20070489 Ver 1_More Info Received_20070323

~~.
r
~, I)~1~

US 401
BRIDGE N0.63 OVER MIDDLE CREEK
WAKE COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT N0. BRSTP-401(13)
STATE PROJECT N0. 8.1404501
T.I.P. N0. B-3916
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
APPROVED:
~5 2~ a~
DA E
os a ~ o
DATE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
.o
MAR 1 0 2007
DcNR - WA.-E:K lJilAL4 t }'
tNETIANDS AND STDRA9W.g1 ER 9f;ANCh
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
/ ~ /~
~ John F. Sullivan, III,
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

~ ~
US 401
BRIDGE N0.63 OVER MIDDLE CREEK
WAKE COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT N0. BRSTP-401(13)
STATE PROJECT N0. 8.1404501
T.I.P. N0. B-3916
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
May 2004
Document Prepared by
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
4928-A Windy Hill Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27609
'~~~ ~~~~n~~f~
h~~ ~ ~.
~~~c~~~~n ~~
~~ ~.
Montell W. Irvin, P.E., PTd~
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
~~-
~~~~~..~
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Theresa Ellerby, Project Manager'
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
5 Z~
Date

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
US 401
BRIDGE N0.63 OVER MIDDLE CREEK
WAKE COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT N0. BRSTP-401(13)
STATE PROJECT N0. 8.1404501
TIP N0. B-3916
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section
404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certification
Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to
by NCDOT:
NCDOT Division 5, Roadway Design and Hydraulic Unit
1.) The Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rule will be implemented during design, construction and maintenance
of the project.
Categorical Exclusion - B-3916
May 2004
Page 1 of 1

r ~
US 401
BRIDGE N0.63 OVER MIDDLE CREEK
WAKE COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT N0. BRSTP-401(13)
STATE PROJECT N0. 8.1404501
T.I.P. N0. B-3916
INTRODUCTION
The replacement of Bridge No. 63 located on US 401 over Middle Creek in southern Wake County is included in
the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) and in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program (BRSTP-401(13)). The location is shown in Figure 1.
No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion".
I. PURPOSE AND NEED
The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 63 had a sufficiency rating of 42.4 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure in 1995. Needed repairs to the structure were completed between 1995 and
1997 which improved the bridge a sufficiency rating to 52.4 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge
is considered structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. The replacement of this inadequate structure will
result in safer and more efficient traffic operations.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 63 is located on the southbound lanes of US 401 approximately 1.3 miles south of Wake Technical
Community College and 0.3 mile south of the junction of SR 2724. Refer to Figure 1 and 7 for the project location
and Figures 2 and 3 for photos of the existing project study area.
Bridge No. 63 was constructed in 1926 and reconstructed in 1953 and has a sufficiency rating of 52.4 out of a
possible 100. The bridge is currently not posted to restrict weight limits.
The overall length of the two-span structure is 95.0 ft. It has a clear roadway width of 28.1 ft that includes two
travel lanes over the bridge. The deck width out-to-out is 31.4 ft. The superstructure consists of reinforced
concrete deck girders. The substructure consists of reinforced concrete full height abutments and reinforced
concrete solid web piers. The height from crown to streambed is 19 ft.
US 401 is classified as a rural minor arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The 2004
average daily traffic volume (ADT) on southbound US 401 over Bridge No. 63 is estimated to be 27,100 vehicles
2

B. Build Alternatives
Two build alternatives studied for replacing the bridge are described below:
Alternative A
Alternative A consists of replacing the bridge in-place with a new bridge.. During construction traffic will be
maintained using the northbound bridge as a detour to maintain traffic during construction. Improvements to the
approach roadways will be required for a distance of approximately 200 ft west and 200 ft east of the structure.
Traffic will be detoured to the northbound lanes during construction. This detour will provide one lane in each
direction across the existing two-lane northbound bridge during the construction period. Refer to Figure 4 for
illustration of this alternative.
Alternative A was not selected because the existing northbound bridge is not wide enough to provide the required
positive protection between opposing traffic and would possibly require a truck detour. US 401 north is also an
emergency evacuation route for the Shearon Harris Nuclear power plant.
Alternative B (Preferred)
Alternative B consists of replacing the bridge in-place using a temporary on-site detour upstream of the existing
bridge to maintain traffic during construction. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a
distance of approximately 200 ft west and 200 ft east of the structure. Traffic will be detoured along atwo-lane
temporary on-site detour immediately west of the existing structure. The edge of the temporary detour bridge will
be located approximately 12 ft west of the edge of the proposed bridge. The temporary detour bridge will have a
clear roadway width of 32 ft with 2 travel lanes each 12 ft wide and 4 ft shoulders on each side of the travel lanes.
The design speed for the temporary detour bridge is 50 mph. The length of the temporary detour is
approximately 1600 ft. Refer to Figures 5A and 5B for illustration of this alternative.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
The "Do-Nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge due to its poor condition. This is
not desirable due to the traffic service provided by US 401.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of the
old bridge is not feasible due to its deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative (Alternative B)
Alternative B consists of replacing the bridge in-place using a temporary on-site detour upstream (west) of the
existing bridge to maintain traffic during construction. This alternative was selected as the preferred because it
maintains an acceptable level of service on both the northbound and southbound lanes during construction.
The Division 5 Engineer concurs with Alternative B as the preferred alternative.
4

a
1990). When appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular
plant names typically follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968).
Jurisdictional wetland areas were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, and wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) delineation guidelines (DOA
1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et
al. (1979). Jurisdictional stream channels were identified using criteria outlined by the USAGE and the N.C.
Division of Water Quality.
Water resource information for Middle Creek was derived from the most recent version of the Neuse River
Basinwide Wafer Quality Plan (DWQ 1998) and several NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Internet resources.
Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
At the time of the field investigation, the most current USFWS list of federal protected species listed for Wake
County was dated February 26, 2001, and this list was reviewed prior to the field investigation. Currently, the
most recent USFWS list is dated February 25, 2003. No additional species have been listed for Wake County. In
addition, NHP records documenting occurrences of federal or state-listed species were consulted before
commencing the field investigation. An updated NHP records search was performed on December 20, 2001,
November 25, 2003 and March 10, 2004.
Direct observations of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife were documented, and expected population distributions
were determined through observations of available habitat and review of supportive documentation found in
Martof et al. (1980), Webster of al. (1985), Menhinick (1991), Hamel (1992), Rohde et al. (1994), and Palmer and
Braswell (1995).
B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area is located in the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina. The topography in
the project study area is generally characterized as nearly level to moderately sloping. Elevations in the project
study area range from 240 to 250 feet above mean sea level (MSL) (USGS 1993). The project study area
consists of existing forested areas and maintained/disturbed land resulting from commercial development.
The project study area crosses seven soil mapping units (USDA 1970). Hydric soil units mapped as occurring
within the project study area include the Wehadkee (Typic Haplaquents) and Bibb (Fluventic Haplaquepts) series,
which are poorly drained. Non-hydric soil units that may contain hydric inclusions that are mapped as occurring
in the project study area include the Altavista (Aquic Hapludults) series, which often has hydric inclusions of the
Roanoke (Typic Ochraquults) series. Non-hydric soils mapped as occurring within the project study area include
two phases of the Appling (Typic Hapludults) series, the Herndon (Typic Hapludults) series, and Made land.
Made land is defined as areas that have been altered by man to the extent that the profile of the original soil can
not be recognized (USDA 1970).
The Appling series is derived from granite, gneiss, schist, and other acidic rocks (USDA 1970). This soil series is
conducive to providing potential habitat for the federally protected Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), assuming
that the vegetative communities are appropriate. This is further discussed in Section F.1.
6

Another measure of water quality being used by the DWQ is the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI),
which assesses biological integrity using the structure and health of the fish community. An NCIBI sample
location was established in 1995 approximately 1.6 miles upstream of the project study area on SR 1404 over
Middle Creek. This site received an NCIBI rating of Excellent (DWQ 1998)
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of discharge are broadly
referred to as "point sources". There are six (6) permitted dischargers located upstream of the project study area
(DWQ 1998, DENR 2001 b).
C.3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from construction-related
activities. Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of BMP's. These measures include: the use
of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff and elimination of construction
staging areas in floodplains and adjacent waterways. Disturbed sites will be revegetated.
Other impacts to water quality can be anticipated as a result of this project. There may be changes in water
temperature as a result of increased exposure to sunlight due to the removal of stream-side vegetation or
decreased exposure to sunlight due to the construction of the bridges. The stormwater flows may change due to
changes in the amount of impervious surface adjacent to the stream channels. However, due to the limited
amount of overall change in the surrounding areas, impacts are expected to be temporary in nature.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from the proposed project. The
proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of present stream flow within the existing channel,
thereby protecting stream integrity.
C.4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the NCDOT and all
potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition and removal. These guidelines are
presented in three NCDOT documents entitled Pre-Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal,
Policy: Bridge Demolition and Removal in Waters of the United States, and Besf Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal.
The superstructure of Bridge No. 63 consists of a reinforced concrete deck on concrete girders. The substructure
of the bridge consists of reinforced concrete end bents and concrete caps on concrete piles for interior bents.
The bridge has two spans and totals 95 feet in length.
There is the potential for the concrete deck and parts of the interior end bents to be dropped into Waters of the
United States during demolition and removal. The maximum potential temporary fill associated with the removal
of the bridge is approximately 242.7 cubic yards.
8

