20052138 Ver 1_Complete File_20051222

mai lbox:///CI/Documents%20and%20Settings/Rob_Ridings/Appl icat...
Subject: Re: B-41 10 (Br. 5 over Mountain Ck. on SR 1616 in Durham Co.)
From: Rob Ridings <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:23:25 -0400
To: Chris Murray <cmurray@dot. state. nc. us>
Chris,
If this slight change may Reduce the impacts, and have no other main difference from the original plans, then
that's certainly something I can support.
Thanks,
Rob
Chris Murray wrote: 1 . f
NCDOT permit application: 11/30/05
NCDENR-DWQ 401 and Buffer Permit No. 052138: 12/22/05
USACE Section 404 Action ID No. 200320266: 2/1/06
Eric and Rob,
The Department is currently constructing this bridge project in
Durham County. The plans for the project called for the removal
of the abutment on the west side of Mountain Creek and then the
installation of rip rap along the bank to provide stabilization
(see attached permit drawing). We recently determined that the
abutment on the west side of the bridge is comprised of a large
concrete footer under the timbers (see attached photo).
We were concerned about the impact associated with the removal of
the concrete footing. There are no records indicating how deep
the footer is in the substrate. Therefore, the Department is
proposing to keep the footer in place and then install the rip
rap as previously permitted in front of the concrete footer.
This activity will not result in additional impacts to streams,
wetlands and buffers. The only issue here is that keeping the
footer in place may reduce impacts during construction.
Please review this information at your convenience and let me
know what your thoughts are on this issue. Thanks in advance for
your time on this issue.
Chris Murray
NCDOT Division 5 Environmental Supervisor
HtMuv/?L
gV?BE,I'vNF$TfRCV(WS!9ANK ROADWA
? ? ru

i
FILL IN
FILL IN
SURFAC
NO WETLANDS IN PROJECT
?Y/c7/N? RFNTS
1 of 3 10/3/2006 9:23 AM
cI
•
11
Ir
Ir
11
1
rf
11
If
1
11
11
1
11
r/
2 of 3

i
i I
! i I
i :
9:23 AM
mailbox:///Cl/Documents%20and%20Settings/Rob_R idings/Applicat...

3 of 3 10/3/006 9:23 AM
?.
p?0? W AT ?y
r
-1
Stream Impact Table
Stream Impacts - Temporary Fill
December 22, 2005
Durham County
DWQ Project No. 052138
B-4110
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and NEUSE RIVER RIPARIAN BUFFER AUTHORIZATION
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
You have our approval, in accordance with the conditions listed below, for the following impacts for the purpose of
replacement of Bridge No. 5 on SR 1616/ SR 1793 (Bahama Road) in Durham County.
Site
Site 1 - STA 17+41.66 -L-
Site
Site 1 - STA 17+41.66 -L-
Site 2 - STA 18+50 W STA 20+50
Totals
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
20 cubic
Buffer Impact Table
Allowable
Zone 1 (s q. ft.) Zone 2 (Lc
7,835 4,115
7,835 1 4,115
Stream Impacts - Permanent Fill
60
Allowable with Miti a'
Zone 1 (sq. ft.) Zone 2
202 z,ls4
202 2,234
The project shall be constructed in accordance with your application dated received on December 2, 2005. After
reviewing your application, we have decided that the stream impacts and riparian buffer impacts described are
covered by General Water Quality Certification Numbers 3495, 3403 and 3366. This certification corresponds to
the Nationwide Permit 13, Nationwide Permit 23 and Nationwide 33 issued by the Corps of Engineers. This
approval is also valid for the Neuse Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). In addition, you should acquire any other
federal, state or local permits before you proceed with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and
Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire with the
accompanying 404 permit, unless otherwise specified in the Water Quality Certification.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified below).
Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the property is sold, the
new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying
with all the conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, or of total
impacts to streams (now or in the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you must adhere to the
conditions listed in the attached certification.
NOne Carolina
?turally
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
_.- .... -. . -- i ?..?......,? hf#-//h9n Qnr Onta. ne.us/ncwetlands
1.) Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form" to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been completed. The
responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the Division of
Water Quality upon completion of the project.
2.) All stormwater runoff shall be directed to sheetflow through stream buffers at nonerosive velocities, unless
approved otherwise by this certification.
3.) During the construction of the project, no staging of equipment of any kind is permitted in waters of the U.S., or
riparian buffers.
4.) Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing
season following completion of construction.
5.) The dimension, pattern and profile of the stream above and below the crossing should not be modified by
widening the stream channel or reducing the depth of the stream. Disturbed floodplains and streams should be
restored to natural geomorphic conditions.
6.) Any riprap used must not interfere with thalweg performance and aquatic life passage during low flow
conditions.
7.) All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters must be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
8.) Discharging hydroseed mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment in or adjacent to surface
waters is prohibited.
9.) The outside buffer, wetland or water boundary located within the construction corridor approved by this
authorization shall be clearly marked by highly visible fencing prior to any land disturbing activities. Impacts
to areas within the fencing are prohibited unless otherwise authorized by this certification.
10.) There shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated with this
permit without appropriate modification of this permit. Should waste or borrow sites be located in wetlands or
stream, compensatory mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities.
11.) Heavy equipment must be operated from the banks rather than in the stream channel in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream.
12.) No live or fresh concrete shall come into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has hardened
13.) The presence of equipment in the channels must be minimized. Under no circumstances must rock, sand or
other materials be dredged from the wetted stream channel under authorization of this permit, except in the
immediate vicinity of the culverts.
14.) All work shall be performed during low or normal flow conditions.

15.) Mitigation for impacts to 202 square feet of protected riparian buffers in Zone 1 and 2,234 square feet of
protected riparian buffers in Zone 2 will be mitigated for as described below:
Zone of
Impact Impacts
(Square Feet) Replacement
Ratio Total Square Feet of
Mitigation Required_
_
Zone 1 202 3:1 606
Zone 2 2,234 1.5:1 3,351
Total 2,436 3,957
We understand that you have chosen to perform compensatory mitigation for impacts to protected buffers
through use of the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), and that the EEP has agreed to
implement the mitigation for the project. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts to Neuse Riparian Buffers shall be
provided in the Neuse River Basin and done in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0233 at a cost of $0.96 per
square foot for 3,957 square feet of buffer impact. Therefore, a total payment of $3798.72 shall be submitted to
the EEP to offset the project impacts.
16.) A copy of this Water Quality Certification shall be posted on the construction site at all times. In addition, the
Water Quality Certification and all subsequent modifications, if any, shall be maintained with the Division
Engineer and the on-site project manager.
17.) All riparian buffers impacted by the placement of temporary fill or clearing activities shall be restored to the
preconstruction contours and revegetated with native woody species upon completion of the project
construction. A post-construction as-built with the restoration activities included shall be submitted to the
DWQ no later than 60 days after the project is closed out by the Department of Transportation.
18.) Pursuant to NCACI5A 2B.0233(6) sediment and erosion control devices shall not be placed in Zone 1 of any
Neuse Buffer without prior approval by the NCDWQ. At this time, the NCDWQ has approved no sediment and
erosion control devices in Zone 1, outside of the approved project impacts, anywhere on this project. Moreover,
sediment and erosion control devices shall be allowed in Zone 2 of the buffers provided that Zone 1 is not
compromised and that discharge is released as diffuse flow.
19.) Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper
design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to protect
surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control measures
must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most recent version of the
North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices shall be maintained on all
construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including contractor-owned or leased
borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed, operated,
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Surface Mining
Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in accordance with
the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
20.) The post-construction removal of any temporary bridge structures will need to return the project site to its
preconstruction contours and elevations. The revegetation of the impacted areas with appropriate native species
is required.
21.) If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is preferred. Strict adherence
the Corps of Engineers guidelines for bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality
Certification.
22.) For projects impacting waters classified by the NC Environmental Management Commission as Trout (Tr),
High Quality Waters (HQW), or Water Supply I or II (WSI, WSII) stormwater shall be directed to vegetated
buffer areas, grass-lined ditches or other means appropriate to the site for the purpose of pre-treating storm
water runoff, and must not be routed directly into streams without proper stormwater treatment as asserted
above. Mowing of existing vegetated buffers is strongly discouraged, so that they may be utilized for storm
water sheet flow.
23.) The NCDOT shall strictly adhere to sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices as described for
High Quality Waters entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction of the project.
24.) This approval will expire with the accompanying 404 federal permit. This condition supercedes condition No.
15 in the General Certification 3495, condition No. 10 in the General Certification 3403 and condition No. 12 in
the General Certification 3366.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that conforms
to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please contact Nicole Thomson at [phone].
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
BW/njt
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. Jon Nance, Division 5 Engineer, 2612 N. Duke Street, Durham, NC 27704
Mr. Chris Murray, Division 5 Environmental Officer, 2612 N. Duke Street, Durham, NC 27704
NC DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
c:\Correspondence\2005BridgeProjects\D WQ052138\122105wgc.doc
?n
UvI 02
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
November 30, 2005
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Application for Nationwide Permit 23 and Neuse River Buffer
Certification, and Memo for Nationwide Permit 13 for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 5 over Mountain Creek on SR 1616 / SR 1793
(Bahama Road) in Durham County, Federal Aid Project No. BRA-1616(5);
State Project No. 8.2353201; Division 5; TIP No. B-4110
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed a copy of the Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) document and
NRTR, as well as permit drawings, buffer.drawings, '/2 size plans (roadway plans), and a
Pre-construction Notification (PCN) Form for the subject project. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 5 on SR 1793
(a.k.a. SR 1616) over Mountain Creek with a new 95-foot long box girder bridge in
approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. The cross
section of the new bridge will include two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot offsets. Approach work
will consist of resurfacing and tying into the existing alignment for approximately 353 feet
on either side of the new bridge. The new bridge will span Mountain Creek, avoiding the
need for bents in the creek, and an off-site detour will be used to route traffic during
construction. There will be 0.021 acre of permanent impacts (riprap fill) due to the need for
stream bank protection along both banks of Mountain Creek under the bridge. There will be
no wetland impacts associated with this project. There will be 202 ft2 of Zone 1 and 2,233
ft2 of Zone 2 Neuse River Riparian Buffer impacts.

IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: The project is located in the Falls Lake Watershed (sub-basin 03-04-
01) of the Neuse River Basin with a Hydrologic Unit Code of 03020201. This section of
052138

LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
PLB SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27604
Mountain Creek has been assigned Stream Index Number 27-2-21-4 by the N.C. Division of
Water Quality (DWQ). A best usage classification of "WS-II HQW NSW CA" has been
assigned to Mountain Creek. There are no wetlands in the project area; therefore, no
wetland impacts.
Permanent Impacts: There will be 60 linear feet (0.021 acre) of permanent surface water
impact from the placement of riprap along the shoreline for stream bank protection. The
riprap will be placed along both banks of Mountain Creek under the bridge, adjacent to the
excavation areas, as shown on Permit Drawings - Sheet 5 of 8, Sheet 6 of 8, and Sheet 7 of
8.
There will be no bents placed in surface waters associated with this bridge replacement
project.
Temporary Impacts: An off- ite
slet_
our will be used to route traffic during construction,
and staging of construction equipment will not occur in surface waters or Riparian Buffers.
Therefore, there will be no temporary impacts associated with this project.
Utility Impacts: There will be no impacts to surface waters or the Riparian Buffers from
sewer, water, electric or other utilities associated with this bridge replacement project.
Verizon has a single buried fiber optic cable that is located on the south side of SR 1793 /
SR 1616 traveling adjacent to the existing edge of pavement that has an aerial crossing of
Mountain Creek. Verizon has another aerial cable on the south side of the project that
travels the entire length of the project. Verizon plans to alleviate their conflicts to this
project by directional boring their cables under the creek bed throughout the entire length of
the project. However, Verizon may decide to bore under the creek bed and the adjacent
buffer zones and attach the cables aerially to poles located outside of the buffer zones.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 5 is composed of timber floor on timber joists and a
substrate of timber caps on timber posts and concrete sills. The resulting potential
temporary fill associated with the removal of Bridge No. 5 is 20 cubic yards, as noted in the
PCE document. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
will be followed to minimize the amount of temporary fill.
NEUSE RIVER BUFFER IMPACTS
This project is located in the Neuse River Basin; therefore the regulations pertaining to the
Neuse River Buffer Rules will apply. Impacts to buffers include that of construction of the
new bridge and the roadway fill for the approach work associated with the bridge
replacement project. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) has
informed NCDOT that the allowable buffer impacts for bridges, in accordance with 15A
NCAC 02B .0233(6), extend from approach slab to approach slab. Due to the orientation of
Mountain Creek to the existing roadway (the creek turns and somewhat parallels the
roadway), roadway fill for approach work associated with the bridge replacement project
will impact 2,435 square feet of riparian buffer outside of the bridge approach slabs.
2
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B.0233(6), these impacts to the riparian buffer are allowable with
mitigation. Buffer impacts are shown on Buffer Drawings - Sheets 1 & 2 of 2.
Table 2. Neuse River Buffer Impacts
Bridge Construction Road Impacts
Zone 1 Impact ftZ 7,835 202
Zone 2 Impact ftz 4,115 2,233
Mitigation Requirement Allowable Allowable w/ Mitigation
NCDOT is providing compensatory mitigation for the buffer impacts associated with the
roadway fill through the EEP. The EEP acceptance letter for buffer mitigation is enclosed
with this application.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003, the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists four federally protected species for
Wake County. Table 1 lists the species, their status and biological conclusion.
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Durham County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal
Status Biological
Conclusion
bald eagle Haleaeetus leucephalus T No Effect
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E No Effect
smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata E No Effect
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or significant portion of its range).
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range).
The PCE noted that the project does not involve habitat where federally listed endangered or
threatened species may occur. The Natural Resource Technical Report (NRTR) for this
project (dated July 2001) determined that there is no habitat for bald eagle, and therefore a
No Effect biological conclusion was given. The NRTR noted that there are potential areas
of habitat for smooth coneflower and Michaux's sumac at the site, consisting of the
roadsides and the powerline corridor. However, the NRTR also noted that grasses
completely covered the roadsides, while dense, tall, woody and herbaceous growth covered
the powerline corridor that restricted the amounts of sunlight to the areas. Surveys
conducted on July 30, 2001 as part of the NRTR, resulted in no individuals of smooth
coneflower or Michaux's sumac being identified, resulting in No Effect biological
conclusions for both species. Because smooth coneflower and Michaux's sumac are species
that have the potential to migrate, subsequent surveys were conducted on August 29, 2005.
No individuals of either species were identified during the subsequent surveys. The
Biological Conclusions for smooth coneflower and for Michaux's sumac remain No Effect.
The dwarf wedgemussel has been reported from the Eno River in adjacent Orange County.
Because Mountain River occurs within the Eno River Subbasin of the Neuse River Basin, a
survey for dwarf wedgemussel was conducted by NCDOT biologists on August 1, 2003,
even though dwarf wedgemussel is not listed for Durham County. A discussion of the
survey findings with Gary Jordan of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) resulted in
a No Effect determination for dwarf wedgemussel. As such, formal Section 7 concurrence is
not warranted or required.
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION
Avoidance and Minimization: The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable
and practicable design features to avoid and minimize wetland impacts, and to provide full
compensatory mitigation of all remaining wetland impacts. Avoidance measures were taken
during the planning and NEPA phases; minimization measures were incorporated as part of
the project design and include:
• Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds will be used.
• Preformed scour holes will be constructed to diffuse stormwater runoff.
• The new bridge will span Mountain Creek with no bents in the water.
• Fill slopes in and adjacent to the riparian buffers have a 2:1 slope to
minimize buffer impacts (Roadway Plans - Sheet X-2).
• Fill slopes adjacent to the pond in the northwest quadrant have a 2:1
slope to avoid surface water impacts (Roadway Plans - Sheet X-4).
• An off-site detour will be utilized to avoid additional stream impacts.
Mitigation: The placement of the riprap, authorized by Nationwide Permit 13, does
not require mitigation. As such, the stream mitigation confirmation portion of the
attached Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) letter is not applicable to this
project, and NCDOT will be rescinding the stream mitigation with EEP.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration
as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Since the CE
summarizes the temporary impacts, the NCDOT requests that the temporary fill associated
with the bridge demolition activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number
10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002). It is anticipated that the 60 linear feet (0.021 acre)
of permanent fill (riprap along shoreline for stream bank stabilization) will be authorized
under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 13.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3403 and 3495 will
apply to this project. All general conditions of the Water Quality Certifications will be met.
4
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and 15A NCAC 213.0200 we are
providing seven (7) copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
Buffer Certification: The NCDOT requests that the DWQ issue an Authorization Certificate
pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B .0233 for the proposed work within the Neuse River Buffer.
The project Let date has been accelerated to April 18, 2006, to have the construction
activities coincide with when school will be out of session. This will eliminate the need
for school buses to use the off-site detour. As such, NCDOT respectfully requests that
the application review process and permit / certification issuance be expedited to allow
this objective to be met. Thank you for your time and assistance with this project. Please
contact Bill Barrett at [phone] if you have any questions or need any additional
information.
Sincerely,
Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
(( Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (7 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Jon Nance, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, DEO Division 5
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Bill T. Goodwin, P.E., PDEA Project Planning
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
o stem
a erne
PROGRAM
November 7, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
R E C E I E_D
N OV 9 2005
DIVISION OF HIGi'AYS
pDU-OFFICE OF NATURAL EMIROWENT
B-4110, Replace Bridge Number 5 over the Mountain Creek on SR 1616
(SR 1793), Durham County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide the compensatory stream mitigation and buffer mitigation for the subject
project. Based on the information supplied by you in a letter dated September 8, 2005 and
revised letter dated October 20, 2005, the impacts are located in CU 03020201 of the Neuse River
Basin in the Central Piedmont (CP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Stream: 60 feet
Zone 1 Buffer: 202 square feet
Zone 2 Buffer: 2,233 square feet
The NCDOT estimated buffer impacts in the 7-year Impact Projection Database
submitted to EEP in May 2005. The buffer mitigation required for the NCDOT's impact
projections was incorporated into EEP's biennial budget that was submitted to the
NCDOT for approval in June 2005. However, EEP intends to continue managing all of
the NCDOT's buffer mitigation requests and approvals through the In-Lieu Fee (ILF)
Program's Buffer Fund. Any buffer impact associated with projects located in the Neuse,
Tar-Pamlico, and portions of the Catawba and Cape Fear River Basins are automatic
acceptances by the EEP, per the agreement with the NCDWQ.
The NCDOT will be responsible to ensure that the appropriate compensation for
the buffer mitigation will be provided in the agreed upon method of fund transfer. Upon
receipt of the NCDWQ's Buffer Certification, the NCDOT will provide the EEP a copy
of the Certification along with a letter verifying the buffer impact/mitigation amounts and
T.,?'...-,,r?`?. NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net
requesting a fund transfer to provide the required compensation. The EEP will transfer
funds from the MOA Account (Fund 2984) into the ILF Buffer Mitigation Fund (Fund
2982).
This mitigation acceptance letter replaces the mitigation acceptance letter issued on
September 20, 2005. As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the
Memorandum of Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The compensatory stream mitigation for the
subject project will be provided in accordance with this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
6-
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE-Raleigh
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4110 Revised

Office Use Only: 2 0 p 5 2 lrm, cgon March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. I ?? ?tjj
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 13 and NW 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Pagel of 9
III. Project Information
5
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may_ accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers .full-size..construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 5 over Mountain Creek on SR 161/SR 1793
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only)
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
B-4110
County: Durham Nearest Town: Bahama
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.):
Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 36.1525 ON 78.9033
6. Property size (acres):
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Mountain Creek
8. River Basin: Neuse River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Bridge No. 5 has a sufficiency rating of 55.7 out of 100
(structurally deficient) and is located in a predominately rural portion of north-central
Durham County.
a sheet that
ow
Page 2 of 9
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project consists of replacing Bridge No. 5 over Mountain Creek with a new two-span
bridge in the same location, and utilize an off-site detour to route traffic during construction.
No bents will be located in the stream. Construction equipment will consist of heavy duty
trucks, earth moving equipment, etc.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The existing bridge is considered to be
structurally deficient (sufficiency ating of 55.7 out of a possible 100). The replacement of
the bridge will result in a safer and more efficient use for traffic.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
Page 3 of 9
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: There will be up to
approximately 20 cubic yards of temporary fill associated with the bridge demolition. There
will be 60 linear feet (0.021 acre) of permanent fill in surface waters (riprap of shoreline for
stream bank stabilization).
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized.. clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
( es/no Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:0
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multi 1 length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
linear feet Area of
Impact
acres
1 Mountain Creek Perm. Fill in SW Perennial - 30 ft 60 0.021
2 Mountain Creek Temp. Fill in SW Perennial - 30 ft 20 yd3

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
Page 4 of 9
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number

(indicate on ma) Name
(if applicable) Watee)
plicablle)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, Pand estua
ry, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of

Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
- 6.-. List the cumulative impact to all Waters-of the-U:S. resulting from the project.
Stream Impact (acres): 20 yd3
(from
temp fill
- bridge
demo)
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 60
(perm
fill -
rira
VII.
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes N No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Page 5 of 9
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. see cover letter
__.VIII. . Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
httn://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwet]ands/strmuide.htm].
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No mitigation is required for the 20 cubic yards of temporary fill, pursuant to NW 33.,
and no mitigation is required for the 60 linear feet (0.021 acre) of permanent fill (riprap),
pursuant to NW 13. Mitigation for buffer impacts to be provided by EEP.
Page 6 of 9
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 606 of Zone 1, and 3,350 of Zone 2
(see table in Item X2)
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes Z No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 213.0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 0213.0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
Page 7 of 9
213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify Neuse )? Yes ® No ?
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Impact Required
Zone* I, Multiplier
1 I 202 13 (2 for Catawba) I 606
2 2233 1.5 3350
Total I 2435 I 1 3956
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2.extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0244, or.0260. see Cover Letter
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Page 8 of 9
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
project is for replacement of an existing bridge.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits.. _However, an applicant. may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
The Project Let date has been accelerated to April 18, 2005 to have construction activities
coincide with when school will be out of session. This will eliminate the need for school buses
to use the off-site detour. As such, NCDOT respectfully requests that the application review
process and permit / certification issuance be expedited to allow this objecctive to be met.
- 11 1-3t, 105
Applicant/Agent's Signature date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-4110
State Project No. 8.2353201
Federal Project No. BRZ-1616(5)
A. Project Description:
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 5 on SR 1793 over Mountain Creek
in Durham County. The bridge will be replaced with a 95-foot (29.0-m) long
bridge in approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. The cross section of the new bridge will include two 12-foot (3.6-m)
lanes with 8-foot (2.4-m) offsets. Approach work will consist of resurfacing and
tying into the existing alignment for approximately 353 feet (107.5 m) on either
side of the new bridge. Guardrail will be installed where warranted. Traffic will
be detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 5 has a sufficiency rating of 55.7 out of a possible 100. On July 2,
1998, the bridge had a sufficiency rating of 33.4 out of a possible 100 and was
programmed for replacement based on that rating. The deck and substructure of
this 50-year old bridge are in fair condition. Therefore, the bridge is structurally
deficient and needs to be replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement (3R
and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including
safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
C. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour repair,
fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-
of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate
capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is
not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when located in
a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street
capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types of
land acquisition qualify for a CE only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned construction
2
projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No project development on
such land may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species mitigation
sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil or
groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation guidelines.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 725,000
Right of Way $ 24,500
Total $ 749,500
Estimated Traffic:
Current
Year 2025
TTST
Dual
Detour Length:
1.5 miles (2.4 km)
- 3000 vpd
- 6600 vpd
- 1%
-2%
Proposed Typical Roadway Cross Section:
The approach roadway cross section will include two 12-foot (3.6-m) lanes and 8-foot
(2.4-m) grassed shoulders. The shoulder width will be increased to 11 feet (3.3 m) where
guardrail is installed.
Design Speed:
60 mph (96.6 kmh)
Functional Classification:
Rural Minor Collector
Division Office Comments:
Division Five Construction Office concurs with replacing the bridge in the existing
location and approximately the existing elevation while maintaining traffic using an off-site
detour.
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 5 is composed of timber floor on timber joists and a substructure of timber
caps on timber posts and concrete sills. The resulting temporary fill associated with the removal
of Bridge No. 5 is 20 yd.
3
Alternates Eliminated from Further Study
The "no build" alternate is not practical or feasible. Continued deterioration of the
existing bridge would result in its closure to traffic. This is not acceptable due to the amount of
traffic that Bridge No. 5 serves.
Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is not practical. The existing substructure is
composed of timber abutments and bents that would not be adequate enough to handle additional
loading from rehabilitation of the superstructure.
The use of an on-site detour is not environmentally or financially prudent for maintaining
traffic. The project is located in the Neuse River Basin and is subject to the riparian buffer rules
for this basin. An on-site detour would bring additional impacts to the riparian buffer along
Mountain Creek. Since a good, 1.5-mile (2.4-km) off-site detour is available, the use of an on-
site detour for this project was eliminated from further study.
4
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or

important natural resource? ?
X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed

endangered or threatened species may occur? ?
X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X

(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been

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

growth or land use for the area? ?
X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or

business? ?
X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any minority
or low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the

amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? ?
X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
X

(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land

use of adjacent property? ?
X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? ?
X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic ?
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ?
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be contained on ?
the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
6
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ?
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? ?
X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are ?
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of ?
1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation ?
Act of 1965; as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and ?
Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding a unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided below.
Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
7. NCDOT has investigated avoiding and minimizing impacts to the High Quality
Water resource associated with the proposed project. The resource cannot be
totally avoided because the project is a bridge replacement. However, the project
proposes to minimize impacts by replacing the bridge in approximately the
existing location and using an off-site detour to maintain traffic. The proposed
bridge will be lengthened to avoid and minimize impacts to the riparian buffer
zone. High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control measures will be required
on this project. The Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules will be adhered to
throughout design.
7
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description:
Assistant Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 5 on SR 1793 over Mountain Creek
in Durham County. The bridge will be replaced with a 95-foot (29.0-m) long
bridge in approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. The cross section of the new bridge will include two 12-foot (3.6-m)
lanes with 8-foot (2.4-m) offsets. Approach work will consist of resurfacing and
tying into the existing alignment for approximately 353 feet (107.5 m) on either
side of the new bridge. Guardrail will be installed where warranted. Traffic will
be detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Da,
Date
t` izz/c-
Date

B-4110
8.2353201
BRZ-1616(5) .

