O
O
-P
00
O
y
cn
0
0
(D
w
a
0
Cs.
o,
(D
n
y
(D
O
0
0
CD
0
O
Al
C
(D
A?
0
+
CJ1
O
O
N
+
O
CD
6 0
O
M
CD
CD
A.. n
O C
r. a
o ?
CD
? o
o
N
0
0
00
0
7c?
as
o?
O
N
? C
0
Q- b ? o
00
_ gin' p +
D
C-D
CD
ro ?
CD
CD
(D a
d ?
O
o
C
CD o-
O
CD
UD
y
CD
la..
cra
cD
CD
CD
n
N
d
O
(D
C4
O
N
c
CD
CL
n
O•'
0
0
CD
w tD y
j C C-D
.C) .??
(D a
0 g
° C o
(D
'b O •O-t
O ..3
> CD
N ?
CD
o CD
C-D
C-D W
CD
? o
as ¢'
? o
(D
UQ
Ate? (D
z
o °
C
Q.. v,
?• o
0
C
CD ?
cr +
o
SID
CfQ
y
0
cD
0
CD

u? O ?OCD odd.

-
o =
C)
N CD p C
(D ?' N J ?..

x
+
0 CD CD
N O
R D C/] A
(
O ''
y T
0
p . O
O CL
`C A N ?
CD
0' Lit (1 CD
m 0
o n 0 o C)
O p ?.
C O Q
0
(
D CD Vi
p
".
as 0 O- Q.. O
(D cL N O
° b
?
.
20
CD -t CD

CD
?, a o CD n
CD

CD CD CD IC3
o
BCD v a
,
o o C - ...
CD CD 0
CD

a
(D CD
=r p
CD
CD DC
c
a o o
cra ((DD w
o 0 C
O o
I
CD

=r
0
p
(D C
N c
-t CD CD
o¢?? O )
?a

CD CD
(D tTl
-
°

(D
A
C P

6?
CD CD

r? CD
°
A
1
°
CD s (?

CD U N p V N
C-D
A?
CO CD ?.
00 0 y ?•
?

(D CD a-
Q
a
d
O ?O 0 v
y
I _
C3 CD
CDC
<

N O ¢ ?.
O ¢, ?
N
:D ¢
" CD n

((DD CD
r+ p cn
r? cD

C
CD
p
- CD
.
0
(D

? o?

CD
0 SID
70
N
N
O
W
N
O
O
W
O
'b
-- IN o p > b
-
h a c
M
O ° ?roD o
yb ? ?
n
' 6
CD
?
' N
P CD CD
•? o bi CD ?- GZ o
CA cn
. P17,
CD

o CD
CD
cn
CD o

CD p.?z

'C
o CD = CD 0 CD
C:L (D
CD a 0 S '
CD g CD CD <
CD Z CD
CD 0 ? CD
CD CD
CD C?? CD
CD
° O
Z;- CD CD
CD CD 0 (D
><

'a
o P CD
???
CCDD
' CD ?
O o cD o
CA
o CD a
rP p
.? ,.° o

0 ~
CD
CD CD
( 5o CD0I
W
CD
CD CD CD? .
G- < ? Q O O ~' ?s
-'
x 0 CD
0 CD < O CD I,
A
CD CD C
D
0 CD CD
0
= w
<
r
o CD sv sv
CD
CD
s 0
?t l7
CD o. CD
' r-,
as

C) CD CD

< - C
w CA CD w
-1
?<
'

90
< ?"<
tzi •-1 CD
CD 4
D
c W CD
n
(D CD r
= CD V)?.
CD
O CD `D (D ° S o O. u?o d
?
v CD ?.
CDD' w 'c3 ^' ZI
C O O
D
CP S o
a c cry xCD
D
CD
' C
°¢C
O
Q
CD

p

o
~
qQ

CD CD -1 CD
C, °

D ?

'
o Pr .
arc,
r°
=
CD
R k'"'
CD cu

pGQ
w
O
r* 'T.J d g CD
(D C)
s
00 ?.
.
< s

o o
O CD
CL
o rA
BCD CD CD C1

CD CD

CD
r+
'd O

< (D
is
cs
O O CD
?
CD
'
O
n r* `? O O.. ?t ?
C CD 'd O A?
S N O

CCDD CD CD
-•
¢•
CAD
?n -? cD
CD CD
04
C O ~'
*? On CD
Q,
CD O `?' CpD R+
¢ O ms
O G, 'C ? bQ ?
CD C1 CD
CD
W
N i
N r°
CD
0 0
0
0
orc
C4
0
0
0
a\
0
0
0
°o
CD
CD
cn
CD
w
CAD
vo
CD
CCDD'
0
CD
O
O
0
CD
a
c
CD
A)
a
0
00
0
0
0
N
O
+
O
O
W
W
N
G1
O
O
W
O
b

Q r? .._._......... _......_.._.