A relatively diverse bird population was observed within or adjacent to the project study area. Bird species
observed include mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), barn swallow (Hirundo rusfica), blue jay (Cyanocitta
cristata), American crow (Conrus brachyrhynchos), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), Eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophfhalmus), song sparrow (Melospiza melodic), white-
throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albocollis), and American goldfinch (Cardeulis trisfis). Other species that
commonly occur in regional alluvial forests include pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) and barred owl
(Strix varia).
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and raccoon (Procyon lofor) tracks were found within the project study
area. No other mammals were observed within the project study area. Other species expected to be found in
and around roadside and urban settings include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus),
and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus).
No terrestrial reptiles were observed within the project study area. Species expected to occur within the project
study area include, but are not limited to, eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina), eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), and black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
No terrestrial amphibians were observed within the project study area. Species expected to occur within the
project study area include, but are not limited to, American toad (Bufo americanus), spring peeper (Pseudacris
crucifer), and northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans).
D.3. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic habitat located within the project study area includes Middle Creek and the two small intermittent
tributaries. Limited kick-netting, seining, dip-netting, electro-shocking and visual observation of stream banks and
channel within the project study area were conducted in Middle Creek to document the resident aquatic wildlife
populations. The water depth of Middle Creek limited the use of the electro-shocker.
Fish species documented in the segment of Middle Creek within the project study area include bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis aurifus), and eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrook~). Additional
species expected to utilize Middle Creek include pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), Johnny darter (Efheosfoma
nigrum), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), and margined madtom (Noturus insignis).
No aquatic reptiles were observed within the project study area. Species expected to occur within the project
study area include, but are not limited to, northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), painted turtle (Chrysemys
picta), and common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina).
No aquatic amphibians were observed within the project study area. Species expected to occur within the project
study area include, but are not limited to red-spotted newt (Nofophfhalmus viridescens), bullfrog (Rana
cafesbeiana), and pickerel frog (Rana palusfris).
Aquatic invertebrate surveys included kick-net surveys, limited bottom sampling, and walking all streambanks in
the project study area to locate freshwater mussel middens. Visual observation of the streambanks along Middle
Creek revealed evidence of the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea).
10

sediment during construction are expected to be reduced by limiting in-stream work to an absolute minimum,
except for the removal of the portion of the sub-structure below the water. BMP-BDRs will be followed to
minimize impacts due to anticipated bridge demolition.
E. SPECIAL TOPICS
E.1. "Waters of the United States":
Surface waters and wetlands associated with Middle Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Wetlands subject to review
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined by the presence of three primary 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). USACE has issued a formal jurisdictional determination for this project and a
copy is provided in the Appendix.
The jurisdictional wetlands associated with the Middle Creek floodplain are characteristic of palustrine forested,
broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded wetlands (PFO1 C) based on the USACE methodology of
characterizing wetlands pursuant to Cowardin et al. (1979). These wetlands appear to be riverine influenced (i.e.,
riparian) in that they obtain wetland hydrology from overbank flooding. A small wetland area located along the
upper reach of one of the small tributaries (northwest of the bridge) is characteristic of a palustrine shrub-scrub,
broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded wetland (PSS1C). This wetland appears to be non-riverine (non-
riparian) in that it obtains hydrology primarily from groundwater, overland flow, and/or upland runoff.
E.2. Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the United States
Potential temporary and permanent impacts to surface waters and wetlands are estimated based on the amount
of each jurisdictional area within the project limits. Temporary impacts include those impacts that will result from
temporary construction activities outside of permanent right-of-way and/or those associated with temporary on-
site detours. Temporary impact areas will be restored to their original condition after the project has been
completed. Permanent impacts are those areas that will be in the construction limits and/or the proposed right-of-
way of the new structure and approaches. Portions of those areas that are considered temporary impact areas
often end up being within the proposed right-of-way. Potential wetland and surface water impacts are included in
Table 3. Permanent impacts to surface waters and wetlands associated with Alternative A and Alternative B are
the same; however, the temporary impacts associated with Alternative B are greater than the temporary impacts
associated with Alternative A.
12

Section 401 Water Quality Certification - A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the DWQ, will
also be required. This certification is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which
a federal permit is required. According to the DWQ, one condition of the permit is that the appropriate sediment
and erosion control practices must be utilized to prevent exceedences of the appropriate turbidity water quality
standard.
E.4. Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rule
Because the project study area is within the Neuse River Drainage Basin, surface waters may be subject to the
Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules. The Buffer Rules apply to a 50-foot wide riparian buffer directly adjacent to
all surface waters in the Neuse River Drainage Basin. This includes intermittent streams, perennial streams,
lakes, ponds, and estuaries that are depicted as surface waters on either the most current versions of either
USGS maps or county soil survey maps, but does not include jurisdictional wetlands (non-surface waters)
regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Middle Creek is mapped on the USGS map and the Wake
County soils map and is subject to the Buffer Rules. There are three tributaries in the vicinity of the proposed
bridge. The first tributary stream channel is located on the east side of US 401 south of Middle Creek (near the
railroad tracks) and is mapped on the USGS map and is subject to the Buffer Rules. The second tributary is
located on the west side of US 401 north of Middle Creek and appears to have possibly been relocated from its
original location during construction of the existing Carolina Power and Light facility. There is a mapped tributary
depicted on the USGS map in the northwest quadrant but not in the exact location of the delineated roadside
feature; however the USGS map was produced prior to construction of the Carolina Power and Light facility. This
second tributary is subject to the Buffer Rules. The third tributary is located on the east side of US 401 north of
Middle Creek and is not mapped on either the USGS map or the soil survey map and is likely not subject to the
Buffer Rules.
Portions of the riparian buffer zone along Middle Creek may be impacted by this project. Alternative A expands
the existing right-of-way (in the vicinity of the bridge) from 125 feet to 165 feet, resulting in 40 feet of impact to
riparian buffer through clearing of forested vegetation in Zones 1 and 2 associated with Middle Creek. The
expanded right-of-way will extend into the buffer associated with the roadside tributary in the northwest quadrant.
This buffer is already disturbed and appears to be periodically maintained. Buffer impacts resulting from
Alternative A should be "Exempt."
Alternative B results in an additional 75 feet of clearing of existing perennial stream buffer along Middle Creek
resulting from the temporary on-site detour and temporary construction easement. The tributary stream located
in the northwest quadrant of the project study area does not have a full 50 feet separating it from US 401. This
tributary stream has approximately 25 to 30 feet of buffer on its east side and the normal 50 feet on its west side.
An additional 250 feet of this tributary stream buffer outside of the Middle Creek buffer limits may be affected.
Buffer impacts resulting from Alternative B should be "Allowable with Mitigation" as long as the affected buffers
associated with the temporary detour are restored to pre-construction condition.
Since portions of the project- study area are within the 50-foot riparian buffer zone, measures should be taken
prior to initiating any activities on the site in order to keep any stockpiled material a minimum of 50 feet from any
stream channel. Silt fences should also be erected around any stockpiled material in order to minimize the
chance of erosion or run-off from affecting the stream channel.
14

construction and tree-cutting, within this primary zone. Within a secondary zone extending from the primary zone
boundary out an additional distance of 750 feet to 1.0 mile depending on site specific circumstances, construction
and land-clearing activities typically associated with bridge replacements should be restricted to the non-nesting
period. USFWS also recommends avoiding alteration of natural shorelines where bald eagles forage, and
avoiding significant land-clearing activities within 1500 feet of roosting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: May Effect-Not Likely to Adversely Effect
NCDOT biologists visited the project site on November 4 and 12, 2003. A 1.0 mile radius from the project site
was surveyed for bald eagle nests. No nests were seen and no bald eagles were seen flying around the area.
Only marginal habitat exists within 1.0 mile of the project site and the nearest large body of water for the bald
eagle to forage in is located approximately 3.6 miles from the project site. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Project lists a record of a bald eagle nest approximately 6.2 miles from the project site, but this nest has not been
active since 1989 and the closest known active nest is located approximately 15 miles away. USFWS concurred
with this conclusion in a letter dated December 3, 2003:
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) -This small woodpecker is 7 to 8.5 inches long, has a black head,
prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-white barred back. Mates often have red markings (cockades)
behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et al. 1980). Primary habitat consists of
mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly, long-leaf (Pinus palustris), slash (P. elliotii),
and pond (P. serotina) pines (Henry 1989). Primary nest sites for RCWs include open pine stands greater than
60 years of age with little or no mid-story development. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, which are
referred to as colonies (USFWS 1985). Foraging habitat is comprised of open pine or pine/mixed hardwood
stands 30 years of age or older. Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas, which have been maintained by
frequent natural fire, serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this species. Development of a thick understory
may result in abandonment of cavity trees. The woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the cavity entrance,
resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees
(Henry 1989).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No suitable habitat for the RCW was observed within the project study area. Past human disturbance and
development have also greatly fragmented the landscape. An updated NHP search conducted on December 20,
2001 and on March 10, 2004 did not indicate that any RCW's have been documented within 1.0 mile of the
project study area. Project construction will not impact the RCW.
Dwarf wedgemussel -The dwarf wedgemussel rarely exceeds 1.5 inches in length. The outer shell is brown or
yellowish brown with faint green rays, and the nacre is bluish or silvery white. The shells of the females are
somewhat wider that those of males. This mussel species typically inhabits streams with moderate flow velocities
and substrates varying in texture from gravel and coarse sand to mud with little silt deposition (USFWS 1993). It
is generally found in association with other mussels but is never very numerous. As with other mussel species,
the dwarf wedgemussel has suffered from excess siltation in streams and rivers and from the toxic effects of
various pollutants entering waterways.
16

TABLE 5
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) Listed for Wake County
Common Name Scientific Name Potential State

Bachman's s arrow
Southern ho nose snake
Carolina darter
Pinewoods shiner
Southeastern m otis
Yellow lance
Atlantic i toe
G
fl
Aimo hila aestivalis
Heferodon simus
Etheosfoma Collis le idinion
L hrurus matutinus
M otis austrori arius
Ellipfio lanceolafa
Fusconaia masoni Habitat
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y Status
SC
SC
SC
SR
SC
E
E
reen
oater Lasmi ona subviridis Y E
Diana fritilla butterfl
Fl
t
k S e eria diana N SR
a
roc
anic rass
"N
" Panicum litho hilum N SR-T
euse
madtom
S Noturus furiosus Y SC-PT
weet inesa
B
i Monotro sis odorata N SR-T
o s
cebush
C
li Lindera subcoriacea N E
aro
na least trillium
Endangered (E) - an n f Trillium usillum var. usillum N E
y a ive oronce-native species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Threatened (T) -any native oronce-native species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Special Concern (SC) -any species which requires monitoring but which maybe collected and sold under specific regulations.
Significantly Rare(SR) -species which are very rare, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, and generally reduced in numbers by
habitat destruction.
F.3. State Protected Species
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 et seq.).
NHP records document the presence of three (3) state-protected species within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
These three species include the squawfoot (Strophitus undulatus) (T), eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata)
(SC), and the triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata) (T). These three freshwater mussels have been
documented from the Middle Creek Aquatic Habitat that begins approximately 0.75 mile upstream of the project
study area at SR 1375. No state protected species were identified during the course of field investigations for this
project.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
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 requires Federal agencies to take into account the-effect
of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in
18