Project Planning Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
Date John L. Sullivan, III, .%
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

rrolect 1evelopment & Environmental Analysis Branch
Project Commitments
Replacement of Bridge No. 5 on SR 1616 Over Mountain Creek
Durham County
F. A. Project No. BRZ-1616(5)
State Project No. 8.2353201
T.I.P. No. B-4110
Roadside Environmental Unit, Division 5
The proposed project crosses Mountain Creek, which has been labelled as a
High Quality Water Resource. Therefore, High Quality Sedimentation and
Erosion Control meaures will be used on this project.
Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Roadside Environmental,
Division 5, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Mountain Creek is within the Neuse River basin. Therefore, the Neuse
River Riparian Buffer Rules will be adhered during the final design phase
and throughout the construction of the project.
Structure Design Unit, Division 5
Upon request of the Division of Emergency Mangement for Durham
County, the period of road closure for SR 1616 will be kept to a minimum
by NCDOT. The Structure Design Unit will estimate the time for
construction during the final design phase and will inform the Durham
County Division of Emergency Management of the anticipated length of
road closure. EMS has requested adequate notice (minimium 30 days) of
when the road closure will begin in order to plan alternate routes.
PDEA
June 9, 2003

5?-ud?ed fle?-ovr
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENviRoNmENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
DURHAM COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 5 ON SR 1793
OVER MOUNTAIN CREEK
B-4110
Figure 1
J • STAr[
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook. Adininistimtor
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jct Bey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and Historv
March 22, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
n iFROM: David Brook
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. and SR 1616 over Mountan
i Creek, B-4110,
Durham Counn,, ER 02-8596
Thank you for your memorandum of September 25, 2001, concerning the above project.

Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
There are no known archaeological sites within the project area. Based on our knowledge of the area, it is
unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for conclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
r
Because the Department of Transportation is in the process of surveying and evaluating the National
Register eligibility of all of its concrete bridges, we are unable to comment on the National Register
eligibility of the subject bridge. Please contact Marv Pope Furr, in the Architectural History Section, to
determine if further study of the bridge is needed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation act and the
advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 296
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/72929-47629. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
Location Mailint, Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4017 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 2 7699-46 1 7 [phone] •733-8653
Restoration S 15 N. Blount St. Raleigh , N( ' 4613 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27009-4613 [phone] •715-4801
Survey & Planning 5I S N Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4618 Muil Service Center. Raleigh 27090-4618 919) 733-4703 •715-4801
NATURAL SYSTEMS REPORT
Replacement of Bridge No. 5
SR 1616 over Mountain Creek
Durham County, North Carolina
(B-4110)
(State Project 8.2353201)
(Federal Aid No. BR2-1616[5])
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
November 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose ........................................................................................................................1
1.3 Methods ........................................................................................................................1
1.4 Project Area ..................................................................................................................3
1.5 Physiography and Soils ................................................................................................3
2.0 WATER RESOURCES .....................................................................................................5
2.1 Waters Impacted ..........................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Stream Characteristics ..............................................................................................5
2.1.2 Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality ......................................................... 6
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ......................................................................7
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ......................................................................................................7
3.1 Plant Communities ........................................................................................................7
3.2 Plant Communities within the Project Area ...................................................................9
3.3 Wildlife ..........................................................................................................................9
3.3.1 Terrestrial ..................................................................................................................9
3.3.2 Aquatic ....................................................................................................................10
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife ....................................................................................11
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS ..........................................................................................................11
- 4.1 Waters of the United States ........................................................................................11
4.1.1 Permits ....................................................................................................................13
4.1.2 Mitigation .................................................................................................................14
4.2 Protected Species .......................................................................................................14
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species ....................................................................................14
4.2.2 State Protected Species ..........................................................................................17
5.0 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................18
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location .........................................................
Figure 2 Project Area .........................................................................................................4
Figure 3 Vegetative Communities .......................................................................................8
Figure 4 Jurisdictional Area .................................................:...........................................12
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Plant Communities ...............................................................................................9
Table 2 Juridictional Areas ............................................................................................. 11
Table 3 Federally Protected Species .............................................................................. 14
Table 4 Federal Species of Concern .............................................................................. 16

Replacement of Bridge No. 5
SR 1616 over Mountain Creek
Durham County, North Carolina
(B-4110)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes replacement of Bridge
No. 5 on SR 1616 (Bahama Road) over Mountain Creek in Durham County, NC (Figure 1). SR
1616 is a two-lane road that runs in a southwest-northeast alignment, and is nearly 20 feet (6.1
meters) wide with a 40 foot (24.4 meter) right of way. Bridge No. 5, which is approximately 2.3
miles (3.7 kilometers) upstream (north) from its confluence with Little River, is also nearly 20
feet (6.1 meters) wide and approximately 55 feet (26.8 meters) long.
[Alternatives]
[Bridge demolition paragraph #1]
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of biological resources in the project area
(defined in section 1.4). Specifically, the tasks performed for this study include 1) an
assessment of biological features within the project area including descriptions of vegetation,
wildlife, protected species, jurisdictional wetlands, and water quality, 2) a delineation of Section
404 jurisdictional areas and subsequent survey of jurisdictional boundaries (utilizing Trimble
XRS Differential Global Positioning System [DGPS] technology), 3) an evaluation of probable
impacts resulting from construction, and 4) a preliminary determination of permit needs.
1.3 Methods
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Rougemont, NC 7.5
minute quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory mapping
(NWI) (Rougemont, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS; formerly the Soils Conservation Service) soils mapping (SCS 1980), and recent aerial
photography (scale 1:1200) furnished by the NCDOT.
The project area was visited on July 30, 2001. The project area, indicated on aerial
photography, was walked and visually studied for significant features. Special concerns
evaluated in the field include 1) potential protected species habitat and 2) wetlands and water
quality protection in Mountain Creek.
The fieldwork for this investigation was conducted by EcoScience Corporation biologists Shay
Garriock, Billy Sweet, and Kirsten Collings. Mr. Garriock is a Project Scientist with 5 years of
experience in the environmental field. Mr. Garriock has a bachelor's degree in wildlife biology
from Virginia Polytechnic and State University, and has conducted field research and species
inventories involving small mammals, songbirds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, freshwater mussels,
?I
i
'I
Ecokience
Corporation
?fo+H4,rer- e.rioi
; erdya wdn aiaer¦ vew
aenaw? is eteeae6+e _il
LOCATION MAP
B-4110
Replacement of Bridge No. 5
Durham County, North Carolina
Own by- TAB FIGURE
Clod by. ss
Date: 1
AUG 2001
Project: 00-046.09
"
n S
.'? It