N
a w x '' Cd ?
n ? ? O
C
CD

w = CD
?.
o
CD

?d
w
w
d ?
N
? ?O y
a
CD 0
? o'er a ~a:
o ? ? ° ? aro
o CD ?'?
CD C
NAT CD
O' ? A
c c
Q, o rP
CC-D ?. m o
n R. r+
o
eD
? CD
? C-D o ?
?! O CD ?. ?Q
O -n CD C CD O"
CD M
A C CD G °C
A
a' ¢
CD
r••t.. ^ CD CD e•a
Qr ? '?' a O r.j
"ems
o ?• ? Ce ;n
y Cr e
c
fD CD O 1.. C
".S 3y cn ffl CD
1C
Ar CD C A
CD P
o a ?•
0.1
CD t3.
o ? ? o
CD eD
eD
CD a ¢
?.
CD
a IL-
?- o w c
? a
V)
Irl
CD
0
O
Oro
CD
0
CD
CD
O
O
O
(IQ
O?
CD
0
O
'C
0
•J
oy"
A
0
o p
a ?
a ?
crQ
o as
0 CD
A ?
0 0
0 0
O O'Q
o
o
o CD
N Op
A?
C. ?
O ?
w QG
o CD
0 0
CP
C
o CD
0
CD
A o
O '•t
ey, CD
C CD
04 x
a ?.
ara o
On
o
a o
a .?
o O
a.
J
p'-n
cD
0
O
O
(D
'T? CP
?CD?
CD
d
CD
n
CCD
CD O
COD
a
n ? o
q
a.
rD ?
zdo
G
C 7 ? O
CD
O ?
W -' a
w CD
td uoa
b?
C7
CD
CD
C o
o
cD
C
CD ?.
=' O
CD
CD
CD
o ?
? o
o ?
CD W
?• o
ro ?,
? o
? o
a?
o ?.
a?
as va
o
? a.
i N
w V v ? I vl
?W m
rz U W
w ' ?_
L'i
O
U)
ti
W
d
i ti Lli
u
LLJ V)
N
y N W
w O aw ?? O UJ
N aZ p?ri 2 W?
om aW y CO *W U-LLJ
?
p N J 0 0
2 ¢ j
?N O
M I ? J ?
m ? ? ??P1(az o 0
ti )
C
bb'S8+007 'olSl Od -7-
O ?
w a ;
3-j I-s O 00+00
w
-CD
?a vZiW < a aq I ? J ?
W J Q O z N ( i N 1 ¢
,S'Z , 'Z T a W I I I a W '-'-`
o o W J I II Q a l LLo °o°OO o
?P z° OW o fik?x I III o?? W Eg
q/
?N 04- (? ` Na I ;?tW +prc°N ONO o0
?~o ZW- oo W _ _ ¢
W z ~ `?
m 1 ,6 I ,ZZ I?b ? ? _ - - = I I ?7 z ?-
I I YO °o°o
cnl? o I - owY
J w M I C I a ---
3
I
I = J? I 1 I?NLn
a ry
°c
ZZ:
mg s I U
w I a m J °oo
w _ _ ?F- o00
cREEF - _ - of tix
_ UCK - - - .°n °o.°n
ZQ m„ w ? I m?
d? IW 00+s1 = k W
JQ
? w .
m
axe W I I aoLL
?N N 7 00 m O I I +PUww
OO IF,
I : "I
J M 0 O 0. W i w M I W -
L
2
L ow W ICI I o?-.
w : I ?ow I - 3
15
p
z ?? 3 Joao a?
z
N -
oll
- i ,??w I I I xmw.
o ?
o I ?° _ w ?WOao ?W
I- I _ aw
Q N W Z ZO ? ?n ui w
w=LL o a J ° z
S3381 `JNIISIX3 '? J asa v?iti I = ?I w ? Ow LL
W Q u N N
q:t 0.
1? _ 717f 1 //I?, V N U
g° - /' a ¢ow
= X a ?o
K N ?
a w W - ¢
Z Iw a
O i w u
O a wo a-° I e I `??'
N N - I I Iw a I
W" w I I °
??? I I I o t m ?
w a ? <
c', v? I I ; Q Z e z u1° Q.
00'00+0/ 'o1S 10d -7- - €p < s o , - = z
W ( w(?/? W y= pp z m p"? a a o c ?
m Q I? ? VU] R " ? IL m < K F ? ? ? 5<Y? ?
ti F- °m' I A t C V< ?'' F S t
3 2 W I o o? z b? c
vi W O `n E. e m z 8 z s y s c S m
Q ° _S
p Or'1 O F Z F 3 c
W OyN d `? o x Z c
W ?Ol ti ? ? a ? ?
i 2? 21?
N? j I
?0 41`
2 W
O ?m
O
g go
m m?
£'6:69 Wd a 511=a 1 6
x=67,bR:FR$'b?R['$ti=R$N`70 FI:M1 F C' PT
Re: Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
Subject: Re: Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 15:25:26 -0500
From: Bob Zarzecki <bob.zarzecki @ ncmail. net>
To: Phillip Todd <[e-mail]>, "Todd St. John" <[e-mail]>,
"Hosey, Michael L II SAW" <[e-mail]>,
Steve Mitchell <[e-mail]>, John Hennessy <[e-mail]>
Phillip,
As a follow-up on the conversation between yourself, John Hennessy and I held today, the Division is of
the understanding that your office will be providing information on the drainage area and associated
required length of the proposed grassed-swales. The Division is requesting that your office provide
information on the feasibility of constructing the required length of grassed-swales prior to entering the
excavated floodplain area. At a minimum, the required length will need to be achieved prior to entering
the 50-foot buffer area (assuming that the excavated, floodplain area meets the DWQ requirements). If
you have any questions please contact John H. or myself at 733-1786.
- Bob
Bob Zarzecki wrote:
Phillip,
Unfortunately, I needed the information and time for us to review it by last Thursday for it to be placed
on the agenda. I'll pass this information on to Todd St.John and Staff for review. Please send us written
information regarding the potential for the "grassed-swale" option. We'll be glade to meet with you to
discuss other potential options (use of other BMPs, Minor Variance, etc.).
- Bob
Phillip Todd wrote:
Bob:
I have responses to questions that you posed in referenced email. The responses have been placed in
BOLD to signify DOT's response. I hope that these responses enable us to place the item on the EMC
agenda in case we cannot resolve the project under a minor variance. Please let me know if the
responses do not. I will email/fax you a proposed letter to hopefully resolve this project with a minor
variance.
Phillip
Bob Zarzecki wrote:
Phillip,
As a follow up to our phone conversation, our Staff have some questions concerning the project and
how it affects the floodplain hydrology. We believe that the EMC will require this information for
the variance review. Also, we need to know if the "grassed swale" option is a viable alternative to