This project has been coordinated with the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service. The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives
to consider the potential impact to prime farmland for all land acquisition and construction projects. The project
area is within an urbanized area of Wake County. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of
farmland acreage within these classifications. No impacts to prime or locally important farm land are anticipated.
No publicly owned parks or recreational facilities, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites of national, state
or local significance in the immediate vicinity of the project will be impacted.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land protected under Section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
The project is located in Wake County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham nonattainment area for ozone (Os)
and carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated
these areas as "moderate" nonattainment area for 03 and CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, these
areas were redesignated as "maintenance" for Os on June 17, 1994 and "maintenance" for CO on September 18,
1995. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the
intent of the .state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation
control measures for Wake County. The Capital Area 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the
2004-2010 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) has been determined to conform to the
intent of the SIP. The USDOT air quality conformity approval of the LRTP was August 20, 2002 and the USDOT
air quality conformity approval for the MTIP was October 1, 2003. The current conformity determination is
consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There have been no substantial
changes in the project's design concept or scope; as used in the conformity analyses. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for air quality impacts. No additional reports are required.
Ambient noise levels may increase during the construction of this project; however this increase will be only
temporary and usually confined to daylight hours. There should be no notable change in traffic volumes after this
project is complete. Therefore, this project will have no adverse effect on existing noise levels. Noise receptors in
the project area will not be impacted by this project. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for
highway noise set forth in 23 CFR Part 772. No additional reports are required.
During the site visit, observation revealed no evidence of underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in
the project area.
Wake County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The bridge is located in a
Detailed Study Area. The replacement structure is proposed as an in-kind replacement. It is anticipated that this
project will not have any adverse effect or impact on the existing floodplain or the adjacent properties and existing
structures. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project study area is shown in Figure 6.
Geotechnical borings for the bridge foundation will be necessary.
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental impacts will result from
the replacement of Bridge No. 63.
20

X. REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks antl Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Raleigh. 85 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. FWS/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 Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1.
US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2001a. NC Waterbodies Listed by Subbasin. Web
Address: http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports
DENR. 2001 b. Active NPDES Permits. Web Address http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/permits.xls
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.
Division of Water Quality. 1998. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. 214 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.
Henry, G.V. 1989. Guidelines for the Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the Red-
cockaded woodpecker. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, and J.T. Finnegan. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 91 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.
McCafferty, W. P. 1998. Aquatic Entomology. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA. 448pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
22

~P%
1375
1425 ~ ,,
- ~~ , ,\
,476 g.-.., y`ir~-~$,+t
p ~ ~ ~~9a
,p ,:~~~.r~~ 1424 9 Ct,
B\ R
^.~, 1475°~
•,.~,

~ „e
/1'V ~ r e
e
,..<~ Ha ~ 5` ~ O`
_ no- 19 .~
-~~_ Paik
~ \ ~ ---- _
.OB g
1 ~ B^aaswyntl ~y .os ~~ ~
/ ~ $ ~~ 4741 2752
.OB .07
~~
__ .B6 ~
I
~`'- B-3916
1
J
~s
~i 3717 '~
vy,d
~ ~~~ 3716
.,. 9,
_ _,7
I.VUVI T
North Carolina Department of
Transportaltion
Division of Highways
Pfroject Development ~ Envtmnmental
Analysis Branch
SCALE IN MILES
1 0 ~
FIGURE I
AREA LOCATION MAP
BRIDGE N0. 63
ON US 401
OVER MIDDLE CREEK
WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT 8-3916

LOOKING NORTH ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF BRIDGE N0.63
LOOKING AT EAST SIDE OF BRIDGE N0.63
B-3916 WAKE COUNTY FIGURE 2
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.63 ON US 401 S OVER MIDDLE CREEK PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

LOOKING NORTH ACROSS BRIDGE N0.63
LOOKING SOUTH FROM MEDIAN ON THE EAST SIDE OF BRIDGE N0.63
B-3916 WAKE COUNTY FIGURE 3
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.63 ON US 401 S OVER MIDDLE CREEK PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

ea
jL
S .w•r v
~~
v"
~ ~ ~-
a
e

~~ li f~
K I
F
E~ .
I Fr~.4
i Ig ~ t. s
~Z
T
i s
~~~oD~,
`~~v a °1 -A ° ~
Ul~ip ~~ ~
W3'~~N~ C
~~~ ~
~ N
~-I~oD~ ,
u u '~ a ~~ v> ~
t`Dn~~°2~N
W-A In `N~ C
R~` ~
w
0
o ~«~ ~A~~,1~~~
~;:
~ ~~~;~ M ~°g~~~~~o~
a z~ '~ g ~gS ~k~~~~
~ o ~ ~!~ ~~~~ o ~
~ ~ ~ a ~ ~~ i
-n _ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~~~ n
w e~ n ~ ~ ~~
d7 ~
e~\2000 Profecre\00248Srlepee\aeelpn\0]9 i6\8]9 ,6.020P8e 0]i09i2pp4 OL21~10 8N
-NIODIE CREEK
In ~ I I /4
~ G7 I
~ 2
I'
n~ ~ I
~~ ~Illll•
N h~ I
a
`i ~ i~

1
Q
I~~.. ~° ~
ry
m ~
i
N ~~
m
n
I y
~~
~~
n T ~
TI
i -~ m
1 I ~
Z
~~ ~ ~ i~
n
m~ ~ I
~ ~
N ~ I ~i II
I I II
it it
11 I~
i III
~I
;~ j I~
I ~ I I
~I
~I iI
I ~ II
~~ I ~
II I
Ixx~ 7 ~l i ~~1
X ~~ ~ /I
Lx
;~-~~1
1~
1 ' I ~~
~Y/OOIE CREEK
m
I
r ~
~~
oa
~~
l' d
~ n
.,
~I
II
~Y~
rxm. I
II ~
I I
I II
~ I III
~ I I;! N~
l l ~ i III ag
I I ! II ~m
• I I r
I i ' ,I
i I;,
I ~II
i III
1 I I ~ ICI
I

1111
I aI
I N
I "I
I I
I III
~ I~~
I I;Ip
ilia
III
I II ~
I II
I III
~ II
III
II
III
I ,
i ~I
~ ,I
I'I
~ I
II
I I ~~
j ''
litl '~
I li
I'
i II
I ,I
I ,I
i II
I I ~ ~~
I
i i
~~
iR
i
y ~
w
~- ~F
o~
~~
~ s z `~ ~
~~ ~o ~~~~
~~ ~b ~
z ~r Z ~
nP /~yy ~y ()
p `q C l~l
^I
~r ~> ~
~~ ~~ ~° ~
O
20
~_ -~ ~...
~~ rn
r
~o n
>o
rn
0
,n
r
-1
LD
Oi
~ N
i ~
.o
o D
i r
r ['1
m 30 (-SBL-J r rn rn
Z~
oo~ ~ -
H ~
~ ~
r-----T_-----_____ rn
O
-----~ ~--__ co z
~. ~ ( i
oN
0
~° cn
I°OO Ism I I J
I~ml ,-~ ~- _ rn
ri ~ ~~,
v
I
o
f ~ ~I C
~I ~l
6 d~
0
~I ~----_ D~b~ ~N
I I
I
~i5 (-SBL-I
~-------L - - - - - -
I
'-----
SSSR9191S91S99)89

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by
contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to
reevaluate the JD.

SECTION~II -REQUEST-FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN'INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT, ~ ':,
~,~.
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an
initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the record
of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the
administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may
provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR_QUESTIONSOR.INFOIZMATIC~i~
,_,
__ _ -- ---
Ifyou have questions regarding this decision and/or the If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may also
appeal process you may contact: contact:
Mr. Eric C. Alsmeyer, Regulatory Project Manager Mr. Arthur Middleton, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District CESAD-ET-CO-R
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office LJ.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M 15
Ralei h, North Carolina 27615-6814 Atlanta, Geor is 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government consultants,
to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day notice of any site
investi ation, and will have the o ortuni to artici ate in all site investi ations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
DIVISION ENC;INEIJR:
Commander
U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantis
fi0 Forsyth Street, Room 91VI15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3490

~~
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ~~--~ .
,1=,
Wilmington District ~'~
Action ID: 200220001 TIP: B-3916 County: Wake
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Project Proponent: NCDOT Agent: Environmental Services Inc.
Address: Division of Highways ATTN: Mr. Jeff Harbour, PWS
William D. Gilmore, P.E., 524 New Hope Road
Telephone No.:
Manager
PDEA Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
[phone]
Location of Property (;*~ater>tiody, ITi~hway name/nuanber, town, etc.1: Existing Bridge No. 63 on
US 401 over Middle Creek.
Basis for Determination: The site contains wetlands, as indicated on the data forms submitted on
August 22, 2001, and stream channels with indicators of ordinary high water marks. The wetlands are
located adjacent to Middle Creek, a tributary to the Neuse River.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
There a re w aters o f t he U .S., t o i nclude w etlands, o n the above described property which we strongly suggest
should be delineated and surveyed. The surveyed wetland lines must be verified by our staff before the Corps will
make a final jurisdictional determination on your property.
Because of the size of your property and our present workload, our identification and delineation of your wetlands
cannot be accomplished in a timely manner. You may wish to obtain a consultant to obtain a more timely
delineation of the wetlands. Once the consultant has flagged a wetland line on the property, Corps s tiff w ill
review it, and, if it is accurate, we strongly recommend that you have the line surveyed for final approval by the
Corps. The Corps will not make a final jurisdictional determination on your property without an approved survey.
X The waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, within the project limits, have been delineated, as shown in the
August 7 , 2 002 s ubmittal, and a desktop verification of Corps jurisdiction has been completed on t his d ate.
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period
not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. Note: This verification replaces the verification for
this site dated October ~+, 2v01.
-There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to
the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law
or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the
date of this notification.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the
Army Permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A
permit is not required for work on
leave any questions regarding tl
Eric Alsmeyer at telef
Project 1Vlanager Signature c
the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If you
e Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact
e nu>~er (9191 876 - 8441 ex
Date Au~rst 27, 2002 _ Ex~ration Date August 27, 2006
S1TIt~Y 11'L.~'1<' ®IZ 1FIE><,D S1{PTCI~ ®~' T11TB DESCRIIE3ED PR®PERT~ AI~dD "t'>E~ WETLAND
DELI<N~,A'>['110N Il±®1ZM 10~i1ST BIE A1"t'A~`I1~ED 'A'O `t'om 1F1L)E t~®P~' Olli T~dS 1~~DRM.

iT.a ~y~~_ ~+._.,~~.... '~7~"iQ'[ifex~.`~,ic~~ 'P ` '~ n EK ~i~~ .~ .._ €v'~`~`~ ~ty ~. F~; ~~ i. _ eZ ua
'. ~ ~ ~
%3'
'aa +
~
~
~
D
~
TIV
AI
NOTY;C,ATIb
NsO~T+,
MTN7
A
TR~I
E~
~P~ ~ YOPf~ OAS 1ir'U~ ~S ~ ~,
r o~
,~
..~_ v
,
w
~ ~.