1 . a q .l ,1 ?, tKS 1 Neid'
? ?« tr (15411 P}.,. ?µ. 1 ?,*. ?.?ly` t
f? {} .a ti? i?,.4: ..aJ?F .}5• ,:lia{? ?I? ... ? .y.1YM?7.. ? ',:Q? .. ? .,.t
I '1 r 4
?'• Y? I,
i. yl la 'r! 'y 11+{7'q; r?? ?/yk ?r75 ?h' 1 .".? 14' al! R'fI r). ?l w
i r ' ?,l a ? ?r?( a : f? ? !u( .?,y4 ?? 7 M r;Yq?M1??(.S?G54(? IV} }?.4q ? ? , ' R ? fr ? ? d
•.'?? ? f,; 1u? j t t ft! ? i fi i:?try{ '! oka*(7 I •• , J ??` ! a; al '?I ky.. I ) tf? ry : i i1 h r '?r in 4; ? , FNr, ?t'•I?? ?? St, Iy ;?+ i a? nt? ? ? T
? k lilt rr,? e ?a ? VIrSi ^ i ? ?f 1 ) i ? ? ?P lj' J M7 .$ ' < - 'v
r
?? ? ? a r 1 ? ? j ',L A'y? yJ+ n ??' ? 6 ? q1 yd?? M?'? l? ?i f h i l y? ?y.c.,.:.,.. ._,..',., ..•?_... .?,'' .:4. .:<.? .?..,1: :. .y..,t "', _.:1,. ..?,:'• . >..?: :. ;??i" {??' 1: MC Al. r.,
? ? ? .? ?? a? w, ? s'i l 11 ? ,?¦ .? ?. ?? ?? r..a.?• r? ? --
and aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates. Professional expertise includes jurisdictional area
delineations, stream and riparian buffer determinations, plant and wildlife identification and
community mapping, protected species surveys, and environmental document preparation.
Mr. Sweet is a Project. Scientist with 7 years of experience in the environmental field. He has
received a bachelor's degree in physics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and
a master's degree in estuarine system science from North Carolina State University. Mr. Sweet
has conducted field research involving alluvial, estuarine, and oceanic water quality and
circulation. His professional expertise includes environmental science instrumentation and
water quality and fluid circulation monitoring/modeling.
Ms. Collings is a summer intern and a rising junior working toward a bachelor's degree in
natural resources/ecosystem assessment at North Carolina State University. Her field
experience extends to wetland delineation, plant identification, protected species surveys and
environmental document preparation. She has also taken pertinent courses including
dendrology, chemistry, biology, and ecology.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) with adjustments made to reflect more current
nomenclature. Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach
following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987).
Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a. classification scheme established by
Cowardin et al. (1979). Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat requirements and distributions
were determined by supportive literature (Martof et al. 1980; Potter et al. 1980; Webster et al.
1985; Menhinick 1991; Hamel 1992; Palmer and Braswell 1995; Rohde et al. 1994). Water
quality information for regional streams and tributaries was derived from available sources
(DWQ 1998, 1997).
The most current FWS listing of federally protected species with ranges extending into Durham
County (April 12, 2001) was reviewed prior to generation of this report. In addition, NHP
records documenting presence of federally or state listed species were consulted before
commencing field investigations.
1.4 Project Area
The project area is located on SR 1616 (Bahama Road) at Mountain Creek, approximately 0.2
mile (0.4 kilometer) east of US-501 and 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) west of Bahama, NC (Figure
1). The project area spans the channel of Mountain Creek, the associated floodplain, and
adjacent uplands for a distance of approximately 1040 feet (317 meters) along a southwest-
northeast orientation (Figure 2). The maximum width of the project area is 280 feet (85.4
meters). For descriptive convenience, the division of SR 1616 and Mountain Creek will be used
to subdivide the project area into four quadrants.
1.5 Physiography and Soils
The project area is underlain by the Carolina Slate Belt System geologic formation within the
Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina. This system is characterized by gently
3
rolling hillsides with sharp topographic breaks such as knolls and saddles with relatively short
valley sides. Soil systems in the Piedmont are determined by the local bedrock type and form in
saprolite weathered from bedrock of various composition (Daniels et al. 1999). The project area
is located within the floodplain of Mountain Creek, with elevations in the project area ranging
from 380 to 420 feet (116 to 128 meters) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (USGS
Rougemont, NC quadrangle).
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) (SCS
1980) indicates the following soils within the project area: Chewacla silt loam (Fluvaquentic
Dystrochrepts), including the streambed and associated floodplain; and Georgeville silt loam
(Typic Hapludults ) along the western uplands.
The Chewacla series consists of frequently flooded, somewhat poorly drained, moderately
permeable soils on nearly level floodplains adjacent to streams. This Chewacla soil has a silt
loam surface layer about 11 inches (27.9 centimeters) thick. The subsoil extends to a depth of
60 inches (152 centimeters) where underlying material of bedrock is often encountered. The
soil is commonly flooded for brief periods during late winter and early spring. The Natural
Resources Conservation Service lists the Chewacla series as having hydric inclusions of
Wehadkee soil occurring in depressional seeps and along the mapping unit boundaries. (NRCS
1997).
The Georgeville series consists of well-drained, moderately permeable soils on gently to steeply
sloping uplands. Organic matter content of the surface layer is low, available water capacity is
medium, and shrink-swell potential is low. The surface layer consists of a silt loam 6 inches
(15.2 centimeters) thick. The subsoil extends to a depth of 60 inches (152 centimeters) where
bedrock is generally encountered. Slope ranges from 2 to 15 percent, with moderate infiltration
and high rates of run-off that create erosional hazards where ground cover is removed. The
NRCS considers the Georgeville series to be non-hydric in Durham County.
2.0 WATER RESOURCES
2.1 Waters Impacted
The project area is located within sub-basin 03-04-01 (Falls Lake Watershed) of the Neuse
River Basin (DWQ 1998). This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020101 of the South-
Atlantic/Gulf Region. Structures targeted for replacement span the main channel of Mountain
Creek, nearly 20 feet (6.1 meters) downstream of a joining tributary that is also within the project
area. This section of Mountain Creek has been assigned Stream Index Number 27-2-21-4 by
the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ 1997).
2.1.1 Stream Characteristics
Mountain Creek is a perennial, second-order Piedmont stream with a gravel/sand substrate.
The stream channel is slightly entrenched, has low sinuosity, and is approximately 15 feet (4.6
meters) wide. The banks are steep and average 4 feet (1.2 meters) high. Directly upstream of
the bridge and within the project area, a perennial tributary joins Mountain Creek. Prior to this
confluence, this tributary flows over a relatively steep gradient of a cobble/gravel substrate with
sections of exposed bedrock. Both Mountain Creek and the unnamed tributary are
characterized by forest vegetation along the banks and adjacent floodplains providing both intra-
stream shading and organic deposition.
5
During field investigations, water clarity within Mountain Creek was somewhat turbid due to
recent rainfalls that heightened flow velocities. Within the main stem and tributary, flows were
quite rapid approaching 1.5 feet/second (0.5 meters/second) with water depth approximately 2
feet (0.6 meter) and 0.5 foot (0.2 meter), respectively.
2.1.2 Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best usage
classification of WS-II HQW NSW CA has been assigned to this section of Mountain Creek. The
designation WS-II denotes waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food
processing. WS-II waters are generally in predominantly undeveloped watersheds. The
watershed Critical Area (CA) is the land and water area within 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer) upstream
and draining to the intake. NCDOT has developed Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters to protect water supply waters. By default, WS-II waters are
considered highest quality waters (HQW) that are rated as excellent based on biological and
physical/chemical characteristics through division monitoring. The designation NSW denotes
Nutrient Sensitive Waters that require limitations on nutrient inputs.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (previously known as the Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section [DEM]) has initiated a whole-basin approach to water
quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed
project area is summarized in the Neuse basinwide water quality plan (DWQ 1998). Mountain
Creek was rated as Good-Fair during 1994 benthic classification, but received neither a
chemical nor Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) rating. However, a stem of the Little River,
approximately 5.0 miles (8.1 kilometers) east and upstream of the confluence with Mountain
Creek (- 3.0 miles [-- 4.8 kilometers] downstream of the project area), received a chemical
rating of Supporting and a NCIBI rating of Good. This same stretch also received a benthic
bioclassification rating of Excellent in 1991; however, the rating dropped to Good in 1995.
The Neuse River subbasin 03-04-01 (Falls Lake Watershed) has been biologically and
chemically monitored with the following use support ratings: 71 percent of its reaches Fully
Supporting, 15 percent as Support Threatened, 6 percent as Partially Supporting, and 3
percent as Not Supporting, and 4 percent of its stream miles were not evaluated. The length
of Mountain Creek has been rated as Support Threatened.
Subbasin 03-04-01, containing the entire Mountain Creek catchment from its headwaters to its
confluence with Little Creek, supports three major point-source dischargers with a combined
permitted discharge of 26.5 million gallons per day (MGD) (100 million liters per day [MLD])
permitted flow. None of these discharges are located along Mountain Creek or its few
tributaries. The subbasin includes 20 minor point-source dischargers, with a total permitted flow
of 0.53 MGD (2.1 MLD). Major non-point sources of pollution for the Neuse River Basin are
agriculture, animal operations, urban runoff, construction, forestry, mining, on-site wastewater
disposal, solid waste disposal, and atmospheric deposition. Sedimentation and nutrient inputs
are major problems associated with non-point source discharges and often result in fecal
coliform, heavy metals, oil from roads and parking lots, and increased nutrient levels in surface
waters (DWQ 1998).
6
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of best management
practices. The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control
measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of Erosion,
Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures
include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff;
elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of
herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing
compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct
discharges into streams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in
Mountain Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of these waterways. Long-term impacts to
adjacent reaches resulting from construction are expected to be negligible. In order to minimize
impacts to water resources, NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of
Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
Due to the composition of Mountain creek's stream bed, sediment curtains should be utilized to
minimize potential water quality degradation as a result of bridge replacement.
[Bridge demolition paragraph # 3]
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Plant Communities
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the project area (Figure 3), and classified
following descriptions by Schafale and Weakley (1990): dry-mesic oak/hickory forest, basic
mesic hardwood forest (Piedmont subtype), and roadside/disturbed land. These plant
communities are described below.
Dry-Mesic Oak/Hickory Forest - Dry-mesic oak/hickory forest occurs along the higher
elevations and slopes within the two northern quadrants and the southeastern quadrant of the
project area. This community represents approximately 25 percent of the vegetated project area
and consists of a developed canopy, sub-canopy, and herbaceous level. The canopy is quite
thick and includes hickory (Carya sp.), white oak (Quercus alba), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
southern red oak (Quercus rubra), and pignut hickory (Carya glabra). The sub-canopy/shrub
layer is dotted with red maple (Acer rubrum), hickory (Carya sp.), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), American holly (Ilex opaca), flowering
dogwood (Corpus florida), black cherry (Prunus serotina), American elm (Ulmus americana),
white ash (Fraxinus americana), and sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum). Herbaceous
vegetation includes poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), wild grape (Vitus rotundifolia), common greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), and
ebony spleenwort (Aspenium playtneuron).
7
00
v`
,.. c
Q
?O
e`
1' ?O
q: \
H 33 a
N? y l ?
N n 0 W

O
1n
0
rr)
z 0°
0
m
m
rn
0
di G
i
i
i

r
zoo o v gK: CO v -u oo N

m??ii Fn g Or o ;u -1
< -1z
X? cg g p
m m
m
m
zo zN m :Oo X
, Z
o
'vtn
O
n m
Op
?K
r

n w m
m z 0O 0
4 ;
u
m X
a

rri
cn

foal

T
0
m
n
m
D
m
in p
° 0 1
0 -T 0
T
o
n
..
cu
;

=
µ 0
_
MCO °' ao v
o
a

C:
w
m
o

o
0
s

Z

0 rmZ< d
" m
I-
o ?? z
O
CF)