the variance. If it is, then the project could be designed to comply with the rules and avoid the need
for a variance. It is our understanding that your office will provide us with information regarding the
feasibility of constructing grassed swales that meet the DWQ criteria as identified within the "DWQ
Stormwater BMP" manual. We will need to resolve these questions to complete our review and
"finding of fact" before we can place the project on the EMC agenda per 15A NCAC 2B .0233(9).
1 of 2 12/4/00 3:27 PM
Re: Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
Staff Questions are as follows:
• How will raising the road effect the hydrology of the floodplain during the 2, 5 and 10 year
storm events (compare existing to proposed)?
The proposed bridge/road will not affect the flood plain for 2, 5 and 10 year storm events any
more than the current bridge/road does.
• Specifically, will raising the road impede surface water flow through the floodplain?
The proposed bridge/road affects the floodplain to the extent that the current road/bridge does.
There will not be any greater effect upon the floodplain with the proposed project. Currently,
with a 25 year storm event, the road/bridge may be topped. With the current proposed project,
the road/bridge will be raised such that a 25 year storm event will not top the road; however, the
bridge/road will be topped with a 50 year storm event.
• Staff concerns are that blocking the flow may cause upstream sedimentation within the
riparian areas and downstream destabilization of the stream possibly leading to stream bank
erosion. These events may compromise the health of the vegetation within the riparian buffers
and create additional sedimentation within the Falls Lake Watershed.
I talked with Michael Hosey and he stated that downstream from the bridge there is an existing
sub-impoundment for waterfowl.
I can be reached at 733-9726.
- Bob
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
2 of 2 12/4/00 3:27 PM
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] ^ Dec 4 '00 1232 N.02
STATE OF NORTH- C LINA
DEPARTMR-9 OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DAVID MCCOY
GoyatWOP, $EGIMA tY
Y
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality -Wetlands
Attention: Mr. John Dorney
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
December 4,
Subject: Durham County, Replacement of Brid No. 91 over Lick Creek on SR
1809, Federal Arid Project-No. BIZZ-4 9(2), State Project No. 8.2351701;
TIP No. B-2964.
Dear Six:
As you are aware, the U. S. Army.: Corps.of:En
Branch) and North Carolina Department of Transports
together to perform compensatory mitigation for Flom
Reservoir. It was initially thought thatt ato4or varian
would be needed to construct this compensatory mitig
can provide justification that the-area. complies with a
opposed to a major variance would-be needed.
The NCDOT believes ftt.proposed excavaii,
grass swale guidelines as proposed by the N. C. Divi
criteria as identified within the "NCDWQ Stormwate
manual. The only item lacking to comply -with the it
the referenced manual is the 3:1 side slopes. -As You
area has a proposed side slope of 2:1.
ineers Operations Branch (Ops
ion (NCDO'I) are working
storage loss at Falls Lake
e of the Neuse River Buffer Rules
,Wn project. However, if NCDOT
grass swale, then minor variance as
area mcets the intentions of the
m of. Water Quality (NCDWQ)
3est Management Practice"
1 description of a grass swale in
.,all, the proposed compensation
?j
As mentioned in a field reviewwAth: Bob, Zarz ki of your staff, the constriction
of the excavation area at a 3:1 slope will impact trees cated to west of the proposed
excavation areas. These impacts.to trces. are a.hot 'ap ferred option by the Ops Branch.
This option would also result in greater. impacts to 1&e xisting buffer along Lick Creek
and its tributary.
RWLING ADDRESS:
PROJECT DEv6LOPMfWAND EM/IRONMENTALANALY818
1 W MAIL 3Mr4= CENTER
RAiNam NC 27680.1548
TELEPHONE q1q_ 1a1
FAX [phone]
lNL MM VWW ..1XW DOTS ATE NGAIS
LOCATION:
1*N5F0fCfATI0N BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STRIM
RALFJGN, NO
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax=919-733-9794
If you have any questions about this project,
my staff at [phone], Extension 314.
Sincerely,
W. D. Girliaaore, P.S.,
Project Development
WDGlpct
Dec 4 '00 12 : 32 P.03
contact Mr. Phillip Todd of
Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. Michael Hosey, USAGE, Jordan Lake
Mr. Bob Zarzecki. NCDWQ,'"eigh.
% NCDOT/P&E BRANCH
0