~ r.., . ~~~ ~, ,: r r
',
,~ ~, ~ - t - e ".rR~-E U T F AP '~~ ~ r~ -
~ ES ~ m
Q .ORS- P~
P~A'
.
,~ ,
..~ .. ~
A licant: NCDOT/TIP B-3916 File Number: 200220001 Date: Au ust 27, 2002
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of ermission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of ernlission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
X APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
-~FC"'T`1(~N I =' Cll~~ fi>llo~vit~`, icltiltif ~s'yc>tir rl~~hiti' sic] ~litiuns rc~arcjin`r stn admini~tri(iv~ al~~ie~rl cif tll~ a'Eic`~•~
~
d~~t:;lotl., t~(~tlltlCrll~tl llllCrl[ll~ttl(~Il n]tiVj~~ ~C)L1I]d 3t{ltt~:~~«~~'E~'.ll aC~.
[ITII1~'.11111~1Iltt~ftll]Ctl(rllti~C~~/C~C~VO/CCn`Or
y
,C.Ulusr,IC~ulatlUll:; a?_.JJ (
~1'1: I'alt ~_~ l
_
_ - _ _ 4 .
A: II~ITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the pern~it.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to.the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, includiig its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: if you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terns and conditions therein, you may request thst the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the pernlit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the pernut to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having
determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send
you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letier of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and senui,-rg t,e fo.,.~ to the division engineer. This form must be received ;;y the divisicr. engineer ~.;tlri ; 5C days of the date of this
notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED .1 [_JR_ISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved Jam. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with Che approved JD, you may appeal the approved JI=) under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This fom~ must be received by
the division engineer within 60 davs of the date of this notice-

' E: I'~RELIMIN.ARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. Tl~e Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved TD (which may be appealed), by
contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to
reevaluate the JD.
-: ~,,t ~ ~ '`', ~ `~ ~ r s ~ ~`
SEC fION'II REQUIJST 1~=OR APPEAL ;or OBJI/C 1lvivS ~I~O'AN 1~~ITIAL PKOFFERED PLRMITt , ~. , 7„`
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an
initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the record
of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the
administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may
provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT° OF CQNTACTFOR QUESTIONS` OR~INI{O~LIvIAT>ON: ,
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may also
appeal process you may contact: contact:
Mr. Eric C. Alsmeyer, Regulatory Project Manager Mr. Arthur Middleton, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District CESAD-ET-CO-R
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M 15
Ralei h, North Carolina 27615-6814 Atlanta, Geor is 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government consultants,
to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day notice of any site
investi ation, and will have the o ortuni to artici ate in all site investi ations.
_
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
DIVISION EN€~INI! ER:
Commander
@rJ.S. Army lJngineer Division, South Atlantic
60 Forsyth Street, Room 91VI15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3490

u~ C ,~ t~ ( ~ 1~ lJ
u~~~~'- ~. Av~~
NCDWQ Stream_Classification Form
Project Name: a•-3~liP River Basin: Nr'~ /County: i~~e Evaluator. 1(5 ~
DWQ Project No.: Nearest Named S eam: jM;c~e ~..cr t~ Latitude: Signature:~~-
Date: 3-3-D J USGS Quad: ! w~~ ` Longitude: Location/Direction:
'PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then the use of this form is not
necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator ,the feature is a man-made ditch and no[ a modified natural
stream-this rating rystem should not be used'
PRIMARY FIELD INDICATORS: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is there a Riffle-Pool
Sequence? 0 1 2 3
2) Is the USDA Texture m
Streambed Different From
Surrounding Terrain? p I 2

3) Are Natural Levees Present?
0
2 3

4) Is the Channel Sinuous?
0
2 3

5) Is There Active (or Relic)) 3
Floodplain Present? 1 2

6) Is The Channel Braided?
0
1 2 3

7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits 3
-
Present? 0 _ 2 3
8) Is There a Bankfull Bench? 0 1 2

9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank 3
Present? 0 I
2 3
*Note: If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And W/O Sinuosity Then
Score =0* .
10) Is A 2"° Order or Greater --
Channel (As Indicated on USGS
and/or In Field) Present? Yes=3 No~
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
I) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/ Discharge Present? Q - I 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: /5
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present in 3 2 1 0
the Streambed?
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In 3 2 I 0
the Streambed?
;' 3) Is Periphyton Present? 1 _.~ _ ~ 2 3
4) Are Bivalves Present? 0 I 2
3
PRIMARY BIOL GICAL INDICATOR POINTS:
r
"~®~'AI, PI~INIAItY INDICA'TOI~ P®Ii°dT'~:

Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
I) Is There A Head Cut Present
In Channel? 0 0.S ~ I.S
2) Is There A Grade Control --
Point in Channel? 0 ~ 0.5 - ~ 1.5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 0.5 ~ 1.5
Y GEOMORPHOLOGICALTNDICATOR PO
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong >'
1) Is This Year's (or Last's)
Leaflitter Present Inn Channel? I.S 1 0.S 0
2) Is Sedtment On Plants (or
Debris) Present? ~ 1 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 0.5 1 1 5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48
hrs Since Last Known Rain? ~ 0.5 I I.S
Note: If Ditch Indicated in #9 Above Skip This Step And #S Below
S) ]s There Water In Channel
During Dry Conditions (or to ~ 0.S I 1.5
Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present Irt Yes=1.5 N =0
Sides of Channel or Headcui?
SECONDARY HYDROLOGICAL INDICATOR POINTS:
I1T. Biology Ab nt Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fish Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
2) Are Amphibians Present? .5 1 I.5
3) Are Aquatic Turtles Present? 0 .5 I 1.5
4) Are Crayfish Present? 0 I 1.5
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
6) Are Iron Oxidizing _
Bacteria/Fungus Present? .5 I I.5
_ 7) Is Filimentous Algae Present? 0 .5 1 1.$
8) Are Wetland Plants m Sreambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly UPL
*Note: If Total Absence of All Plants
in Streambed As noted above skip this 2 I .75 ~ 0
step UNLESS SAV Present*
SEC®NDARY SIOLOGtCAL INDICATOR PIN'T'S: , ~ ~
TOTAL SECONDARY INDICATOR POINTS: lS2 - ~
TOTAL. POINTS (Primary + Secondary= ~~
(If Greater Than or Equal To 19 Points The Streatn Is
At Least Intermittent)
\1NT_SERVER\SYS\ADMIN\MATTWCDWQ Stream Classification Form.doe

1 V.~ -

NCDWp Stream Classification Form
Project Name: ~ 3q~~ River Basin: (U~~-a'-- ' / County: W~ Evaluator. ~s~
D1~VQ Project No.: Nearest Named S eam:1~~~ Latitude: Signature:
Date: S ~ ~ - ©~ USGS Quad: ~~ e.~l.1t 8-~- Longitude: Locatio trection:
'PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then the use of this form is not
necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator ,the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural
stream-this raring rystem should not be used'
PRIMARY FIELD INDICATORS• (Circle One Number Per Line)

I. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is there aRiffle-Pool
Sequence? 0 I 2 3
2) Is the USDA Texture to
Streambed Different From
Surrounding Terrain? p ~ 2 3
3) Are Natural Levees Present9 n .,
4) is the Channel Sinuou
5) Is There Active (or Re
Floodplain Present?
6) Is The Channel Braide
7) Are Recent Alluvia
Present?
8) is There a Bankfull
9) Is A Continuous Be
Present?
! 0
tc))
0
f? 0 J
posits
0
ich? p
Bank
0
*Note: If Bed & B
Score =0*
l 0) Is A 2"° Order or Greater
Channel (As Indicated on USGS
and/or In Field) Present? Yes=3
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDI
2 3
1 3
2 3
By Ditching And W/O Sinuosity Then
N
R POINTS: ~_
DI. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/ Discharge Present? 0 - 1 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
`I'®"I'AL P~2IMAIZY INI)ICA'I'®I~ P®IN°lf'S: ~
2~ 3
2 3
L
3

III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present in 3 2 1 0 g
the Streambed?
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In 3 2 1 0
the Streambed?

Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
I) Is There A Head Cut Present
In Channel? 0 O.S I I.S
2) Is There A Grade Control
~
Point in Channel? 0 0.5 - ~ I.S
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 O.S ~_ 1.5
L INDICATOR POINTS:
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (or Last's)
Leaflitter Present Inrt Channel? I, S 1 0.5 0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (or
Debris) Present? 0 ~~ I I.S
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 _ ~ 1 _ I.S
4) Is Water In Channel And >48
hrs Since Last Known Rain? 0 O.S 1 1.5
Note: If Ditch Indicate to #9 Above Skip This Step And #S Below
S) Is There Water Ln Channel _
During Dry Conditions (or In 0 O.S.. ] 1.5
Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present Irt Y s=1_S No=O
Sides of Channel or Headcut?
SECONDARY HYDROLOGICAL INDICATOR POINTS: ~_
III. Biology Ab nt Weak Moderate Strong
I) Are Fish Present? 0 .S ] I.S
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0 .S 1 1.5
3) Are Aquatic Turtles Present? 0 .S 1.S
4) Are Crayfish Present? 0 .5 ,l 1.5
S) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 .S 1 l.S
6) Are Iron Oxidizing
Bacteria/Fungus Present?
~
.S ~
1.5
71 is Filimentous Aleae Present? 0 .S ,1 I.S
8) Are Wetland Plants in Sreambed? SAV Mostly Ut3L Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly UPL
*Note: If Total Absence of All Plants
in Streambed As noted above skip this 2 1 .75 .S 0
step UNLESS SAV Present*
SECONDARY BIOLOGICAL INDICATOR PINTS: a-
TOTAL SECONDARI' INDICATOR POINTS: S
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary)=~~
(If Greater Than or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
At Least Intermittent)
\\NT SERVER\SYS\ADMR~f\MATTWCDWQ Stream Classification Form.doe

1 V .1= ~ ` '
<~~
•~ uc~A~
~~-~)
NCI9VVp Stream Classification Form
Project Nante: ~-3 j/~O River Basin:/UBchS' County:~~ Evaluator: ~~
DVVQ Project No-: Nearest Named Strearn:M+~~~ GYe~ Latitude: Signature:
Date: '7^~j(7~dZ USGS Quad-~ Longitude: Location/Direction:
'PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and lanclown~`a the feature is a man-made ditch, then the use of this form is not
necessary- Also, if in the best professional judgement otthe evaluator ,the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural
stream-this rating rystem should not be used'
PRIMARY FIELI3 INDICATORS• (Circle One Number Per Line)

I. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is there a Riffle-Pool
Sequence? 0 ~ 2 3
2) Is the USDA Texture to -
Streambed Different From
Surrounding Terrain? 0 ~ 2 3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? I 2 3
4) Is the Channel Sinuous? 0 I 2 3
5) is There Active (or Relic))
Floodplain Present? I 2 3
6) is The Channel Braided? I 2 3
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits
Present? 0 2 3
8) Is There a Barilcfiill Bench? 0 ~ 2 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank
Present? 0 1 2
'Note: if Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And W/O Sinuosity Then
Score =0*
10) ]s A 2" Order or Greater
Channel (As indicated on USGS
and/or In Field) Present? Yes=3 N~
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 9' -
]L Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
I) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? ~ I 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: n
IIID Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
I) Are Fibrous Roots Present in 3 1 0
the Streambed? ~ -
2)Are Rooted Plants Present In 3 2 I 0
the Streambed2
3) Is Periphyton Present'? I 2 3
4) Are Bivalves Present? I 2 3
PRIMARY BIOLOGICAL INDICATOR POIIVT~~ to
~°®~~L I'IZII~~~~ri~ ~NI~~c~T®~t ~>C~II~i'I'se 13