0
rl)
°

N 1
a)
D< Z
co
0 o
Basic Mesic Hardwood Forest (Piedmont subtype) - Basic mesic hardwood forest covers
portions of the northeastern, northwestern, and southeastern quadrants, totaling nearly 35
percent of the vegetated project area. These regions occupy the Mountain Creek floodplain and
other lower-lying topographic regions within the project area. The canopy is well established
and consists of sweetgum, green ash (Fraxinus pennsy/vanica), American elm, tulip poplar, river
birch (Betula nigra), black walnut (Juglans nigra), and American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis). The sub=canopy is composed of blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), spicebush
(Calycanthus floridus), American elm, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), green ash, and
hackberry (Celtis laevigata). The herbaceous layer is comprised of microstegium (Microstegium
vimineum), bindweed (Convolvu/us arvensis), aster (Astersp.), and common greenbriar.
Roadside/Disturbed Land - Roadside/disturbed land is defined as the maintained roadside,
powerline corridor, and developed/maintained margins within the project area. This plant
community represents approximately 40 percent of the total vegetated project area. These
communities occur adjacent to SR 1616, along the powerline easement that runs along the
northern quadrants, and surrounding a barn and house within the eastern quadrants. Plant
species include Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), poison ivy, Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), black walnut, slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), winged elm (Ulmus alata),
eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), woodland sunflower (Halenium sp.), and sassafras
(Sassafras a/bidum). There are also small groves of secondary growth, wooded regions within
these disturbed lands which stand over a cleared understory. Species found in these pockets
include white oak, black walnut, princess tree (Pau/ownia tomentosa), sweetgum, and
cherrybark oak (Quercus pagodaefolia).
3.2 Plant communities within the Project Area
Plant community areas are estimates of the total amount of plant community present within the
project area (Figure 1) and are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Plant Community Area within the project area in acres (hectares)
Plant Community Area
Dry-Mesic Oak/Hickory Forest 1.11 (0.45)
Basic Mesic Hardwood Forest 1.68 (0.68)
Roadside/Disturbed Land 1.64 (0.66)
Total 4.43(l.79)
3.3 Wildlife
3.3.1 Terrestrial
Raccoon (Procyon lotor) tracks were observed during the site visit along the creek sides. Other
characteristic mammals expected to frequent similar habitats in the Piedmont include beaver
(Castor canadensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), meadow vole (Microtus
pennsylvanicus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis
9
virginiana), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), eastern mole
(Scalopus aquaticus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and cotton mouse (Peromyscus
gossypinus).
Birds observed within or adjacent to the project area are northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), blue
grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus
noveboracensis), and eastern pewee (Contopus virens). Other avian species expected to occur
in the project area are prothonotory warbler (Protonotaria citrea), red-bellied woodpecker
(Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus
bicolor), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis),
eastern towee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), American robin (Turdus migratorius), hermit thrush
(Catharus guttatus), Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), American redstart (Setophaga
ruticilla), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), barred owl (Strix varia), and red-shouldered
hawk (Buteo lineatus).
Terrestrial amphibians and reptiles spotted during the field visit include the green frog (Rana
clamitans) and five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus). Other terrestrial reptiles which may occur
within the project area include eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), eastern slender glass
lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus), northern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), broadhead skink
(Eumeces laticeps), ground skink (Scinella lateralis), worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), rat
snake (Elaphe obsoleta), northern black racer (Coluber constrictor), rough green snake
(Opheodrys aestivus), eastern kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula), eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), red salamander (Pseudotriton
ruber), redback salamander (Plethodon cinereus), American toad (Bufo americanus), Fowler's
toad (Bufo woodhousei), and slimy salamander (Plethodon cylindraceus).
3.3.2 Aquatic
A northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) was the only observed aquatic reptile or amphibian
species within the project area. Aquatic or semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians which are
expected to occur within the project area include snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), eastern
mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), eastern painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), queen snake
(Regina septemvittata), eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), southern two-lined
salamander (Eurycea cirrigera), three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineata), marbled
salamander (Ambystoma opacum), and northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus).
Mountain Creek was not sampled to determine fishery potential. Visual observation of Mountain
Creek did reveal the presence of small fish and molluscan fauna, including the invasive Asian
clam (Corbicula fluminea). Fish species which may be present in Mountain Creek include redfin
pickerel (Esox americanus), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), swallowtail shiner (Notropis procne), white
shiner (Notropis albeolus), rosefin shiner (Lythrurus ardens), creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), creek chubsucker (Erimyson oblongus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus),
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), green sunfish (Lepomis
cyanellus), Roanoke darter (Percina roanoka), and glassy darter (Etheostoma vitreum).
10
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Habitat fragmentation is not expected to be an issue since most improvements will be restricted
to existing roadside margins. Construction noise and associated disturbances will have short-
term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife movement patterns.
Impacts associated with turbidity and suspended sediments resulting from bridge replacement
will be minimized through the use of silt curtains and the implementation of stringent erosion
control measures. Also, since Mountain Creek is a perennial stream identified on recent USGS
7.5 minute quadrangle maps, in-stream activities associated with bridge replacement should not
interfere with anadromous fish passage. No in-stream activities should occur during the spring
migration period for anadromous fish species (February 15 to June 15).
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Mountain Creek and its unnamed tributary (Figure 4)
are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters
of the United States" (33 CFR section 328.3). NWI mapping indicates that Mountain Creek
exhibits characteristics of a palustrine, broad-leaf deciduous system which is temporarily
flooded (PF01A) (Cowardin et al. 1979); the unnamed tributary is not listed under NWI
mapping. Field investigations indicate that Mountain Creek and its unnamed tributary are bank-
to-bank perennial stream systems. Linear distances and areas of Mountain Creek and the
unnamed tributary are provided in Table 2.
Table 2: linear distance and area of surface waters (Mountain Creek and unnamed tributary)
and riparian buffer within the project area. Linear distance is expressed in feet (meters) and
area is expressed in acres (hectares).
Jurisdictional Type Linear Distance Area
Surface Water 650 (198) 0.45 (0.18)
Riparian Buffer 630 (192) 1.45 (0.58)
Vegetated wetlands 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). No vegetated wetlands subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (CFR
328.3) occur within the project area.
11
i
i
' r
;u U, X ? ? m
X
m -'i 0 m R1
m Z m Z
\ ao o
\ o
i \ m g o
\\ X
I \\ N
1 \
1 \
1 \
I 'So\
\ vz
I \ zz
I \ c
I \ v
\ o
1 \ ?
1 ?
1 ?
1 ?
S,p /. \
1 SAS \
1 \
IV/ Af
W \
\ m
y ?
\\ \ p \ m
90 \ n
\
b\ 1
\ 1
\ 1
\? 1
\ 1
\ I
\
o \ I
m
ao Z
0
m
rn
0
4j M m
? m m ? zc ? W ?
;u M
N? 3: 70OC0 3 n r1l
O
ZZ
m 0 y0 0c X m A0 -i a•?
V/ O
46 Oo N Z y? Z 0) O CD
-W
t?0 O r
11 1 -1
The project area contains a small man-made pond. This pond has been constructed in an
upland slope characterized by non-hydric soils. The pond is fed primarily by groundwater
seepage and secondly by surface runoff. The pond is not directly connected with any Section
404 jurisdictional areas and is therefore not considered to be subject to Section 404 authority.
The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of
Existing Riparian Buffers (15A NCAC 0213.0259) provides a designation for uses that cause
impacts to riparian buffers within the Neuse River Basin. The Neuse River Basin Rule applies
to 50-foot (15.3-meter) wide riparian buffers directly adjacent to surface waters in the Neuse
River Basin. This rule does not apply to portions of the riparian buffer where a use is existing
and ongoing. Any change in land use within the riparian buffer is characterized as an impact.
Land use changes within the riparian buffer are defined as being Exempt, Allowable,
Allowable with Mitigation, or Prohibited. The Allowable designation refers to uses that may
proceed within the riparian buffer provided there are no practical alternatives, and that written
authorization from the DWQ is obtained prior to project development. The Allowable with
Mitigation designation refers to uses that are allowed, given there are no practical alternatives
and appropriate mitigation plans have been approved. The Prohibited designation refers to
uses that are prohibited without a variance.
Figure 4 depicts the positions of riparian buffer within the project area. The calculated linear
distance/area of riparian buffer along Mountain Creek and its unnamed tributary within the
project area are shown in Table 2.
[Bridge demolition paragraph # 3]
As this reach of Mountain Creek has potential as a travel corridor for migratory fish, this project
can be classified as Case 2, where in-water work will be avoided during moratorium periods
associated with spring migratory, spawning, and nursery areas.
4.1.1 Permits
This project may be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The COE has made available Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23
(61 FR 65874, 65916; December 13, 1996) for CEs due to minimal impacts to waters of the
U.S. expected with bridge construction. DWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality
Certification for NWP No. 23. However, authorization for jurisdictional area impacts through use
of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP No. 23 will not suffice,
impacts attributed to bridge replacement and associated approach improvements may qualify
under General Bridge Permit (GP) 031 issued by the Wilmington COE District. DWQ has made
available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for GP 031. Notification to the Wilmington
COE office is required if this general permit is utilized. The COE may exert discretionary
authority and require an Individual Permit if avoidance and minimization have not been
adequately addressed, or if mitigation is inadequate (assuming mitigation may be required).
The Neuse River Basin Rule applies to 50-foot (15.3-meter) wide riparian buffers directly
adjacent to surface waters of the Neuse River Basin. Neuse Buffer Certification will be needed
in addition to a COE permit and DWQ Water Quality Certification.
13
4.1.2 Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of project
impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts.
Temporary impacts to floodplains associated with construction activities could be mitigated by
replanting disturbed regions with native wetland species and removal of temporary fill material
upon project completion. Fill or alteration of more than 150 linear feet (45.8 meters) of stream
may require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15 NCAC 2H .0506(h). A final
determination regarding mitigation rests with the COE and DWQ.
The requirement for riparian buffer mitigation will depend on the amount of actual impacts
resulting from proposed bridge replacement and the availability of practical alternatives. A final
determination regarding practical alternatives rests with DWQ.
4.2 Protected Species
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Threatened due to
Similarity of Appearance (T [S/A]), or officially Proposed (P) for such listing are protected under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term
"Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range", and the term "Threatened Species" is defined as "any
species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term "Threatened due
to Similarity of Appearance" is defined as a species which is not "Endangered" or "Threatened",
but "closely resembles an Endangered or Threatened species" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Federally
protected species listed for Durham County (April 12, 2001 FWS list) are presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Federally Protected Species listed for Durham County (April 12, 2001 FWS list).
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii E
Smooth Coneflower Echinacea laevigata E
Bald Eagle - The adult bald eagle is a large, dark brown raptor with a white head and tail and a
wingspan greater than 6 feet (1.8 meters). Immature eagles are brown with whitish mottling on
the tail, belly, and wing linings. In the Carolinas, bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in
a conspicuous location near open water from December to May (Potter at al. 1980). Bald
eagles forage over large bodies of water and utilize adjacent trees for perching (Hamel 1992)
and typically feed on fish and occasionally birds and small mammals. Disturbance activities
within a primary zone extending 750 to 1500 feet (229 to 458 meters) from a nest tree are
considered to result in unacceptable conditions for eagles (FWS 1987). The FWS recommends
avoiding disturbance activities, including construction and tree-cutting within this primary zone.
Within a secondary zone, extending from the primary zone boundary out to a distance of 1.0
mile (1.6 kilometers) from a nest tree, construction and land-clearing activities should be
14
restricted to the non-nesting period. The FWS also recommends avoiding alteration of natural
shorelines where bald eagles forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing activities within 1500
feet (458 meters) of known roosting sites.
The project area contains tall hardwood trees, but none stand out as providing appropriate
roosting or perching habitat for the bald eagle. Also, the project area does not contain an
adequate amount of open water habitat for eagle feeding. Furthermore, NHP records do not
document the occurrence of this species within 2.0 mile (3.2 kilometers) of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The bald eagle typically roosts, nests, and feeds
from large trees near open water. The project area does not provide suitable
habitat for the eagle. NHP records do not document the occurrence of this
species within 2.0 mile (3.2 kilometers) of the study area. Based on available
information, replacement of Bridge No. 5 will not result in an adverse impact to
bald eagle. NO EFFECT
Michaux's sumac - Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous shrub,
usually less than 2 feet (0.6 meter) high. The alternate, compound leaves consist of 9 to 13
hairy, round-based, toothed leaflets borne on a hairy rachis that may be slightly winged
(Radford et al. 1968). Small male and female flowers are produced during June on separate
plants; female flowers are produced on terminal, erect clusters followed by small, hairy, red
fruits (drupes) in August and September. Michaux's sumac tends to grow in disturbed regions
where competition is reduced by periodic fire or other disturbances, and may grow along
roadside margins or utility right-of-ways. In the Piedmont, Michaux's sumac appears to prefer
clay soil derived from mafic rocks or sandy soil derived from granite; in the Sandhills, it prefers
loamy swales (Weakley 1993). Michaux's sumac range from south Virginia through Georgia in
the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont.
The project area includes relatively large amounts of disturbed regions along both the roadsides
and powerline corridor. However, these areas are covered with thick vegetation - the roadside
with introduced grasses which are mowed frequently and the powerline corridor with tall woody
and herbaceous growth over 6.0 feet (1.8 meter) in height. Neither region had indicators of
acidic soils or granitic rock outcroppings. Systematic surveys of habitat with potential to support
Michaux's sumac found no individuals of this species. NHP records do not document the
occurrence of this species within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Grasses completely cover the roadsides within
the project area, while dense, tall, woody and herbaceous growth cover the
powerline corridor. Systematic surveys of the areas found no indication of this
species. NHP records do not document the occurrence of this species within 2.0
miles (3.2 kilometers) of the project area. Based on available information and
site surveys, replacement of Bridge No. 5 will not result in an adverse impact to
Michaux's sumac. NO EFFECT
Smooth coneflower - This species is a stiffly erect, rarely branched perennial that grows up to
5 feet (1.5 meters) tall. Basal and stem leaves are large, glabrous, and lanceolate to narrowly
ovate blades reaching 3 inches (15 centimeters) in length. This coneflower blooms from late
May to July, producing solitary, heads of small purplish disk flowers with long drooping pink to
purplish ray flowers (Kral 1983). This species occurs on calcareous, basic, or circumneutral
soils on roadsides, clearcuts, power line right-of-ways where there is abundant light and little
15
herbaceous competition (Gaddy 1991). Fire-maintained woodlands also appear to provide
potential habitat for the coneflower.
The roadside within the project area receives little direct sunlight, and has a dense cover of
introduced grasses, while the powerline corridor has dense, tall herbaceous and woody
vegetation. Systematic surveys of habitat with potential to support smooth coneflower found no
individuals of this species. NHP records do not document the occurrence of this species within
2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Grasses completely cover the roadsides within
the project area, while dense, tall, woody and herbaceous growth cover the
powerline corridor. These areas receive restricted amounts of sunlight due to
canopy shading from the surrounding forested communities. Systematic surveys
of the areas found no indication of the species. NHP records do not document
the occurrence of this species within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the project
area. Based on available information and site surveys, replacement of Bridge No.
5 will not result in an adverse impact to smooth coneflower. NO EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern - The April 12, 2001 FWS list includes a category of species
designated as "Federal Species of Concern" (FSC). A species with this designation is one that
may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing). The FSC
designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed. FSC species
listed for Durham County are presented in Table 4. NHP files list documentation for two FSC
species within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the project area: the Pinewoods shiner (Lythrurus
matutinus) located 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) south of the project area in the Little River, and the
Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) located 1.5 miles (2.5 kilometers) southwest of the
project area also within the Little River.
Table 4: Federal Species of Concern listed for Durham County (April 12, 2001 FWS list).
Potential State
Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Status*
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis lepidinion Y SC
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus Y SR
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Y T
Septima's clubtail dragonfly Gomphus septima y SR
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa Y T
Green floater Lasmigona subviridus Y E
Panhandle pebblesmail Somotogyrus virginicus N SR
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum Y E-SC
Butternut Juglans cinerea N W5
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata Y C
A liverwort Plagiochila columbiana Y W2
* E = Endangered; T = threatened; SC = Special concern; SR = Significantly Rare; C = Candidate; P = Species
has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern; W1 = NC Plant Watch List:
rare, but relatively secure; W3 = NC Plant Watch List: rare, but uncertain documentation (Amoroso 1999; LeGrand
and Ha111999).
16
4.2.2 State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Special Concern (SC), Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), or Proposed (P)
(Amoroso 1999; LeGrand and Hall 1999) 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 indicate that five state protected species are
documented to occur within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the project area. Four of the five state
protected species, Roanoke bass (Ambloplites cavifrons) (SR), Neuse River waterdog
(Necturus lewisi) (SC), yellow lampmussel (T), and a caddisfly (Dibusa argata) (SR), are found
1.3 miles (2.1 kilometers) southwest and downstream of the project area within Little River. The
fifth state protected specie, Pinewoods shiner (SR), is found approximately 1.3 miles (2.1
kilometers) downstream and due south of the project area, also on Little River.
NHP also documents Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHA) selected on the basis of the
occurrence of rare plant and animal species, rare or high quality natural communities and
special animal habitats. SNHA sites are rated on site significance, dependent on a global and
statewide rarity of these elements and the quality of their occurrence at a site relative to other
occurrences. NHP documents the Little River Aquatic Habitat (B) and Little River Gorge (C)
SNHA sites located nearly 1.0 miles (1.6 kilometers) and 1.4 miles (2.3 kilometers) downstream
and south-southwest of the project area, respectively. A "B" raing implies the occurrence of
ecological resources that are among the highest quality in North Carolina. A "C" rating implies
the occurrence of natural elements that are among the outstanding examples in their
geographic region of the state.
17
5.0 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 and Recreation, N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
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.
Daniels, R.B, S.W. Buol, H.J. Kleiss, and C.A. Ditzler. 1999. Soil Systems in North Carolina.
North Carolina State University Soil Science Department, Raleigh, North Carolina. 118
PP•
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. 100 pp.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1997. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned
to the Waters of the Neuse River Basin. North Carolirjj? Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in
the Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 pp.
Gaddy, L.L. 1991. The status of Echinacea laevigata N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources (DEHNR): Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular
Plants of the South. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technical
Publication R8J-TP 2. 1305 pp.
LeGrand, H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1999. 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.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264
PP.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
18
Natural Heritage Program (NHP). 1999. List of Significant Natural Heritage Areas. North
Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, NC.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Hydric Soils, Durham County, N.C. Technical Guide, Section II-A-2.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
325 pp.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1980. Soil survey of Durham County, North Carolina, USDA
National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working Draft of
November 1993. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 575 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
19
p69AT f*-'?rzA r N cis
VICINITY
N CDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 33465.1.1 (B-4110)
MAPS BRIDGE NO.5
OVER MOUNTAIN CREEK
AND APPROACHES
ON SR 1616 (BAHAMA ROAD)
SHEET I OF 5/5/05
NORTH C4RODN4