Fax:[phone]
?ew s?
DeC 4 'UU 11:51 r.U1
STATE OP: NORTH C OLINA
DEPARTMENT OF. T : SPORTATION DAVID McCOY
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALI7TGH, NIC. 2 11-5201 SECRETARY
GoVVINOR d
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &EI
FAX C'OVER'
Date: -
Number You Are Calling:3
Please deliver the followingpages to:. .
?E
Name:
BRANCH
11;?9
Department andlor Firm:
Address or Room Number:
This Telecopy is being sent by.,
Name:
Phone Number:
Remarks:
Number ofpava (Including Cover Sheet)
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES CLEARLY, CALL(91•A). 73 -3141 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
N LYSM RANCH FAXNUMBER
PROJECT DUVEL.OPMENT A ENVMONMEEM'ALA %
Re: Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
There will not be any greater effect upon the floodplain with the proposed project. Currently,
with a 25 year storm event, the road/bridge may be topped. With the current proposed project,
the road/bridge will be raised such that a 25 year storm event will not top the road; however, the
bridge/road will be topped with a 50 year storm event.
• Staff concerns are that blocking the flow may cause upstream sedimentation within the riparian
areas and downstream destabilization of the stream possibly leading to stream bank erosion.
These events may compromise the health of the vegetation within the riparian buffers and create
additional sedimentation within the Falls Lake Watershed.
I talked with Michael Hosey and he stated that downstream from the bridge there is an existing
sub-impoundment for waterfowl.
I can be reached at 733-9726.
- Bob
f
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
i
t '

2 of 2 12/4/00 1:23 PM
Re: Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
Subject: Re: Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 09:50:56 -0500
From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
To: Phillip Todd <[e-mail]>
CC: "Todd St. John" <[e-mail]>,
"Hosey, Michael L II SAW" <[e-mail]>,
Steve Mitchell <[e-mail]>, John Dorney <[e-mail]>
Phillip,
Unfortunately, I needed the information and time for us to review it by last Thursday for it to be placed on
the agenda. I'll pass this information on to Todd St.John and Staff for review. Please send us written
information regarding the potential for the "grassed-swale" option. We'll be glade to meet with you to
discuss other potential options (use of other BMPs, Minor Variance, etc.).
- Bob
Phillip Todd wrote:
Bob:
I have responses to questions that you posed in referenced email. The responses have been placed in
BOLD to signify DOT's response. I hope that these responses enable us to place the item on the EMC
agenda in case we cannot resolve the project under a minor variance. Please let me know if the
responses do not. I will email/fax you a proposed letter to hopefully resolve this project with a minor
variance.
Phillip
Bob Zarzecki wrote:
Phillip,
As a follow up to our phone conversation, our Staff have some questions concerning the project and
how it affects the floodplain hydrology. We believe that the EMC will require this information for the
variance review. Also, we need to know if the "grassed swale" option is a viable alternative to the
variance. If it is, then the project could be designed to comply with the rules and avoid the need for a
variance. It is our understanding that your office will provide us with information regarding the
feasibility of constructing grassed swales that meet the DWQ criteria as identified within the "DWQ
Stormwater BMP" manual. We will need to resolve these questions to complete our review and
"finding of fact" before we can place the project on the EMC agenda per 15A NCAC 2B .0233(9).
Staff Questions are as follows:
• How will raising the road effect the hydrology of the floodplain during the 2, 5 and 10 year U
storm events (compare existing to proposed)?
The proposed bridge/road will not affect the flood plain for 2, 5 and 10 year storm events any IJA
more than the current bridge/road does.
Specifically, will raising the road impede surface water flow through the floodplain?
The proposed bridge/road affects the floodplain to the extent that the current road/bridge does.
1 of 2 12/4/00 1:23 PM
Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
Subject: Lick Ck Bridge Replacement Floodplain Excavation
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:46:46 -0500
From: Bob Zarzecki <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
CC: "Todd St. John" <[e-mail]>,
"Hosey, Michael L II SAW" <[e-mail]. mil>
John Dorney <[e-mail]>, Steve Mitchell <[e-mail]>
Phillip,
As a follow up to our phone conversation, our Staff have some questions concerning the project and how it
affects the floodplain hydrology. We believe that the EMC will require this information for the variance
review. Also, we need to know if the "grassed swale" option is a viable alternative to the variance. If it is,
then the project could be designed to comply with the rules and avoid the need for a variance. It is our
understanding that your office will provide us with information regarding the feasibility of constructing
grassed swales that meet the DWQ criteria as identified within the "DWQ Stormwater BMP" manual. We
will need to resolve these questions to complete our review and "finding of fact" before we can place the
project on the EMC agenda per 15A NCAC 2B .0233(9).
Staff Questions are as follows:
How will raising the road effect the hydrology of the floodplain during the 2, 5 and 10 year storm
events (compare existing to proposed)?
Specifically, will raising the road impede surface water flow through the floodplain?
Staff concerns are that blocking the flow may cause upstream sedimentation within the riparian areas
and downstream destabilization of the stream possibly leading to stream bank erosion. These events
may compromise the health of the vegetation within the riparian buffers and create additional
sedimentation within the Falls Lake Watershed.
I can be reached at 733-9726.
- Bob
Bob Zarzecki
Environmental Specialist III - DENR/ DWQ
401 Wetlands Certification Unit i
1 of 1 11/30/00 3:47 PM

OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Received ....................._. ................................. Request # ........................................................
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Variance Request Form
Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC.0233)
NOTE. This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Part 1: General Information
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the project): J _&rm Lorl. o .
R
2. Print Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the facility and its compliance)
Name:
Title: __ _o
Street address: }
City, State, ZipMTelephone: L 501 xt _3
Fax: `-' 2
3. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
a° vCor ?s of M malls Lake, Lick ? k - flood u ` le it' ation by North Carolina
Or ri r :ro e>ct R-2964 .,ridge ? c t A. South View oa
=?).
4. Location of Facility
Street address: South View Road (SR1809).._
City, State, Zip: North Carolina
County: Wake
Latitude/longitude: .................................
5. Directions to facility from nearest major intersection (Also attach a map):
o ` _ ?r? serer - t" W 98 east towards Du 'am -at
i _ , ,.-
6. Contact person who can answer questions about the facility:
Name: Michael Hosey
Telephone: _ ,2 4501 ex! 26
Fax: r ' 372
Email:
7. Requested Environmental Management Commission Hearing Date: r r rar
Version 1: September 1998
Part 2: Demonstration of Need for a Variance
NOTE: The variance provision of the Neuse Riparian Area Rule allows the Environmental Management
Commission to grant a variance to an affected party when the following conditions apply on a given project.
(a) practical difficulties or hardships would result from strict application of the rule:
(b) such difficulties or hardships result from conditios which are peculiar to the property involved; and
(c) the general purpose and intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and
substantial justice would be done if the variance were granted.
This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criteria (a) and (b).
1. Attach a detailed description (2-3 pages) explaining the following:
• The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from strict application of the Rule.
• How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved.
• Why reconfiguring and/or reducing the built-upon area to preserve a greater portion of the
riparian area is not feasible on this project. If economic hardship is the major
consideration, then include a specific explanation of the economic hardship and the
proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
Part 3: Water Quality Protection
NOTE: This part of the application is to explain how the project meets criterion (c): the general purpose and
intent of the Rule would be preserved, water quality would be protected and substantial justice would be done if
the variance were granted.
Briefly summarize how water quality will be protected on this project. Also attach a detailed
narrative (1-2 pages) describing the nonstructural and structural measures that will be used
for protecting water quality and reducing nitrogen inputs to surface water.
tir t r...c aiit ¢ i. i Ise p.r t c1@0 by ...4 -tion water... g& y.. M 's a ., _...=,r € -)n and
erosion control measures. Distur an('- v... €in ,a buffer will ; the rninir ur- nec-ssan , and
all disturbed area will be stabilization. (See a tached na,r?"'-
2. What is the total project area in acres? ,appro. 0.21 ac. a ( _ 0 square feet) i total
flood storage excavation area, n -- - -fly 0.07 acre (3u00 square feet) within the
buffer. -°-
3. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required for this project?
CAMA Major
Sediment/Erosion Control
401 Certification/404 Permit
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 1: September 1998
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
4. Complete the following information for each drainage basin. If there are more than two
drainage basins in the project, attach an additional sheet with the information for each basin
provided in the same format as below.
Project Information Drainage Basin 1 Drainage Basin 2
Receiving stream name Lick Creek 27-11-9 (0.5)
Receiving stream class' WS-IV-NSW 8/1/98
Drainage basin area (total)
Existing impervious area3 (total)
Proposed impervious area3 (total) 400 square feet of riprap
% Impervious area3 (on-site)
% Impervious area3 (total)
Impervious area3 Drainage basin 1 Drainage basin 2
On-site buildings
On-site streets
On-site parking
On-site sidewalks
Other on-site
Total on-site
Off-site
Total
IIIG II ILGIIIGL JIIG IVI 1111) II IIVIIIIQLIVII IJ IILL'.,l.//IIGV.GI/I.JIGLLG.I1Li.UJ/JLIII /IiIQJJ/QIr./IIQ/IIGU.I ILIIII
2 Total means on-site plus off-site area that drains through the project.
3 Impervious area is defined as the built-upon area including, but not limited to, buildings, parking areas,
sidewalks, gravel areas, etc.
5. How was the off-site impervious area listed above derived?
6. What will be the annual nitrogen load contributed by this site after development in pounds per
acre per year without structural BMPs (stormwater pond, wetland, infiltration basin, etc)?
Attach a detailed plan for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs.
Drainage
basin Size of
drainage
basin
ac Post-development
nitrogen loading rate
without BMPs4
Ibs/ac/ r BMP nitrogen
removal
efficiency5
% Final nitrogen
loading rate
(Ibs/ac/yr) Final nitrogen
loading from
drainage basin
Ibs
1
2
3
4
5
Totals ------ ------ ------
' Attach calculations and references.
5 Attach calculations and references.
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 1: September 1998
Part 3: Water Quality Protection, continued
7. The applicable supplemental form(s) listed below must be attached for each BMP specified:
Form SWU-102 Wet Detention Basin Supplement
Form SWU-103 Infiltration Basin Supplement
Form SWU-105 Curb Outlet System Supplement
Form SWU-106 Off-Site System Supplement
Form SWU-107 Underground Infiltration Trench Supplement
Form SWU-109 Innovative BMPs Supplement
Part 4: Submittal Checklist
A complete appplication submittal consists of the following components. Incomplete submittals
will be returned to the applicant. The complete variance request submittal must be received 90
days prior to the EMC meeting at which you wish the request to be heard. Initial below to
indicate that the necessary information has been provided.
Applicant's ?tel'Yt
Initials
• Original and two copies of the Variance Request Form and the attachments
listed below.
............................................................ • A vicinity map of the project (see Part 1, Item 5)
.............. -.- • Narrative demonstration of the need for a variance (see Part 2)
• A detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management (see Part
3, Item 1)
• Calculations supporting nitrogen loading estimates (see Part 3, Item 6)
----.......................... _.............. Calculations and references supporting nitrogen removal from proposed BMPs
(see Part 3, Item 6)
-- .................. _..._..____...... - Location and details for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs (see Part 3,
Item 6)
-_.............. .......... ._.__...... • Three copies of the applicable Supplement Form(s) for each BMP and/or
narrative for each innovative BMP (see Part 3, Item 7)
............... __......... _..._ Three copies of plans and specifications, including:
............................................... 0 Development/Project name
...... ..................... 0 Engineer and firm
0 Legend and north arrow
.._.._........ _...._.._......_...._......._
0 Scale (1" = 100' or 1" = 50' is preferred)
.....
................. .
0 Revision number & date
..... _.. _ .........................................
0 Mean high water line (if applicable)
.......... __......_.._ ....................... 0 Dimensioned property/project boundary
........ 0 Location map with named streets or NC State Road numbers
.......... ._ ................_........ ..... ....... 0 Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor
elevations
0 Details of roads, parking, cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, and curb and gutter
0 Footprint of any proposed buildings or other structures
0 Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
0 Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, pipe sizes, runoff
calculations
0 Drainage basins delineated
0 Perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