Secondary Meld Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1_ Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Head C1tt Present
In Channel? 0 0.5 1 1.5
2) Is There A Grade Control ~ ~ _
Point in Channel°? 0 ~ I LS
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 ~ I I.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGICAL INDICATOR POINTS:
11. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
I) Is This Year's (or Last's)
~
0
5 0
Leaflitter Present inn Channel? 1 .
2) ]s Sediment On Plants (or
~
1 I
S
Debris) Present? 0 .
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 0.5 1
4) Is Vr'ater in Channel And>48
lus Since Last Known Rain? 0 0.5 Q I.5
Note: If Ditch indicated in #9 A bove Skip This Step And #5 Below
5) Is There Water lr- Channel _
During Dry Conditions (or to 0 0.5 I 1.5
Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present ]n Yes=1.5 N 0
Sides of Channel or Headcut?
SECONDARY HYDROLOGICAL INDICATOR POINTS: ~
111- Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fish Present? .5 I t_S
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0 I I.5
3) Are Aquatic Turtles Yresent? ~ .5 I I.5
4) Are Crayfish Present? L~ ~ 1 1.5
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 l I.S
6) Are Iron Oxidizing
Bacteria/Fungus Present? ~
.5 1 I.5
7) is Filimentous Algae Present? ~0~ .5 1 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants in Sreambed? SAS Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly UPL
'Note: If Total Absence of All Plants
in Streambed As noted above skip this 2 1 .75 ~ 0
step UNLESS SAV Present'
SECONDARY BIOLOGICAL INDICATOR PINTS: 1•
TOTAL s~c~®NDAR~ iN~-cATOrt P®INTS: ~
T®TAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary= --~ `
(-f tGreater "-"ban or Equal To 19 Points The Stream -s
At least -ntermittent)
\\NT SEftVEft~SYS~ADn1IN11~1ATt~NCt)QUO Stream Classification Form.doc

c,~ ~ __ _
~ ~ S~ ,~
~ ~~~
~~~
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
3 `I! ~
Project Name: ~~ River Basin: NE Uy~' County: ~/1I~° Evaluator: E-5 x
DWQ Project No._ Nearest Named Stream:/1FId~~ C~, Latitude: Signature: ~~
Date: ~-3U-c'Z USGS Quad:~l~ ~~~ Longitude: Locatiort/Direction:
'PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then the use of this farm is not
necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement oC the evaluator , t)ie fcatnre is a man-made ditch and not a modified naMal
stream-this rating rystem should not be used'
PRIMARY FIELD IlYDICATORS: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomorphology Absen[ Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is there aRiffle-Pool
Sequence? 0 ~ 2
3
2) Is the USDA Texture in
Streambed Difl`erent From
Surrounding Terrain? 0 1 ~ 3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? I 2 3 _
4~ rs we i,naruter ~muous! V 1 ~ 3
5) Is There Active (or Relic))
Floodplain Present? ~ 1 2 3
6) Is The Channel Braided? 0 I 2 3
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits
Present? 0 1 ~ 3
8) Is There a Bankfull Bench? 0 2 3
9) ]s A Continuous Bed & Bank
Present? 0 1 2 /~
Note: If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And W/O Sinuosity Then
Score =0`
0) Is A'2" Order or Greater
Channel (As indicated on USGS
and/or In Field) Present? Yes=3 ly~
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ~ ~
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/ Discharge Present? ~ 1 2 3
PR]MARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: LJ
III. Biology
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present in
the Streambed?
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In
the Streambed?
3) Is Periphyton Present?
4) Are Bivalves Present?
Absent Weak Moderate
r~ 2 1 0
2 1 0
1 2 3
Strong
-,
PRIMARY BIOLOGI
INDICATOR POINTS:
~'®T'AI, I'RI1~~IAI~Y INI)iCA~'®R I'®INT'S: / 7

Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Modcrate Strong
I) Is There A Head Cvt Present
In Channel? 0 0_S 1 1.S
2) is There A Grade Control -
Point in Channel? 0 ~ O.S I 1 _S
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 O.S ~ 1.S
ONDARY GEO
ICATOR POINTS- z
11_ Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1} Is This Year's (or Last's)
LeafIitter Present Inn Channel? ~ 1 0.5 0
2) is Sediment On Plants (or
Debris) Present? 0 0~ ~ 1.S
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 0. 1 I.S
4) Is Water In Channel And>48
lus Since Last Known Rain? 0 O.S I
Note: If Ditch Indicated in #9 Above Skip This Step And #S Below
S) ]s There Water in Channel
During Dry Conditions (or In 0 ~ I 1.S
Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Yes=1.S N 0
Sides of Channel or Headcut? -
SECONDARY HYDROLOGICAL INDICATOR POINTS:
7) Is Filimentous Algae Present? .S I I _S
8) Are Wetland Plants in Sreambed? SA Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly UPL
°Note: If Total Absence of All Plants
in Streambed As noted above skip this 2 I .7S .S 0
step UNLESS SAV Present°
SECONDARY I310LOGICAL INDICATOR PINTS: /, y
I11. Biology Ant Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fish Present? .S 1 I.S
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0 1 1.S
3) Are Aquatic Turtles Present? 0 .S t l.S
4) Are Crayfish Present? _S 1 1_S
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 1 I.S
6) Are Iron Oxidizing
Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0
~ 1
I.S
TOTAL. SECONDAIZ~t' INDICATOR POINTS: ~~~
TOTAL. POINTS (Primary + Secondary= o~~•
_, (If Greater Than or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
At Yeast Intermittent)
1\NT_SERVERISYSIAD1~1rN\MrlTI~NCDWQ Stream Classification Form.doc

NCDWO Stream Classification Form
J>/=~~~
Project Name: ~~3~%r~ River B3sin:~~.~?E / County_1,JaYG Eva]uator.Ls ~
DWQ Project No.: Nearest Named Stream:/t'tt~l~, Cr~L Latitude: Signature: G/C
Date: 7~3i~^02 USGSQuad:~~a, C,.C.-~~,c,~~,- Longitude. Location/Direction_
'['LEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner ague that the feature is a man-made ditch, then the use oCthis form is noI
necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator ,the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural
str>'am-this rating rystem should not be used°
PRIMARY FIELD INDICATORS: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is there a Riffle-Pool
uence?
Se O
0 1 2
q 3
2) Is the USDA Texture in
Streambed Different From
Surrounding Terrain? ~ 1 !~ 3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? ~ 1 2 3
4) Is the Channel Stnuous? 0 } 2 3
5) Is There Active (or Relic))
Floodplain Present? ~ 1 2 3
6) Is The Channel Braided? ~Q', 1 2 3
7) Are Recent Alhwtal Deposits
Present? I 2 3
8) Is There a Bankfitll Bench? 1 2 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank
Present? ~ ] 2 3
'Not f Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And W/O Sinuosity Then
Score =0;
10) Is A 2"° Order or Greater
-Channel (As indicated on USGS
and/or In Field) Present? Yes=3 N 0 J
PRIMARY G
INDICATOR PO
l1. hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/ Discharge Present? ~ 1 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY 1NDICATOR POINTS: _ ~
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present in 3 ~ 1 0
the Streambed? / -
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In 3 1 0
the Streambed?
3) Is Periphyton Present? 0 2 3
4) Are Bivalves Present? ~ 1 _ . - . 2 3
- PRIMARY BIOLOGICAL INDICATOR POINTS:
'I'O~'AI.. PRIMARY It°~1DICA'I'®12 P®IIV~'S:

Secondary 1•ield Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) ]s There A }lead Cut Present
In Channel? I v , O.S 1 I.S
2) Is There A Grade Control
Point in Channel? ~! ~ O.S ~ 1 I.S
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? ~ 0.5 I 1.S
SECONDARY GEOMO HOLOGICAL INDICATOR POINTS: (~
ll. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (or Last's)
Leaflitter Present Inn Channel? 1.S ~ 0.5 0
2} Is Sediment On Plants (or
Debris) Present? 0 ~ 1 I .S
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 0 I I .S
4) Is Water In Channel And>48
hrs Since Last Known Rain? 0 0.5 1
Note: If Ditch Indicated in #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below
5) ]s There Water Lrt Channel
During Dry Conditions (orln 0 O.S ~ 1.S
Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Yes=1.5 -
Sides of Channel or Headcut?
SECONDARY HYDROLOGICAL INDICATOR POINTS: y. S
111. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fish Present? .S I I.5
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0~5~ I 1.5
3) Are Aquatic Turtles Present? .5 I 1.5
4) Are Crayfish Present? .5 1 1.5
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? .5 I 1.5
6) Are Iron Oxidizing
Bacteria/Fungus Present?
~ .5 I
1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants in Sreambed? SAV Mostly OBi. Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly UPL
'Note: If Total Absence of All Plants
in Streambed As noted above skip this 2 1 .75 Q 0
step UNLESS SAV Present'
SECONDARI' BIOLOGICAL INDICATOR PINTS: i
'T'O'T'AL, SECONDATZY ]Nl)ICATOlt POINTS: S^~ S''
TOTAL, POINTS (Primary + Secondary= ~-~' ~~
(If Greater Tban or Equal To I9 Points The Streaara Is
At Least Intermittent)
11NT_SERVERISYS1ADh11N~P,tA"I-IlNCD~'JQ Stream Classification Form.doc

~~ v~
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1°87 COE Wetlands Delineation Manua()
ProjectlSite: /r7•drl/e- C(`t.G~C- ~/`~L4SP Date: /oL- L/-b(
Applicant/Owner: /~~ jj e T County: ~°,~~
Investigator: ~-5 L State: /lJL
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~s No Community ID: S~~s /u„~
Is the site signifiicantly disturbed (Atypical Situation}? Ye~(~~ Transeci ID: /4 3
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: ,,,~~
(If needed, explain on reverse

Dominant Plant Species tratu
m
S In~cator pominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. ` lire ~ ~
~
~~ 1~_ G r
~ 9. _.-
/
~
lt
a. ~µs ~'f-~I~-~o ~c ~ -
Fi
4-C 11.
f!
4. ~m~!Itwt2('1'R C~(,t ( ~ ~
~
~ ~
r+~t~~'~t' 12-
5. 13. -
6. 14.

g_ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species tha; are OBL, FAC`N ar ~1~
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Descnbe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs -Inundated
- Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-Other Water Marics
~No Recorded Data Availahle -
-Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
~e Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: ~ Secondary`Indicator (2 or more requiredl:
-Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water Gn.) Water-Stained Leaves

~
l~ Local Soil Survey Data
(in-1
Depth to Free Water in Pi[: FAC-Neutral Test
~> _
Depth to Saturated Soil: ~-/ Iin.J -Other (Explain in Remarks{
Remark,:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): ~Chq ~/~ ~
j''~- ~A~ Drainage Class: ee/`l >1C
~~, Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ~t~~l~n i-1`L ~~ Au ~g}~S Confirm Mapped Type: Yes
profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions.
inches orizon (Munse)1 Mois
tl IMunsell Moist) Abundance/Con-Idst Str
u
cture, etc.
// /~
//
3 ~ ~ ~v ~~ ul ~o Y,e `~~C ~o,~,~tfd~~~-~ s.~lf 1o a n

:iydric Sol Indicators:
II _ Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sand}• Sols
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Sols
Aquic Moisture Rename ,Listed on Local Hydric 5ols List
Reducing Conditions _ listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
1NETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Sails Present?
,~,~p~ No (Circle)
V..ea" N o
(:~ No
' (Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ~ No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSr"-Cc 2/92
HJL
°%9 ~ ,

~ ~l
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1°87 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual}
ProjectlSite: 1'1'j,~d~rp_ CrcP~ b~r~~
- Date: Ja- ~-o/
Applicant/Owner: ^/LbnT
~ County: L-)ca~lr-°
Investigator. ESY State: ~; C.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~@s No Community ID: ~r S~r~
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes~d Trunsect ID: P/}'3
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes~l Plot ID: ~,p
~-
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Sttatum Indicator pominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

2- ~
rt~i ~
Pte' /fib ~ ~ 10. --
(
I ~~-
q~

5- Se 1~S D cry.
-- ~ - ~ ~- 13_
-
6. 14.
7. 15.
S. ~ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species tha; are DBL. FAC`N or 3lU
FAC (excludng FAC-) i1
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Descnbe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide sauge Primary Indicators:
-
Aerial Photographs -Inundated

Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
- Water Marks
d No Recorded Oata Avaiiable
tom- _prift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
-Oxidized Raot Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: ~- (in.) Water•Stained Leaves
c
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ? ~
r
(in.) Local Sail Survey Data
FAC-Neutrol lest
~
/
Depth to Saturated Sail: l / (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Rern~rks)
Rernor{c~:

SOILS
a.
Map Unit Name
~~C
~
I
` // / /
Dun?
~ /T
(
~
~~
.
L
j
(Series and Phase): f
(
Drainage Class:
1~,

Taxonomy (Subgroup); ~~(~t/~~~~~ Feld 06servatians
~T4~1~9~,t~0~ Confirm Mapped Type: Yes
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Cotor Mottle Colors .Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches orizon 7Munsell Moist) _(Munsefl Moist) _AbundancelConll sit _ Structure, etc.
v- S
S` Y~ `~`~ ~
_ 04
s=i~~ ~S^Y~s~ ~~
::ydric Sal Indicators:
(l - Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Iay?r in Sandy Soils
_ Sulftdic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Sols
Aquic Moisture Ren:me _ listed on Local Hydric Sols List
Reducing Conditions ~ Listed on National Hydric Sols List
Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ~ No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes [i~b
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ~,
' (Circle)
(s this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes lo~
II Remarks:
Approved by HOUS~CE 2192
FiJL
8l33 ,.

bpi ~y
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: _~~, ~p, 3~ ~(~ ~,; ~ C~~ Date• ~l$IO (
Applicant/Owner: /V ~ ~j c~1" County: I,,fa~
Investigator: ~' S ~ State: I'VC~
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~C se No Community ID: ~c, a;
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ~ Trensect ID: Q - Z
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: W-~~}-~~
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEG't 1"ATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
,.~,~x;~us ~~~~~~a~>,~ T ~~/ 9.
2. ~e.~a o
: ~ n~ ~ ~~~,/ 10.
f
4. 12.

6. ~.u t' t,~ r S C¢ ~ n ~~5 -LL ~ B~ 14.
~. t'e,~-~, ~. ~;~~ ; ~. ~ og~ ,5.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or

FAC (excluding FAC-} ~/~
Remarks:
Ate ~ s ~(oo~ Imo; o~ M,d
d
C
..
.
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs -Inundated
Other ~SaYuraYed in Upper 12 Inches
-
~No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits

Field Observations: -
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or mare required):

~~ Depth of Surface Water: fin.) ___ Oxidized Boot Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ~~ (in-} -Local Soil Survey Data
_FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: ~(in.) -Other (Explain in Remarksi
Remarks:
--d. 1'~.C~ , ~ ~ RR~i A~~

r
S(lll S
Map Unit Name \ '~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~
d ~ Cat Drainage Class: !~ C~h y
"V e
i
es and Phase}:
(Ser
. 0. Q +~.
7- Feld Ohservations
Taxonomy (Subgroup}: ~ 1~ ~~- 4 tl¢ti~ Confirm Mapped Type: Yes
Profile Deseription:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist} _ (MunseO Moist) Abundance/Cort},last Stnicture, etc.
a 3 /Oy,~ 3I~ -- - LoQ~.
~oyR w~a sy~~+ ~~.~J~-~- c~, ~~

Hydric Sol Indicators.
Histosol _ Concretions
_
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? e~ No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ~l~' No
Hydric Soils Present? es No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
x/93 ",

~~ ~ -~y
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual}
i
Project/Site: ~~~ ~ ~p, 3C(~ (o M ~~ ~~ ~ ~ Date: ~I`~ l01
Applicant/Owner: Lj~ ©~ County: VJ~.I~
Investigator:, ,~5..1.. State: /UC.,.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~ o Community ID: tia,,,p,
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID: Q(3 - ~
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: (~
(If needed. explain on reverse
V EG ETATIO N
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stra
t
um Indicator
1. ~~r /~~AL~M ~ ~~ ~~
((
9•_ i'~u~u.5 ar,u~w5 1~ f"'/FLI,~t
2. 10.
3. L~~,w,'tnu,,w,S,,e,,.k _~ ~~ 71.
4, 12.
5. T~
i(~~
~1Gan.S
P4
Mn ~
L
- L~t~ 13. ----
~(
~
,(
f, `
/
~
7. Ova ~ C2 AA- ~ ®n
r ~, /
v /
FAc~-
15. -----
1
8. ~ i ~ tnf, ro , ~ ~ ~ bl [i/7 ~ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, F ACW or ~

FAC {excluding FAC-) /
Remarks:
5~~~5; a ,~ I ~ , re.u ~ ~ ~s~~,,.~.~1
HYDROLOGY -
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
-Aerial Photographs -Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
~N
R
d
d D Water Marks
o
ecor
e
ata Available -Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits

Field Observations: -
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):

~~ Depth of Surface Water: (in
) -Oxidized Foot Channels in Upper 12 Inc(ies
- _Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit• ~~ ~ (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
°-~ Q
Depth Yo Saturated Sol- ,/ l G (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks-
Remarks;

t
inn c
Map Unit Name I ` \
e Class:
~~~~ ~` S Draina
e
I/
~~
~ 1
~b f`~`
-
~0~
-
a +~
(Series and Phase): g
~
,
Taxonomy (Subgroup): F~r ven~l`C. (w'atuQp l~ ``II~ Field Observations /'~
p~Yp~~~l1LJ~ Confirm Mapped Type: Yes / N~1
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist- (Munsell Moist) Abundance/CogVast Structure, etc.
1o~23~a - L~,~