Givv
11I ?(! X,
1'\
W1 1 ?`
??{? ??,1 `l ?'lil?• ,h. /rli r l/t °G0 11 \.
DO`)
40
?` `1 ?T \t ??J'^ ? ?\, ',? 1 1 i ^?• ?.s _ _ - ?r'Y` 4 ??t `I ? . I t fl I
- ``-) if \I ?'? , ..YT_? 'I i II I, / • + jj ' l -- ,1t\. ,y ' ,) y :,I ( j
' rill l) irl
y ? II
C, 5,1 r.. r?i I -el 'I iJ. r", -` ,j• !? ` 7, - I ?r li?. ?, .fj({,???._ x'(11+ ( ,.t?tA
?f 6
Ai,
}t ?I l' ' irr??, ..'.+? 1 I,w• r\ t? II II-5- r t': 1",?t•(r ,
1 J r I ? 1 5. e r r '1 r
'?,/
r 1/ ??' j I P •!? I i vI?I;I?r 1 ( lr vL?'? t? 1/1
r _
. ?I tl ,•, ,•' '?v? 1 /r rr)l?711 c ! t? t?
1VA
r'??rl/ll 44, frc _// IIr?lf r
?'. l??f,rjl? •? ~ ` I f i 1 ?.?1 i, b'rr I -, l/ I??f r { I ..
?11'? ?l _ ..J tf J{ tj (ir ? ?.`1 ? (:' ?l - •? / ?.. 1Cr }U ??? ?/rf?l l''?`- _?' (f ? ? ,,'_ + i , -
6 1 lr I r t! ., ? n ? ?? • I - '^c ' l i - 1 I? R 1' 11 ? ,'
,1{? ?,}r!!'I-•,'\ J??I?1 { ?t ? ? .'wL 1?I /. ?{\1\??, it j i?i `I 1 r'Iraf It
JC ??? ??/ry'7 II?/?' M \ ? ? ? 1 ? r ` t ' (ii'i' +II .I M 1 r ((4 1 - aP l
v? ? rr?J., r r' ? 1 1 ? I ?' ? I ` r / \ i/ ? J V` \ f I.I
+ ? j (? 4y?•\ 1 '??? `?t ??7 +? tLL?F ?ti11 ('?' I .. !'a? I` ?f'.
ao.(l.'''{?iA rr
SCALE: 1" : 1500'
9° W
NC D ® JL
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 33465.1.1 (B-4110)
BRIDGE NO.5
OVER MOUNTAIN CREEK
AND APPROACHES
ON SR 1616 (BAHAMA ROAD)
SHEET L OF ,Sr 5/5/05
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
REFERENCE NO. NAMES
ADDRESSES
I Maxton Bolton
2 Patricia T. Byrd
3 Ricky E. Herron
4 Charles Hill
5 Sandra Hill
6 Walter Allen Linthicutn
7 Joseph Mangum
8 Juanita Pearce
9 Frances A. Terry
10 Harold K. Terry
11 Kevin A. Terry
12 George P. Tilley, Jr.
13 William M. Wall
P.O.Box 394
Bahama, NC 27503
114 Patrick Road
Bahama, NC 27503
400 Bahama Road
Bahama, NC 27503
P.O.Box 472
Bahama, NC 27503
P.O.Box 12
Bahama, NC 27503
406 Bahama Road
Durham, NC 27503
308 Bahama Road
Bahama, NC 27503
210 Preston Andrews Road
Bahama, NC 27503
114 Patrick Road
Bahama, NC 27503
9318 Roxboro
Bahama, NC 27503
302 Bahama Road
Bahama, NC 27503
310 Yellit Road
Bahama, NC 27503
1412 Chatsworth Lane
Raleigh, NC 27614
NCDO °
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 33465.1.1 (B-4110)
BRIDGE NO.5
OVER MOUNTAIN CREEK
AND APPROACHES
ON SR 1616 (BAHAMA ROAD)
SHEET 3 OF Sr 5 d 5 / 05

m cc rn z $
N cn
o o o N
¢ co
Zin o
c
co
a
a.
co m
m a cc
y o s
Q X
IL U- F s a? ..
a
c p o
s
O

w CM
C C C
`°
a

o
Z Q
w ? n p0
Ln M
E
u co co
a
k4
? a
L
a
a
m
a 3

w O
O U
Z
} Q' y(n CL
H E
° W
Q m !x
c
N m co
m N 0

co
a
E
o
o
0

Q a

? 'O C C
_
?" 'C
Rf N C N N

W
IL
N C C
m _Z
Z
g

m m D
?°'m

U U

>
I-
L I
-
L) ? U
LJ 0
o
EL
C C
? CL
Z
g ? ? o
w

E
LLJ
f"' LL >
>
O
Z
C
to
C
fm6 - cu
U
f
6
L1
CL
W
W W
N
o
U W
L W
O
UW
B O O
2 a)
cn?
'' O
U
?
? O
U
p H
m
m CO i? m
co
N
J
O
C
cD
m
E
mLL a

fn E
d
~ z J
fn
Z O

a
VICINITY
MAIDS
ON SR 1616 (BAHAMA ROAD)
SHEET 1 OF b 5/5/05
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 33465.1.1 (B-4110)
BRIDGE NO.5
OVER MOUNTAIN CREEK
AND APPROACHES
NORTH CAROLIN4
RUF-FeP- N rlAW( NU NCDOT
' I , ,1 , Il \ Imo,. 50
1, C? , i I I I ? ? - !, ? 1?iotl l,mv'c i 11 ' - ? `, j • ?t ,
u '? 1 \ ?I , W 1 I I I ,'\ ? , I t
__ I 1 ,' fr II ' /, - r i ? - I - ? I'•. ?li nl Iii / /
??l. ?'% 111n 11111 `?/ I III I ?r' , • { _ I f' j ' - ? {\ I ?,t /l 1+ J ? r'
itYI tI l ;? ??Jr/ / 7 r 1?+1+1
/1 ?fIL?=-" \,? ?':l? IF\? •? L? ??{ i?r/' s ? r.. rrr??/ ?1?? J• I Jjr? I .
! f 1 r ? " y ? (?.. "•ti.1, ?'f ? ?.-e.-? . ('l l 1 ? { ? l l + r' r { ? / ?/ l r '
"N, ~ * /.-r?J rt(
1O/ rri',i..-?°?,•r(,r,(??,C4 -S1 '{ o.' ,. ? _ 1 ?'?1 j;4r? `?`--j'?J ?(, • ' / '+" ? I? i I J` 'j r1 ' q w aG-,.t , , ?' \ , ?;%r jr 1 \
,I+, I ,I, y'r {i1'1I li.) I i 1 /.
// r+?(?? / J``' ` it _f?'r -1\? .I ? '.,??i ( ??I ,?M I i? f ? ?? ?i?''r Jl , ...?1. 5J ? ?1?/ i .?
r? f?^?-?»???I1f?t?/4/. \_ r ?f l '?y U I.`t? i1? r f I lrl l __ J ?\+ ? ,
( (\ ,r ?J\.)?{? ~.?? ?;.-Id:.?".'r ?titi -1 ?? i'? ?T l 1'li {?I\??
'?\,r r'? J?1 15'? '" JJI'-1_'??1 /l ? `+ -??,?? \ A?r\_ _ r?''?F?? III `i',?' II{'/I .I{l.•
?• 1, tJ,p)Pf? 'r'? ,% 1J e>ti,. ,???? •f ,;?'t ?r '''- ?•'r^,,J ?/I` { ?.? !?`?,(, ( k= ?
'k? _`???{J`-??\tr/_i'+fr ???^. S; ? ,?,,? r ,`Jl ? r 1`(,l. f ..? ,) •;'?? :??I ..i ?? %/,?'•9
1%•j?r Li??? f r ?\sl??j ?i- ? ., J'! %1 1 \?' ?' i ? I ill- - '? .! ?.,,v -r'.
} i`, .J +? - '%,''\4'? I/+ , ? I / r;,,r ?y^1 f . ?? ? `..,?? y .? ,:-??I I 1i ,'?•- .`.'itS .,'"? , _..r:;'1,_ ,J^ ???- :.,fir I,.
?/ ? 1 ? .'tt/?/'° fj' _?'? '??I t' t 1(' J •i? I'i', { I r4 ',1 ", // I' ?'.._?1'?..-,,???';;? - it'?r ? 'r//,.
??"?//?(??-I? \,V 1(?, '? ? ? l/lJt I ???? ,tl ,_ (?1; ?I ( t, I (I Il l-?-A•?9 r1,r1L? ? ??? h??Il,r/? /?/
r: ;i ?J .:t 1 f, ? , 1??? ?? ? ?•' -f?!` ? ; ?'? I ' ? ?? i i/1? I { ' Ti 4 _ _,?,r+l r • %, t ?.
\\?..?1 •t.Y\?\la??'?-?'?rf?:?'j??% ? { ??` ?f(fll? 1 'I??tt 1 ? %°I ??,'atf /?l' r?y,'~`:??+-- ,;:.1:?-
?i'° --. ,,, ?' , ;? .1`I? - 1` I{''`I?1 i?1i1 ('•:','. ? 11'r I I'1I I ? Y ? ? .?..'Jr
V ?J•? )`11 ?\/'? I 4 ti?'? `? ?I '.1 `I -_t?{? l,J ?'(4 f J JJi i /?Jr? l.v'llt. ? I t? .? -' / ? ? ''I
\f `' I, G r ,, I n /rlf ,?1 •J-j ?yy , 1 '-?4 `
'•.? ? , fr ? 1 J/? h\1\{'''t `?I"r 1? I 1 ,','may, '?ti1 V.. r,f' jc,. ?? ? :%• _ 'I 'i/I?. ?'It// 1,?1 `? ? _.
fJ!
\t ,. +/ I ? } ;%/,_ ,>?;,,. .'''^. ?. ? •c.c,, l t rJJt Jr r)? \? ?1 ? ;?i / '? I I I
?' ? ? 1 , t ? 11 J(/?iJ,/f'.i?1 ? R ? ??i '-- ? ??' ,' ? I J('' i 1;; I I ? l O' I rr I (? , ! / / f r l ? I -
'?I't ? ::•-, r'/J?,VI I? ??:'. ?.. ., ? .?:?s ? r-?% i ,?' ? h ?` ..{ {Cri I ?? ? +??, _ A? (i ,'.'' I (.
_?Lt f ?r 'f??„ ?•"?1 ?\ ,? .?., ?,??+.. ',x. `? l I t, ` i ? 1\?, tiN`'`._ __ ?/:I 4, ., - J I r'
,fly ` , +?1,?f.tll\'+,\? J? ?,,???'?? r ? 1•,? ? `,\? ; _ I)/`\?y4° ?' /l.}, ;? /r 'I°
I I ? ,/ r l _.\? ` ?? It iJ•, ? '? . 1, ' \ I (/ , ' ? '? ?? 7 r / I '? , ? I ' ._ r .
.h I, ?,r' /'/ rr t???///?.r .? ? i?'? ', 1 l / 1 I li { it i' I l ?r w ?', ?.' +t..
(? ll,.. rr j' lf`?111ii'tIJJ ,#"?j?,, I f J ?. ? , I '. ! '? 9 I ',+•{'I _- '?,?""I '?` _ ?'=:?II?I il',I?1- •'I'11 `{ ll \ `\?! I/? I} it
1?C.
,' A? `•; .l, j??. ; ??/1 f I . ? \ II ? \\'f. ,';?,?`?Ch- I , i . L: ? , 1. __ Y, ? .1 ?'ll i? ??t ,, ?! '
. r. l,• ' -? t '?. li ') 1, r-?'? r..taJr r/, - r nr f '.,,1, r? i• - 'T
A 9 CDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
T ®P ® MAP PROJECT: 33465.1.1 (B-4110)
BRIDGE NO.5
SCALE: 1": 1500' OVER MOUNTAIN CREED
AND APPROACHES
ON SR 1616 (BAHAMA ROAD)
9' W SHEET Z OF to 5/5/05
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
REFERENCE NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
1 Maxion Bolton
2 Patricia T. Byrd
3 Ricky E. Herron
4 Charles Hill
5 Sandra Hill
6 Walter Allen Linthicum
7 Joseph Mangum
8 Juanita Pearce
9 Frances A. Terry
10 Harold K. Terry
11 Kevin A. Terry
12 George P. Tilley, Jr.
13 William M. Wall
P.O.Box 394
Bahama, NC 27503
114 Patrick Road
Bahama, NC 27503
400 Bahama Road
Bahama, NC 27503
P.O.Box 472
Bahama, NC 27503
P.O. Box 12
Bahama, NC 27503
406 Bahama Road
Durham, NC 27503
308 Bahama Road
Bahama, NC 27503
210 Preston Andrews Road
Bahama, NC 27503
114 Patrick Road
Bahama, NC 27503
9318 Roxboro
Bahama, NC 27503
302 Bahama Road
Bahama, NC 27503
310 Yellit Road
Bahama, NC 27503
1412 Chatsworth Lane
Raleigh, NC 27614
lal CD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 33465.1.1 (B-4110)
BRIDGE NO.5
OVER MOUNTAIN CREEK
AND APPROACHES
ON SR 1616 (BAHAMA ROAD)
SHEET 7 OF (0 5 / 5 / 05
$ . ? V)
0
ae
?"
??
F-j
L2