0 Location of forest vegetation along the streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries
Variance Request Form, page 4
Version 1: September 1998
Part 5: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 7 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater best
management practices required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater
easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or
deleted without concurrence from the State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the
sale of any lot.
Part 6: Agent Authorization
If you wish to designate submittal authority to another individual or firm so that they may provide
information on your behalf, please complete this section:
Designated agent (individual or firm):
Mailing address:
..............................................................
City, State, Zip: ....................
.......................................
Telephone:
............................................................. . ....
Fax:
.........................................
Email:
Part 7: Applicant's Certification
I, (print or type name of person
listed in Part I, Item 2), certify that the information included on this permit application form is
correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the
deed restrictions in accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature:
Date:
Title:
Variance Request Form, page 5
Version 1: September 1998
Major Variance Application - Narratives
Part 2. Number 1.
The five congressionally designated uses of Federal property at Falls Lake are Flood Damage
Reduction (Flood Control), Recreation, Water Supply, Water Quality, and Fish and Wildlife
Enhancement. The proponents of projects on Federal property must avoid and minimize impacts
to Federal property and its designated purposes and mitigate for unavoidable impacts. This is the
case with the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) project replacing Bridge #
91 on South View Road (SR1809) over Lick Creek (TIP #B-2964). This bridge is located within
an easement held by NCDOT on Federal property at Falls Lake. NCDOT is being required to
excavate approximately 1030 cubic yards of material immediately adjacent to Lick Creek. This
material is being removed to mitigate for an equal amount of material being placed below the
flood pool elevation (264.8 feet mean sea level) as part of the bridge replacement.
The US Army Corps of Engineers at Falls Lake as owners and stewards of the Federal property
on which the proposed mitigation will take place is applying to the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission for this major variance. It is our understanding that our proposed
mitigation project is partially located within the 50 foot buffer imposed by the State of North
Carolina along water ways in the Neuse River Basin. Further, it is our understanding that our
proposed project does not fall under any existing exemption in the Neuse River Buffer Rule. We
are seeking a variance for this mitigation project based on the procedures set out in Section (9) of
15A NCAC 26 .0233.
Not allowing this mitigation will create difficulties for the Corps' operations at Falls Lake. It will
also create a hardship for the Corps and NCDOT, which are seeking practical options for flood
storage mitigation. As with any mitigation locating an appropriate site is key to the effectiveness
of the mitigation. The Corps has determined that the most effective mitigation for lost flood
storage is excavation of an equal amount of storage at or near the same elevation as the lost
storage and as close as possible to the area where the flood storage was lost. This approach
keeps the flood storage in the affected drainage as consistent as possible with what was present
prior to fill being placed within the flood pool. We have determined that in this case that
excavation of 1030 cubic yard of new flood storage immediately adjacent to the bridge
replacement site is most practical mitigation alternative. Strict application of the rule by the
Commission would force us to look for less desirable locations or options for this mitigation.
The difficulties resulting from strict application of this rule result from conditions peculiar to the
property involved. The Federal property at Falls Lake was purchased with public funds allocated
by Congress and is intended to be used for its congressionally designated purposes. Protecting
the flood storage capacity of Falls Lake is essential to the Corps mission of reducing the amount
damage caused by floods in the Neuse River Basin downstream of the dam. In this instance the
Corps has determined that another use of this land, a public road, is also in the public interest
and can come onto this property, but only if impacts to the existing public use are mitigated.
Although NCDOT is often required to mitigate for the impacts of its projects this type of mitigation
is unique to Federal lands at a flood control project.
We fully support the purpose and intent of the Neuse River Buffer Rule. Preserving the water
quality and the flood storage capacity of Falls Lake are both essential to the continued success of
the Corps' mission. We believe that in conjunction with NCDOT, NC Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), and the Commission we will be able to come to a solution, which will serve the publics
interest in this mater. We welcome all input from NCDWQ and the Commission in carrying out
this mitigation project. We are confident that in granting this variance the Commission will
preserve the general purpose and intent of the Rule, that water quality will be protected, and that
substantial justice will be done.
Part 3. Number 1.
Although this work is taking place on Federal property it will be carried by NCDOT personnel.
Water quality will be protected by implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practice's for
Protection of Surface Waters.. Disturbance within the buffer will be the minimum necessary, and
all disturbed area will be stabilized to prevent sedimentation.
Road side ditches will run into pipes. Rip-rap will be placed on at the outlet of the pipes to diffuse
the water as it flows into the mitigation area.
In addition to the flood storage mitigation, the NCDOT is being required to mitigate for impacts to
a remnant cane break located partially within the construction area. The mitigation involves
stockpiling of switch cane (Arundinaria tecta) plants from disturbed areas and transplanting those
into the excavated flood storage area.
The flood storage excavation will impact approximately 0.21 acres total with approximately 0.07
acres located with in the buffer zone along Lick Creek. All flood storage excavation is located
within an existing overhead powerline right-of-way held by Wake EMC. The powerline is currently
maintained by mowing and periodic application of pesticides. It is vegetated with early
successional community containing various saplings, shrubs, and grasses. Species identified
include red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip polar (Liriodedron tulipifera), devil's walking stick (Aralia
sinosa, switch cane (Arundiaria tecta), and blackberry (Rubus spp.).
The areas excavated will be initially stabilized by planting rye grain and mulching with straw and
tack to prevent erosion. NCDOT will stock pile clumps of switch cane plants from areas
disturbed by the bridge construction. When bridge construction activities are complete the stock
piled switch cane plants will be transplanted into the mitigation area. The area will also be
seeded with Tioga Deer-Tongue - Panicum clandestinum. Based on soil tests the site's soil may
be supplemented to promote the growth of the transplanted switch cane. In order to minimize
nutrient run off fertilizer will be applied to individual clumps of switch cane and not broadcast.
The site will be allowed to recover naturally, except for periodic removal of woody vegetation by
hand or by controlled burning. Wake EMC has agreed to post the area with signs to insure that it
is not mowed or sprayed with pesticides.
Short-term impacts such as sedimentation and turbidity associated with the initial excavation of
the flood storage area will be minimized by the use to water quality BMP's. Restoration of the
cane break in this area, along with the elimination of mowing and pesticide use in the powerline
right of way directly adjacent to the creek will have a long-term positive effect on water quality in
the stream.