~~j ~- boy ~~ - ~- ~, boa ~.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface lay er in Sandy Soils
_ Sulftdic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Love-Chroma Colors ~ Other IExplain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Nm n - ~ ~ Pd L Sod L5 (`e
S e-~"
<
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
(Circle) (Circle)
Yes
Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
FlJ~
8l93

w A ~ - ss
DATA FORM W Q I -- ~ 3
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ~~;~~ I -o,J~ ~(~ - I'`~dd,~ C1~2,1~ Date: s~3,~d
Applicant/Owner: ~ (Jp County: Wa
Investigator: J..S ~ State: n/~
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~Ye~
o
N Community ID: ~,~,~~d
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes
~
~ Transect ID: ~
~~
-
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: .~,,}-.
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
,. Frax~nu.s ~¢nr~~~uar,~c~. ~' ~A-G~/ s.Tox,~,~,m,~ race«.~ V F14L
2. , ~.
3-
!`
0.
X1l~A^.S ~AAS
~1 ru ~ ~~
1
..f 11.
,,
II
+
'
4• l~ (v~u~ ('w
b ~. ~ 1a
'
~r
r
~ 12.
I
5.
Kjk,S~hu~ Sf hQnSo ~ ~
/
~17~, 13.
C
6• Jg1.a('CA~`(A~ G~PluA~t,S L
l
`
~ d6L 14.
(
(
B. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or
FAC lexcluding FAC-) ~/~
-
Remarks:
1 I a~ l ~ ~ I _

HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_Aerial Photographs -Inundated
Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches

X No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
-Drift Lines
~C Sediment Deposits
-
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: -
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):

Depth of Surface Water:
~ (in.) _ Oxidized ~ooY Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
~
Depth to Free Water in Pit: / V (in.) -Local Soil Survey Data
_FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: ~_(in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