d ae -b
3 S? aS ?$ ?
N
LLJ
J Q
J
O_
W?
cr- Q:
W
Z Q
1
J_ cr,
LL- vJ
m
V)
O
LQ
V
V
O

z
0
O
Zt

P
\ y
.\
0.7
W
Cv, 4
?O Q
•QO 4
VO Q ? O
Q C
O \
o`
1
I!
I
?s I

-z
?o

`\ \ i0
\ r
O VP?
M
gin"
S«?1fi?1
•Q
V

I
t
s

F
•
S
u
-?
-
Q,
1- J
«
LL M
u
?pW
N
•
ooma
3 y°
o= yg m
Jg °q
<
J p «-
bk O
0

N
U +:
Z? / ry 4
y
pN
N
m o s
2
? O v s
2 a
2
? Z

a aootlR! o N
a
J
: °m in
J
omg 4? m
?" rya J ±

u
J j
1J
4

u

o
a a
B ?
5

y
R
.O 'F a p ^

`
A $ Wy¢¢?W
v ; e id
A
??
' 3 9
S5 ?
o Z h h
_
z
'$ <
a
i

i
a
T v r
0
omo
t
r
Mso
JvWiB ?.
amp n
rJ S
i r
W r
H OC
< a'
J 4y
O ?
w
'uIR ,SO
? I W
Q
?W~ I
W Jr
ors I
a8 II s
a? I 4
u6p-liwied-
0
tZi?
ED a Z
k W
k Q.
:to
? ? O J
0
h H
i • j ow W
O O J U ti
a? m
Z , ?. • W ?? m a
o (n cn
a55 ,' W W
/ i c =
Z zt:.t
/ ? V1
L a
Z ?.
Q
«[ n
A V)
way t. r

? z zr

r z+ {
C???
I

f o v
?t
3 3 ?
a
a
oa s?
N ?? m
l ?
_ U

S du

W
o
H o
F ?
i. U 1
W I
71
0

« 4 1

'
OSIZI SOOZ-100-5
$*31VOS

t;
?
CVO ?n
?,?
a?
V
W
O

8
a k
ZS

W
(5 LL,
LLI
Y
?m
P:::?
LL-8

LLJQ?
V
r
' /
W
Z
U
j
U
W
0
cil
Z
D
s
O
Z
Co
I-(f)

. ` G
ihjt

1

,/ / ?--tom \
s
A
?IN5
a
a g
k ? I rv _ ?
i u6t
v
? 4.
.l
v.
•
0
(f)
b
?g *
mz
N
? QV r
to
W t?i W
-? ?O tWil
Wv1 QR
W? 1
4 ?N r
x
W
w a? ?
0
J ?o pq W ;
'i
W to o ?
W
O
WZ ? W
C8L
0 Q???
W ?3
2
\1
a

N z? N
M M LL
l? N M LL
1? N
• x \
c o s
Z a
4
LL • x \
0 o s
t a
?

3 r
i u b3 ° i
N
P
P °

b
c rc

i W
m?
C= c a

?
O ? ? ? O n
? o
E 4 4

4

'
?
° N
FY
? W?F?
? ; YI b
ao
of
?
4
?Q 3 9
? ?
3 a
?
€ ?
oa ei Z
?
$ a
8
? F

' ?
ca n - _ n N 7 O N
3 3 O V m G
? ? Q o m a
C t
m

$ bs
c?
C,
?

J W 3

3 bs = 3
:
m
st
R No_ .? m
? y r?a7aj

" ? =J.n
_ pI V
Qmi
N JinY?
?m4
•D
? 1
~ J 1 b L u.!
S
? J
QL
?
J
? t
J
O' O ? O q

5
'xoY1 A7 3 « c
h
? I W
Q?Z
W J?
O?-
` I
So I
I ?J
u
1 N

?
? b g
to a
U, .4
JWN V N
N
'ff'
v 4
M y'

r O
O
° .'
k ZZAH ld PI.IMIIPF
coc
n
i-
I
01169\
"P 4\1•
P
601£I SOOZ-100-5(
v? ° W
t
x 63
a z
?
0 N

? v
i
W

y u Off ;
V) Q.
1

00

vJ ?? N

r
W?iW
N U
Q
Q
o
O
Q
??
QQ
?'i
p tt??
?
?ff R
Rjj
t?jj c
oop
Q 8N?N??`>'?11 ? ?
? j u u r u r r u r u r u

N Wi?w O?W? ?
C7 q q J q ly
C-

O 3
m zxxc3wola°
14°
,
?NNWww?, WWq
Q O1/ -7 81 .b N3 0. w`?m ddwWW
w
w
mmQl

? td-f *6t- °
l
°
°
w ? 1

W ?d
1
1 w L£' 73

WI VIn co
2 \ / 1V7 aN
1!?.
6?
o?p ^7W4?'1
r /•? ?Nop ?QNQ
O
N
rr
r h
?hN +
'
J ?W
?r
N
t? Q
W Q
p
(
A
/
u r I h11
J
J1 t?4
CP W , ij;;tW
o
73
m`A ? l ?1/ 3 8 1 ? N3 cwp? ?
10

m?
? r-
?b
i
Z?6 3 ,n
/ Ltf vt&
SI=
d
1
W96
1
7
r 9 MOO 73 1 SS+ /

m?iW . 0
r
-7
v
)JJO d 1 1 b r-

1
ch
r

N

I

I
I
0
tr C14
u6pp1wi.dG l ll"LO:91 SO Z-100-5
10191 SOOZ-100
SS31YO$
s

? x
I ??
s
?
?
US
V a

i
N
zz oN oN
V LL- V LL?
Qr)

03
•1?
\ ~''
:l I
? I I k?k- yj
Lli
a '?' \ ? ?'ibr ? 0•' ? 4i
W J I2I • ? ?o
• OW
w/ i ? ? i/ ? • W ?o
I °
,3
H
i
cS ? L 79
$ ?, .. r
`= a
4
a
W?
p?4
W
W
W 3
47 41
W
a
H ?2

pO WcS
ap O ??
\ 00
\ O a
\ Q
\ ` f

0
--Ln .
1 I I
I to
;.
I

w '. 1 0 ?aL O '.

:??
/
. M ?
s
? t
_
p Q „555
•Q

S
u
?- 4
Lug t
Ou i
N
E? . LL
J m 0
3 3 a
6
o ? ?y a
N :? m
o F$
•
0 o m a
u 3
a
kY
a_ m
N
W Iy.?
mi I ? V .
? J
J T p ?F
Sk O '
0

? ?
=
?o o s
< 4
4 cos
2 n
Z
s Z
U t2 ¢
l ? i
Z
do3gRR o ?o? o ?
a
JaJ? : ? N a
J

om= 44 b ? Wom= o
7 y c 1
N K N ?? ? n
?? r
?- wo
v zu r o
? o
a q
s
0

S $ W ; R
A ! a? q
or ? n
e 'Q ?N p 9 9
?? , ? p
`
W
g?
a F 6
??z Z
F
S
8
+ +
Tav,
0
o m o
= 3 ?
rnba
amp
~ b
Wig
'xql A'I 11 5
,A So
N
0 I W
I--• vWi ` I
W ?.
o4s I
a? II s
N1 „
1
.Bp-s,. j jnq_,4i
31 1
2 ny ?
N°8a m
aWN O N
FiLP v
O ? n M
O
E? v r
)Z-100-9Z
$S31VOt Y:
-t tn
\ w para. C _ ..
? pn
.°. Q Q J
f
?j lQ?
U, LLJ
LLJ
Q) Zui
oN ON
QZ w ,I z p
. `"
W cr
V VW ?
LL,
LL, LL,
Wni:
\ I ?' \
\00M?\ F//,//,
O

l
•

aQ
0
I
Q i ? \y
O? v Q S
n?
O ?
/ p

,I

°
C _
2 v
u
J?
Q ? ? r
LLJ
N o Fj
0
. o?
LL Y ? LL LL y
nn LL h z°b N n? in
h?° v s P ° c s
fa`
' N '
4 i y$ 4
W i
m ? ?o? C?
N
?
a r? N
axp
?
?
? w
C5 44 fi Om? I
rya c I c
`yk
2V 4
H w°
s
wl N

O

g
8
e ;
:

g

wg 0 0

A ?y
?'g ? o
•i 0
Yi
7E 8
9
YI
o t
s
4r n 3 9
? ?
?? ;>z F 8
+
n

?,?
4 1! 4i

¦ 4 LL LL
«3?
1W,so Y
--YIN

Y II li Y T O
O N
• u }?
a

° o m c
° m u + I W
y
7 3 3 ? ?u i
?
1$ u ?`
M/a
" J
I

re
e ui
3 3 ?mP I
a .( l I
K t ? M J
I

s
•xD, A, -

Yb
b a
?
`U
'44 C
z
pnga V R
m
apWB
F°
g ° ? ?
?
?p
W o ? ?rj
n?`
2 V LL J
0
r
u6p•s,ajjnq_-4iw4od-ygs5i
N
Z w
? o
W _
z o

W
"
g
m? W o
LU Z 0

Q H N N

-
O v
v
F- N N
W
J

Q N
W
rv
Z

v
0 ('
N
N CN
N
N
N
wry ?
o r
O c
v N

J ? W
0
? ? w
J o?
U
Q CO N rn rn
a W
Cl)
v o ° 0
"
a

v' J
Q W r o 0
U Z?
a O
N m
r co
n
a
5 F-
C-)
J U
?a x
LU a z
w
LL
M
o z
O
ry?
W ¢00 x
?0
Cf
O
O
Z O
O C 0
0
0
N
VI n
r
r N

W
Lij J

J
W
W
W
W
w
LL

a
° x
Z C)
ct:
v (t
Z 0
0
Q
}

Q

CO N
m
LO
N Cl)
° a
Z
W CN
r- 0
N F-
i
i ?
iV
;SSDATESS
;24-OCT-2005 11:15
;r:\roedrey\pro??II\b4II0-rdy_tsh.dgn
,SSSSUSERN AMESS $S
CONTRACT: 201490 TIP PROJECT.- B-4110 --
N -4 n
O
0
m
_ r0
§E O
OZ 51 Z
mm
C •v
Z 2?
m m
A r
?< CA
OM
O "'
?m
O
C
Z
O O
N
V&ab 2
O
I;^4
? ? la
2?i? s_
?h
x
i' V1
d y
m
V
n2
m
2?5 o
MOUNTAIN CRE? E f-?
r
D2
O
I? ?o
\
ag Eil
O
'b
Y
z
''C O
?Ozi O
p cn
p
,O d O
.O ti O
b C%
~y
t?4
O?
C
b
C)
k"L-4 It

w
a
(? a
?
P
n
}
a
y
igg
9

Q
w ?