o

I?
+
w
< V
1

2-0
Q LL)
w
I
_
L- z `
O 0
z
N w ?
_ w
Q 0

~ N
N I

d
C)
° I

z` ?9
w °

0 I
O Ul
°' 0
z l
v)
° co +
V,
I
0
O 0 ?S
LL) J W I
Y - ?
Z
x
CO
c C 1
o F 1
I
J
I
O
I I- -
SIG GREEK I I -
z
0
I Q
v
?
I I
? Q w
z ®
p+ a
?i H
z m
v ? z

- N `n W

? CD
0 ui UL
QQ
I F
llw Q
N O
Ln
®
z
x
v
w
?
l
ui "0 NJ

V) u
I I I ? o z
I ? ?

I
I <
J
= Y
z
f I I {`? co
I - O
`v
,
I II I = ?
I I I ?
i ?

1
7 N - ' EEK ; - ?
6
4 GR
K . ,
o U G
_ !
I a w
U ? d

?I I as in a

I o
? F w a
F N ?
?
..? N o
I V w

II ?
<
Q _
? I

O Y
I
? g0
?
Q ? r

1
" ? I
KI I I
o ? U O Z' I IW
O - o in I - I
m
+ N
x I"
a
J z x w
o Q.) 0 I
o m' o f l ?I
? zl