,
~ ~ ti~
~v~-2~-
~y ~ ~ 1~ +~` ~
~
,
Y

s
SOILS
Map Unit Name \ ~~~4 1 ~ ~ ~
(Series and Phase): W d,J~ ~;~1 ~~ 1 - 9
IQ ~S Draina a Class• ~(~ ~(
11I
Taxonomy (Subgroup}: F~(,iy{~-~~C. 1'k~ L 1' ' Feld Observations
/rvPi~- C~Ptci4lk~n~ Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Descriation:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist} _ _
ye (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Cor}~ast Structure, etc.
d
G
~
$~
ioyR
a ~ ~M~~~
~->~
~,„
~~,
~e~ yR
~~~+ /oyR ~'/~ ~ 1R ~~~ ~OMM J~ I~ST1~ i---
Hydric Sal Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
Histic Epipedan _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
~_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
~y ~.r ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ re,5e ~,,;4-
WFTI ANII i']FTFRNIINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? s No (Circlet
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks:
.i-
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Approved by HQUSACE 1lyL
I--I J L.
8/9

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(19$7 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
W~ I-ss
~Q ~~ I3
Project/Site: ~ - ?J-I ~~o Mi~ ~
~,k Date: S/3~0~
_
Applicant/Owner: ~v LI~Q 1 County: Wa .1C-~
Investigator: C. 5 ~ State: /~L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~ No Community ID: ~,-~w~,o~
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID: I..i~-~ ~,,~ _~
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ®o Plot ID: ~
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant
Plant
Specie
s Stratum Ind
c
a
tor Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
lI
l
(~
1
1. I~Ir. v.~cl4,wba~ ~Y~~ra~~N~w ~_ (
]
~
~17c--~ 9.
2. L`IA;O ~~ ~~.I;n; ~, S Ff}G 10.
3. 11. _

5. _ 13.
6. C
~,.~„~ 5 i S
rte t ~Q 5 ~
~ Fly ~ 14.
_!
(
7. lox 11 L0 ~rS ('O i ,,,,,,, \'
V F>~G 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or GJ/

FAC (excluding FAC-) ~
Remarks:
S~.L~
~Sr
l ~ -
.
d,.~,
~ ,
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs -Inundated
Other -Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
~No Recorded Data Available -Water Marlcs
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: -
Secondary Indicators (2 or more re4uiredl:

" Depth of Surface Water:
(in
) _Oxidiaed goof Channels in Upper 12 Inches
. Water-Stained Leaves
n
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ~/ Ti (in.) _
-Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Sol: ~~~ (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarksl
Remarlcs:

cnn ~
Map Unit Name I lL n
e Class: PEOr ~
~~ Draina
e
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
K2~ C
-
(Series and Phase)•
• g
~
~
P
u
Taxonomy (Subgroup): C"Ill+fQ„~i y ~~ip
r Feld Observations
lgGpt,l2A~ /T'Ip'~~- ~'9~~~~onfirm Mapped Type: Yes No
~-~-t--r--s,--~~r
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
st}
Munse
p Moi
inches Horizon ( {Munseil Moist) Abundance/Con(rast Structure, etc.
/
n
/
-~ 1 ~~I~Csi ~~ -~° C... C~ I~4vv1
s-~ ~ a-s y S/~ s yR SIR ~„~~, ~ ~ ~ ~~.~
l~-I~~ vyR S ~ ~yl~
coM ~ ~
_
Hydric Sol Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks?
Remarks:
No ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~,, l5 ~~,~-
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No (Circle) (Circlet
I Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I~
Hydric Soils Present? Yes `/ o Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
t.
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
~1J~.
~/°~"~ r,

m
y
~`t
i
W A K E C O U N T Y P U B L I C S C H O O L S Y S T E M
Bill McNeal
.Su/~er-intenderrl
September 4, 2001
Mr. Gerald H. Knott `~<F
Department of Public Instruction ~ ~
Section Chief, School Planning ~~%~_~:
301 North Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 - 2825
Dear Mr. Knott:
! l~
fl~_._~r,~~~ j~
_ ~ ~
r

~'
[~
~ ~ ~ l
~ ~~
:: ~ er
1 -
1 ~
1 7 7001 ,
,~
- , , ~ ~ -.
r_
~ ~~ t
~ A~
~
~
~
y
~~iL >J Y q ,j-~ _,
Cc~
d ,.r
_JG~ i
~~
.
Impact to school sites and school bus routes by bridge replacement, B-3916 would be minimal
provided a temporary structure is used to maintain four lanes of travel. As for bridge
replacement, B-4299, school bus routes would be impacted by adding five minutes in each
direction if an off-site detour is used.
Thank you for soliciting our input.
Sincerely,
William R. McNeal, Jr.
~ ~ ~Io2 ~i~e~l,onc Ca:C(~--
~~~ ~ ~
~Q6~~a~-~a ~o~
Vern I~a~-ley
(~-39f(~ h~ yeti Bch wzy.
!~-4299 loX2= 20 ~' rev day.
c~a~w)
i~ilA~IIr1/.'rl~~~rr~.lll~~,rl l'i~ li,,.t-_'';r~ii •/,'~rlr-~;~~h \.i~7l~Liu~~hurl_',r;/l,AY1/l 7i•/r/~/r,:ui r~ll~ll;iill Ih%li~ ~ l~i~-A' l~ll'Jl~ti`Gr~t;~l5~

~~
lublic Schools ®f North. Cyr line
State Board of Education Department of Public Instruction
Phillip J. Kirk, Jr., Chairman Michael E. Ward, State Superintendent
_ www.ncpublicschools.org
n .
~; I.~i ~'
R ~ ~
<
i~ ~ ~
G ~
~
r
~: ~
Sip ~~ ~
~ ,~~~~ `i
,
September 17, 2001 ~ - ~~ 9 ~ (~, ~ ~ ,~
~
°y ; °~~
~
~

aqq
~
F ~
~
~
~^~J~~~~~4P
~r~~
P~~
{
j - t
~
~'
d
' r1nL1"3j5
MEMORAloTDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
FROM: Gerald H. Knott, Section Chief, School Planning .-
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 63 on US 401 over Middle Creek
Replace Bridge No. 255 on SR 1006 over Creek
Enclosed is the response from Wake County Schools to our impact inquiry.
/ed
Enclosure
301 ICI. Wilmington Street., Raleigh, North Carolina 27001 2II25
Telephone [phone]
An equal O~portunrty/A~vnrntrv~ Arian F_mploy~r

'~1~ Not-th Carolina ~~ildlife Resources Commissic:~n ~~~=y
Ch;irle. R. Fulln~od, Executive Director
TO: Theresa Ellerby
Project Development Engineer, .1CDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co rn r
Habitat Conservation Program
_ ~ .-
DATE: October 8, 2001
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Franklin and Wake counties of North Carolina.
TIP Nos. B-4515, B-3916, and B-4299.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(4~2 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not requrre
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The honzontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wrldlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x 10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area vvith chain
Ndailin~ f~.ddress: Division of Inland Fisheries ~ 1721 ]Mail Scr~•ice Center °' Ralcibh, NC 27699-1721
Te9ephone: [phone] exc. ZS1 ^ Fax: [phone]

Bridge Memo
2 (?ctober 8, 2001
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
A clear hank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
1 1. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-terns erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion stn~ctures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
constn.rctinn is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily ar~d
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means that the
culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream bed. If
multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be placed so that their
bottoms are at stream banlcful stage (similar to Lyonsfield design). This could be

E`3ridt;e Mcnro
October h, "lt)Ol
accomplished by constructing, a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that
will divert low [lows to another cell I his ~~~ill alluw su1-ficicnt water depth in the
culvert or pipe during nornral flo~~~s <<~ accommodate fish movements. If culverts arc
long, notched battles should he placed in reinforced concrete box culverts al 15 foot
intervals to allow for the collection of scdin-rents in the culvert, to reduce flow
velocities, and to provide resting places for Gsh and other aquatic organisms moving
through the structure.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or widening is
required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of structures usually
causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment deposition. that will require futr.rre
maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing stnrcture at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the stnrcture will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area that is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore
the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may he used as wetland mitigation for the subject
project or other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
I L3-4515 ~- Franklin County -Bridge No. 40 c~~~cr f3car Swamp Creek. There are records of
stag and federally listed mussels in the project vicinity. -I-herefore, due to the potential for
impacts to listed species we request that NCDO-f perforn~ a mussel survey prior to the
constnrction of this bridge. Standard conu~~ents apply.
2. B-3916 -- Wake County -Bridge No. 63 over Middle Creek. There are also records of state
listed mussels upstream of the project. Therefore, due to t}~e potential for impacts to listed
species we request that NCDOT perform a mussel survey prior to the construction of this
bridge. Standard comments apply.
3. B-4299 -Wake County -Bridge No. 255 over unnamed Creek. Standard comments apply.
We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from
contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with spanning
structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases.
Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation
and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.

Bridge Memo 4 October 8, 2001
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. 'Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Pose Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
December 3, 2003
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
'-~.
f.
~~~'~t
r
.,
This letter is in response to your letter of November 20, 2003 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 63 over Middle Creek in Wake
County (TII' No. B-3916) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally-threatened
bald eagle (Haliaeetus ler.~cocephalzrs). These comments are provided in accordance with section
7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the information you submitted, surveys were conducted for bald eagle nests within
a 1.0 mile radius of the project site on November 4 and 12, 2003. No nests or bald eagles were
observed. Based on the negative survey results, the Service concurs with your conclusion that
the proposed bridge replacement may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle.
We believe that the requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this
species. 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 in this review; (2) this action is
subsequently :rodif ed iri a r.-!ar~ler t?:at •*,a; not c.^nsid?rec1, in this review: or (31 a new species is
listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
i
~~ ~ ~~
L~ ~,
~~/ Garland B. ardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor

cc: Eric Alsymeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

+ ~
United States Department of the Interior -''" ~~~,
~~
,~,_, ~
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE - ~
Raleigh Field Office ~ ~ _~ Fn 5,,,.1
Post Office Box 33726 = _ ~ ~
r7
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 8, X003 ` `'"~
~~„ ~.
=,, .c
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your letter of December 3, 2003 which provided the tJ.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 63 on US 401 over
Middle Creek in Wake County (TIP No. B-3916) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
the federally-endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon). These comments are
provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 153 I -1543).
According to the information you submitted, a mussel survey was conducted on November 4,
2003. The survey extended 400 meters downstream of the US 401 crossing. No dwarf
wedgemussels were observed. It is understood that this stretch of stream has been heavily
impacted by human activity upstream, as evidenced by the strong effluent odor reported in the
survey report. Based on the negative survey results, the Service concurs with your conclusion
that the proposed bridge replacement may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the dwarf
wedgemussel. We believe that the requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been
satisfied for this species. 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 in this review; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
t'. !•~rt > ~'1
.},
~i f
-~ Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor

cc: Eric Alsymeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington, NC
.Iolu~ Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

FLOOD INSURANGE RATE MAP ~I
PANEL LOCATION "
~ ~ `~
, /
M8P IdUMBEP,:'
3718300685E
EFFECTIVE DATE:.
I~APCI~ 3, 1992 '.
EmcigtncV 14iaru4gemeni Nkency
~~~ `~' NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
\`?r i, F
I
US 40'E
Replace Bridge No. 6: over
Middle Creei:
Wake County, North Carolina
~~~
f~loi to Scale F{GURE 6
WAKE COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA AND
INCORPORA'T'ED AREAS
PANEL 685 OE' 81Q
($EE MAP INDE% FOR PANELS NOT PRItJTE D) ~~
corneins;
C69fINUIIfTY fQ1MBER MINEL SUFFIX
UAHILURPORAED 116EAS 37636E 0685 E

~.
~ ~1 ~o <;
- ` ,~
.@~~. ~ "
4 .. ~:
I~lorth Carolina Department of Cultural Resources .; ~ ;
State Historic Preservation Office "- •« ;'
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
August 6, 2001
MEMORANDUM
~ivision of Archives and'History ;: `
Jeffrey J. Crow; Direcfor "~~
. -~?
~~
r,
rl~s:.
~.N~..
~_,.;.
y,~
'^~.i
:z
To: William D. Gihnore, P.E., Manager ~~,
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch - firt
From: David Brook
Deputy State Hist c Preservation Officer
Re: Replace Bridge No. G3 on US 401 over Middle Creek, B-3916,
Wake County, ER 01-10081
"Thank you for your memorandum of June 21, 2001, concerning the above project.
We are aware of no historic properties in the area of potential effect, except the bridge itself. Built
in 1926, the bridge's eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places should be
evaluated.
There are no known archaeological sites within die proposed project area. Based on our present
knowledge of the area, it is unlikely drat any archaeological resources, which may be eligible for
irachision in die National Register. of Historic Places, will be affected by die project construction.
We, d~erefore recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection wide 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
coclif-ied at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thar~l: you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Location NYailing Address 7~elcphonel~'ax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] 8733-8653
tYestoration 5IS N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4Ei13 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 {9l9) 733-6547 p71 -4801
Survey ~"c @'lanning 515 N. Blount St, {tzrlcigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigfr 27699-4618 (9l9) 733-4763 G-715-480 f

Federal Ard # BR~TP -101(3) TIP # B-3916 County: Wake
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTF,R OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Desorption: Replace E3ridge No. 63 on US X101 over Middle Creek
On 8/30/01, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
/ ederal Highway Administration (FHWA)
[~]` North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
Other
Reviewed the subject project at
coping meeting
~istoric architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
i-
There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within tiro
project's area of potential effects.
[~/ There are properties over fifty years old within the prolect's Area of Potential Effects (AP£), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of~each property, the properties identified as
Bridge IYo. 63 ~~~ ~~~~ are considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of
them is necessary.
[~/~There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
[~~_All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach anv notes or documents as needed)
Signed:
3~1~
Represe
s~'a-~
FHWA, for the Divisi n Administrator, or other Federal Agency ate
' ~/~~ ~
Representative, HPO Date
'=Mate Historic Preservation Officer Date
R a;une~~ rep~~rt is prepared. a linal copy of this form will be included

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Ofrice IIox 33726
Raleigh, Nonh Carolina 27636-3726
August 10, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your June 21, 2001, request for information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) on the potential environmental impacts of proposed bridge replacements in
Franklin and Wake Counties, North Carolina. This report provides scoping information and is
provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
(16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state
resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the following
bridge structures:
1. B-4515 Bridge No. 40 on SR 1235 over Bear Swamp Creek;
2. B-3916 Bridge No. 63 on US 401 over Middle Creels; and,
3. B-4299 Bridge No. 255 on SR 1006 over unnan-led creek.
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act
Amendments of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend
that proposed highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility
corridors, or previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and
encroachment. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the
watershed and region should be avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems
should use existing crossings and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is
not feasible, culvert structures that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without
scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage, should be employed. Highv~~ay shoulder and

:t
,L
median widths should be reduced through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas
should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever
appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory
bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Ingleside and Lake Wheeler 7.5 Minute
Quadrangles show wetland resources in the specific work areas. However, while the NWI
maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied up}ori~ in
lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland
classification methodology. Therefore, in addition to the above guidance, we recommend that
the environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action.
1. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be
impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact
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 Corps of Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps).
t
~•.:
r r,
k~
='r _.
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made
to identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The document presents a number of scenarios for replacing each bridge, ranging from in-place
to relocation, with on-site and off-site detours. The Service recommends that each bridge be
replaced on the existing alignment with an off-site detour.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Franklin and Wake Counties. The
Service recommends that habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the
available habitats at the respective project sites. If suitable habitat is present within the action
area of the project, biological surveys for the listed species should be performed.
Environmental documentation that includes survey methodologies, results, and NCDOT's
recommendations based on those results, should be provided to this office for review and
comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the
NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve
them if found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under slate protection.

~~i
,.
~~~~~
;_
r
The Service appreciates the opportunity to commen4: on this project. Please continue to advise
us during the.progression of the planning process, including your official deterniinatiori of the ,
impacts of the project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact ,:;
Tom McCartney at 919~$56~4520 Ext. 32. ,
-;~~~s~ n
Sincerely ~~~ ` ~~'
'+
n~~~
;~1 rte.
~; .
r. Garland B. Pardue ~~ :~ ~~ .
Ecological Services Supervisor - {~u~~s}~~r
''~e ~
~ . ~~~4Ea u'-.
Enclosures
cc: COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
NCDNR, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:'TM:08/10/01:919/856-4520 extension 32:\bdgfran.wak

S 1
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
STATUS
WAKE COUNTY
' ~- 3:
Vertebrates '
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis ~ '`
FSC '
Bald eagle - ~ sa~ ~,
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened ,y.~~~
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus , `;~` ~
Southeastern myotis FSC* _ _ ,~
Red-cockaded wood esker Myotis austroriparius FSC
P Picoides borealis ~ ~"~
Endangered ?;~~
.~;;.,
Invertebrates
Dwarfwedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon
Yellow lance Endangered ak ~ ~
Elliptio lanceolata FSC ~'
hY ,~#~':
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
Green floater FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Lasmigona subviridus FSC
Speyeria diana FSC*
Vascular Plants
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata
Michaux's sumac FSC
Rhus michauxii Endangered
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusillum FSC
WARREN COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestn~alis
FSC
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon
Yellow lance
Elliptio lanceolata Endangered
Tars in
p ymussel
Elliptio steinstansana FSC
Atlantic pigtoe
Fusconaia masoni Endangered
FSC
Vascular Plants
I3eller's trefoil Lotus helleri
FSC
WASHINGTON COUN'I'y
Vertebrates
Red wolf ,, Canis rufus
Rafinesque's big-eared bat E~CP
•Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii FSC
Waccamaw killifish Fundulus waccamawensis
.Bald eagle FSC
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
alanuary 15, 1999 ~~~-~~°°°"~~ ~'~ -
~~~ .Wage 45 of 49

~~ _ __ __ _
. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ~ .~~
Wilmington District ~ "~'
Action ID: 200220001 TIP: B-3916 County: Wake
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Project Proponent:
Address:
NCDOT
Division of Highways
William D. Gilmore, P.E.,
Manager
PDEA Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Agent: Environmental Services Inc.
ATTN: Mr. Jeff Harbour, PWS
524 New Hope Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Telephone No.: [phone] [phone]
Location of Property (;;~aterl'~od~~, ITi~hwa~ name/nua•tber, town, etc ~: Existing Bridge No. 63 on
US 401 over Middle Creek.
Basis for Determination: The site contains wetlands, as indicated on the data forms submitted on
August 22, 2001, and stream channels with indicators of ordinary high water marks. The wetlands are
located adjacent to Middle Creek, a tributary to the Neuse River.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
There a re w aters o f t he U .5., t o i nclude w etlands, o n the above described property which we strongly suggest
should be delineated and surveyed. The surveyed wetland lines must be verified by our staff before the Corps will
make a final jurisdictional determination on your property.
Because of the size of your property and our present workload, our identification and delineation of your wetlands
cannot be accomplished in a timely manner. You may wish to obtain a consultant to obtain a more timely
delineation of the wetlands. Once the consultant has flagged a wetland line on the property, Corps s taff w ill
review it, and, if it is accurate, we strongly recommend that you have the line surveyed for final approval by the
Corps. The Corps will not make a final jurisdictional determination on your property without an approved survey,
X The waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, within the project limits, have been delineated, as shown in the
August 7 , 2 002 s ubmittal, and a desktop verification of Corps jurisdiction has been completed on t his d ate.
tJnless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period
not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. Note: This verification replaces the verification for
this site dates October ~+, 200I.
-There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to
the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law
or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the
date of this notification.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the
Army Permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A
permit is not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If you
have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact
Eric Alsmeyer at telep e n er (919) 876 - 8441 extension 23
Project Manager Signature ~--
Date Aut7ust 27 2002 _ E tration Date August 27. 2006
Sg1I~~3~' >P>LAT ®IZ 11'IE><,D SfCE"1'CD OI? T1E13/ I)ESCIZ1131CD 1'lt®PE1~T~ ANl~ l'~ WE'I")<.AND
I1~~1,1N~ATI~DN 11•®RM MLIS`I<' )£31E A'll"li'A~'1~I~ T~D~ T>[~E F1LE COSY d:~1F' TIF3fl[S 11+Q9f2IVfe

~,
k ~ oT><rrcAT?~b'l~`~a ._, ~ ~ ,. r ~~
- .-- ~ ,ADMTNr ',~'uT2ATI;V . A ~~'E~AL}Op~TXONS.,AA~ a ~ 'U~~C,ES -
-
•
~ =x REOTTE ~APPT
~ ~ ~. FO ~ +
. ~ ~ ~
~
~
~~p
3: - __ f _~
r. Y'~i. .~i• Lv_.~F~~. ~c!~'le..'-ID "t!'a''9r~a.E!M~%~l'.+~+~,.^~'c~~+s~.+~'.....c 1. '~'~4L.:
~ .`,.'K.`2i
_-:;~.~'. _ _ _
-
A licant: NCDOT/TIP B-3916 File Number: 200220001 Date:
Au ust 27, 2002
Attached is: See Section below
II~IITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of ern~ission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of ennission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
X APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
,'SECTION I'_ The follov~n~ ielenttli%s tiDori-tgh~'~tti~t~i~t~ttonsre~'ardni7 an a~liYlini ,tr iti~ ~~ aP~cal~~
t11t/~u~t ~~
~
~de~tsi~~n ; :~ddrt.ic~nalitll~~rtl~atic~n n~a}' 1~~,~found ai_htih:~//«, «rw.u ice.~~~rn~v.rrtil/in~tll'unrt~~~nslcw/ce' ~~/rcC1"~~r.
't"
~
_
`(.cirri;; ~r~~~~ulaturt~.~
~.~ rte,
tt i3 C`T'IZ
P~it~t~ 3 ~ 1.
_
- - - ~ ~-~
A: II`IITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Perrit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJEC'T': If you object to the pern~it (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request t}rat the
pernut be modified accordiigly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer withii 60 days of the date of t}us notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the pernut in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the periut to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the pemlit having
determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send
you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the pern~it
• ACCEP"I : If you received a Standard Perri t, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Pem~it or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the pernit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its teens and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain ternrs and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appea( Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the fo;:n io the division engineer. This far,1; must be received ~y the divisicr, engineer within, 5G days of the date of this
notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Adnnistrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the fore to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may acceptor appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date o[-
this notice, means that you accept the approved JL) in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved II).
a APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JI), you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers AdnunistraUve
Appeal Process by completing Section [I of this fom~ and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received Liy
the di~~isien~ en>ineer within 6Q days of the date of this Holier