- I I °I

3 I
J
?i
? I

1P 1o I
U Y
O Z
LEI Q
co
\ ?. d
o
iCc d
0 N
Iz u
Ix
I" N -
w
2
i-
I ? - x
w
F V) ~
I ? R O ?
F w
I = i
U
e!
J ?
.? W
n; 3
?W
W U
F
o?
z
c z
'? R? z,S oQE f L
N, A
_Nprorpl GroLnC f??'?" ~ _ r
7,i 2'\ `n v1
N APPR0.MN
VAR' SKETCH SHOVING RELATIONSHIP NOF BRIDGE
TO PAVEMENT AND SHOULDERS
STA. -L- 14.50.00 RT TO STA. -L- 15.10.00 R,
STA.-L- 15.71.00 RT TO STA.-L- 18.35.00 RT
Nq
83
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
O
O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPS OF ENGINEERS m
CORPS OF ENGINEERS oo
N
TOxILE1. 161E0'
RUCiw
R000f I u,' H
-L- Mr 5 if R• laws
~
DDf )C.lav8, 'CODS
g
Rl W5[j • }ESN,' 8
SPfO•L l•iRU 'v'pitx L•,(pK •v p,G I WK x•x ntul L• ER•L 'v'ONtx SvFCYS t•lERA, -Tw 1
E plCx OEi•a • YE x •a 0 8 ` SEE ORR OETAE B [f "X II • o
sly YE PROFAI SME, S YE PROFLE SxCET 5 fs RRMa SM:F, 5 SEE PROFaE MT 5 LV
EST. DOE SO CO. YVS. M1 fS ' ' 10.1 .00[ b CV. TOS.
R R ?
GR 0 Tfl0.v5/T ' TO YATLN £X
O YA N XI
E E-E-E E -E-E-E-E E-E E-E=6---E E- E- -E-E- E-E-E-E-C-E E-E-E '
n1. _ ?n ,D - j • Tt'WII'r' 'I?SA19Tff'hEF7 f ?I°?3?IV BL-3 PINC 16+01
` °f0NX1•Lf 10 •' cRAV_JSp rr xR cRAU-750 (-L- STA 20+85
--- _ _ - ---- - - - sR w» _-- -- --
- - - _ I _ - - - - - _ - - - - _
GRAU-J50 _ x - - - - [ K
? E-E-?v,
,-E-E E-E-E-E ' E -ES 11 1 IS E-E-E-E-
• I 7?7f
LATE sEE IA pT E
iN
E E5 RRDF yE? SS 5O'BL-Z PINC 11+00.52
j8-429164E sra2o+4oco -L- EN
t•
EST:, i(-L- STA I5+8426 1258 RT) 'GODS S. Fa. nRENO?E fxlSTlNG BRICCE laws
(STRUCTURE AN ?EM) 1 1
O Fed lines indicate approximate
UN TED STATE F AMERICA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CORPS OF ENGINEERS location of 50 ft buffer CORPS OF ENGINEERS
W.ALOLATER1AL pl[x L•L RAL NIL plCx
v we i?t<er ,Y ? ?w• O imx R •I LAv
0 r,.
. I.OF•. i.Oh.
5pf0Li S5,•. T: -L- K50 SO..00M RT LO St -L- w• LIT
iii -i- L11 ,o n• L: 5. Ll t0 51"",
,0 5i•, --LL- - 1]n••50.00 R,
n.uo:o0 . .. - . ..
. P0-t4?
di s- ",k,,?v
l,
t?,.r ? ,tea ?y???
X, A?
PROJECT: 8.2351701 B-2964

0 0 0

w 0 N

M '
'
O
?+ o -
m o 0
r
m
=
1
m
m N

o N
o
n O 0

r
v
° 85 °
o
C4
E
„ D
4 -4
b

< N
0
-+v
10
a °
II 11 II II II II x

C
W ° ° o co b
as

N = ?

o
1. m
Z
41 m
Z

C
)
r
r _ c

Cc >
a

m N - b

O :
D ?

M
Q
p
O
0 [rJ

y
N
W
V
??pp
N
N7??0p
?.
4

II
OD co
O Iv
„RVl
?o N
N
p II
H
A O

N O
N N
? m
m N

b
40
? o z ?

b
? a
N

b N b

W !V

xx

+ +
??
00
1 ?I
0 0
2z
T 1
?m
o?
m?
qIM
W

II
II
LICK CREEK
N
M
U
tl
C
yy
bfb
6
N
w
.Ohl

A
Z
?. q

r
i

CD n
? k
y
y
C O?
n
O
O
? a
b ?
VS
b n
C
` J O
C x
0
o
b
z
n ?x
0
x
m
N ? l / y
W
O

m WW
N

o
N
?
*4 o l

i

G
n
0
z

20-D W\E296,&pr j\b2964s44psh
As o
As
os ?
$ Z I I ° -L- POT S/o.10+0ovb
F o
Z y Q I r o
? d I I .
b II ?
I
a I sl ?• ?0
b
V. :
Q I: ?. t t EXISTM TREES
as
12,
WIT
? u?'?p I gl I ? ??
> ??F?? i ?I I I "'? I >
°° © I I I ? HN I ?
H I I '" ' r
IA fs ? IQ ?=D
,, ??I I .I I 88 I? ???
yN?
I 15+00 I ?q
r i-
? v I !?L ? ?n ..dJ
i ~ 2 ro b
a -I I
r b I g _
rr 13 ? -
1 I
"~ ?? Q I I I I I ??
N
m °I
b? -I ?i
I I I = o
I ? I
fl =
ca I i ??
- rcf? Of
--
+ 44
b?I r O ? ?
C ' way
C ? r 1a? 2 ?h'?hi?
ril
101
m,
??