3F
I:

o N ^j o T ^? D o v' v, Gl ?j""n ?n ono v o ° °' ° n 0 l1 a'
° a LO 14
"CC T_ c'o c 3. o ?° ? C o o 0 0 , o o 'o N ° o
o n. 3 ° ° ? - N ; ; ; v rtv v v n v vN« v 0
v ? ?• ° ? ?- p 3 c ?
> > o
ON 3 '? O bI?, n O cD - 'p 'r 7 7 7' O ? ? N (D q) (?I
c? ° T r ry?C
o ° CD o v 3 N (o O _ (? (? c? c^o W (n tA
° T? o° ?. °o °$ o' o D m m= a a a a .n o r o• o° !'
:3 t
co ° c , o :3 3 o r o
U2 d '0 o E's O<
(D CD
?-
a c to o o C, o°
g n 'y °c o oa o `° Ib
o
n ? a c w
° v ? ° o
? o ? b
C)
I
T -C) 0
!
Li IIII? I?
5 O .o o -° ?" n v 7 -° 7 I ? III ? 1
, ,
O -=i O O O N«' rt 0 O 0 0 -N« 0 rt O 0 0 rt µ N I. ?
= o 0 C 7 7' < = O N.-.' M
T o ??_ ??_ co ° v v -° -0 '0 v '0 -° '0 nv v '0 D n vn o
? ° N' (D (D 3 - 0 N ?• N N N > > N N N N N ° N ° O N > > > N Q' T 1? O ?'I U3 U IL r. In (O 0 ?? n O O 0 1? (° IV1 o I? co I? O n ID O o (D O 3 ° O , I,yV
7 T y -=i a n a > c a a a n m r_ IL ?_ n. CL m °' n °' C1 ° 3 CL ° ?.
0 2 ID
0 °' v w (n Gl
fl ° G7 m 0 cn N c a a v n
y ° ° = o T s ? ° ° ° ° ° ° ° I° U? ?? O
3 °- o- m ? n (D n D 3 3 3 ° o
, 3 0 0 R7 °- a o °
O G1 c (? o 0 o v v o v U3
EL 7v ;L q q
?
'? a '' N N 3 C C p n° ^ I^y co r 3
n v y m 2 ?0 ?o cD
m m ° ,ST
o W m
v 7 0 ; o
C
O I" T I? I? I r^ ^I m I ? i D 4 O
C: C,
IJ pI I I I ? I I I I I I I
Z W W
0 W (CD (0 0 0 0 CD ((DD 0 0 0 ° ?' ° S"c O C N N. o ? o D (D
(?' ° (n' ° ??' ° v v v v o = to o o 0 3 0 J. ti 3 3 a o' Q °- 3
? a 7 R. o R. -i T° ? N In ? a v N N (n n
000000 CL o a a 0>>>> a z - 11 11 c
° 0 f o 0 o a a s IN (? n g y
o 0 0 0 co m a :3 o :3 ?. o ° ti f n w o m o °
a- CL 13-
c C o o coo a m 0 0 0 o M' (D G7 x m U3 :3
CD :T, (D 0
m 2. fl o 0 0 o co , N o ? cD ° w ID :
?? 0 0 0 ° o ? o o o o o T, n a Z-
o
cr 0,
'° S S o_ (o a (D O a C
Z§° o° o° o (D
A' W () (D On d N O O
N ? o 7 ? r_
? Q' 7 C IT (D 0 f? 0 a -J
cr (D C - (D O Ill ?...
o - W m
C v a
C C m
m m w O
I ( I I I
??IIII II ? ? ?? v
o??aEl o®?5 ; I am®o¢--0- o- o o ??
a I
I I I I I I ? l /"`
I I
m C C C C C O m D cn cn tN, D 0 G) Gl D C co C G °D 0 `t y
7 N (D Q O' ?? rL' tr O 0 ? ? N (D n O n O N n O O ? O -?
a ? - - - - - (? N O 7 7. = O N, N p ?'. O -I 'O to < ° O tD N D m
0 0- - I -I - I r, a 0 N o o D n < 3 0. 3 a o 0 0 0 ,,,, ?o
-" 0 0 ?? C -? r v ? 0 ? A ? o o? ? o? o F m ? 0 2< 3
:3 :1 0
° o 0 o o Z a 7 H N -< G1 a < a a N_ Gl i a- ° (D ? , CD X- X- o ?. o ? m a N. 0 0' 0 0 N 'o a CD (D ° a a (1 0 (0 o a °• <? o
:3 CD CD :3 0 s
0 o to 3 3 w N o o n a A o o T -°T o S o
7 a ? , 0 (D (D G1 N
3 C G7 G1 ° 0 a 3 ° s ^ 13 & I () a i ?
U3 V m r o 2 o a 3: Q = 0 0 C °
c o -D ° Er S
0 0 0 °_ O O o- 0 o O r o
- _ (D O :3 to 0 V n' D W !D 7
C r C On c C y
co m O
a cD m in
m C
Vw n
m D I j l 9 1 I I I I I I I
<0> 0
,i?l ,I I??I ?II
0
m
0
r
z
()
T
i
m
m
3?
W
0
11
O
a O
two
ri)
r

2
O
J
10/4/2005
3.3503 PM
rs\roodroy\proj\64110_rdy_typ.dgn
v
C D

n
D
r
N
m
Q
O
z
z
O
N
z
O
m
F.
z
1
m
O
W
0
m
m
y
D
m
c
z
r
m
0
O
x
0
z
0
m
H
cn
m
V

?
W N
U
? P •-1
O
?

? O
? o
A
N
0
0 n
T
?

o

g
O f 1

r A
A
0
o

D
?
? z
o N

?
? p A
()

_i m v 0

o °
n u v
n' a
U
= z. z• z•
<v <v <v
D
.-.1 m-a my my
D O D O ? 0

H 0 ° X 0
y m• m• m•
I 37A 9N SN

z
m z m mD 'p
-0
O D
mm o D
mm O
m n <

L" m r" 7 K) r- m
-D wD N-1
Q) r- cnr O

-1
-1
r n m
r r mo z
W0 W0 cnz J
In O p O 0
z z
m
n w v
m
C
-u x vw m-1 n
mm mm nom C')
S-1 9.4 =
m m o cn
° °C m
°m co ° m v

m o 0 C
? t 0 r
°n °s "' m
o 0
c n o
w o c
cn C m
m x o
CD m
m

m
u m
m
o m
N Cl)
m
0
O (O

o A
m
l
7
i
a
C
Vf
m
M 1
?z? N
DO D m
M
0-4 C), Q
?O + p
z Z
mw o,
m z
?c00 O O
O -r-i V, w
'n N -
wzC
X0
J
Dw0
r- Z
m
w D
70
0z
Cr7
30 m
Z
F= ?
OD
N
N Z
m
z
-i
1
r
D
Lrl
N
Ch
O
of
N
G
D
O
C
D
v
r
r
^O
l !
O
z
V)
C ZO
Vf ° ?o
m
v AA
? os
D r >r
0
W z
N
z N
O
z
c
n
O
z
C/I
m
O
z

A
O
O
N
'v
O
O
•'? ° N

m O

z N
Z
o
N
o?
9
?
m
O N
? In

O

m '
r
A
v
D
N r
O
6 w
O

N
O
z m
O
mm
1 2
0 77 n
< DD m
wJw
D ++ O
m aO z
m Z-4 o z
N O Q
r
0 --1
O
m N
N N
1n +
m 0o Ol
O
O
O
N
N
N
r)
O "5
i
n n
?Q
i? z

[fro 0
Z:
o
AN
0
7 z

z
r?
~
z
z
0
4110_rdy_peh3e.dgn
O ^-
y

z
d
y
t' m

O
+
L
U
+
'

+ + + s v
?? z w w y

1 r
H
H r
H r
O

O
D '
o '
c J O
c 'J.
o
o G7
x
ccn m

o
c
° n
° ;u x
< O
v Z
0
v x
T O
D O
(7 C
mW
O r
m
j + + + m v
' L o n
o ° o' A
n
z
-i

mo v
o
on z

r -
4
mTz
to v,
s o, a OA
o v
- En
v?-4

_:lur,
D T

m
r
m

zz >

u r% - T
v. m OPU

m?
v?
ox

N
? W ?
N
O C
D
z
x
w O
o y

X
n
D
D
N ?
Ott
D ? 3
9
mD
G, -i
w ?

z m
° z
C)
O ;u
X
v (n F:
zz
r=0m
H C)
?
`
i y M
y

0

IJ .l

0

D
m

y
z c){So
= n o m
o ? -+ y
W co) c
0
Z. '*4 + v
n c m m ¦
r7I g
o j3 o
C A y i
D m n
p r?c`ni?T
A
o ? m
n --
rig O02 _0O
o T
m
n°o
m ?
0
rnrnr?-
or
T D
n v0 0
1=O
m r
O C
r;5
A
O
Ol
c yT?
A? •p
O
r

N IM"
7 ffM]]
.? H M
w p ti
n
y r+
v 1?' Cj d
M M
H ?.
z
o ? o
0 0 o c
nr,nr.
M M
Y + + p1
Q
;u
to
r -i
0
z w C z m
cn
D 0 P, b
r o'l

7? n

--?

-C ,
O
0
G
...?
-4 cm of O
31
N ?'b pA
C _
y
o
+ y
V ( O + O

la
b X C
?
O 1 ti ? v d ()

mc
n D
.+

c a Q
x
o
o ° y F

m

o c ?

- ? O
H ?
y -vi n n ?p
J y
r r r ; n
?
y
c

c

w

+
W

O
0
?o?o''(y^A
?ly
C ?
m 47
C) 's
v
O m
v
m
i
D
mo
c°n
CB'7
C CTl
V
4I
ro
S?
?r
?ro
r
? O
0
o Z
?n
>w
?Z
? Z
0
:99DATEtt
IId4
y W
? a mp
.. ° ?Ar
ooy
N °
0nj
psh4.dgn
11 '?
3 (( ' 9
( ?v
I ?rm
D
a?
F
1 •?
T `
O ?
n 0.51 wn'
P
7
o r
p
-ai
1
r1
T i?r"
•pa
y r m
Q
GgW
omo
N ? Q
o

+
:

s

2 ,

F

r ._
- s
a a a p ?F ea

b b d s ?4 $$

b
b
2a h
?
E y y Q
Q
b 4. ? ^ aB
,

b
b b
b > F s. .
b b

?z
o ? o

n + 4 r??l ? -? Q m
? ;
m ? ; o
ow w

ova 2
? - o o?
A
" •'? 3000 Q A

L
+ n W N ? ? 1
r W W

I8
y ? r
s
ti
N
?omno
N W - -

O
0 Og
m Gddd
7 ?
m0
4?rn
" O
m p a
6 q -
° O
r'Irx
r
-N-1 4

/
??K?HI
/ i \
?ter Ibq? /
R 8 1.

,•e;oo
w1aNo
+ ?u
8 O
$ ? to
NIO
?vv// o q+ s
a I 47?,!'m
fi V
I ? ? O
7 O
:, I I
Iz _-
i
.. ..
?
..
? pTJ7?.
a Z. -? 0• O
y ?i.IC.6
. .. .. ..
a •?
R.2 Lei
0
i 1
?1 8
0 0 ,m?
w>r R
• ym ?1? " r
?? ?p •A
r
u ? S?i .v u?
.qQ c+y
G 3•
o N
? o
?
L
as 7? a
b / r

C rnz / ti?,• a S
? a
a
?
to
6 ? 7
?? / / •'+0
.a?
1 ? ?
i i// ,?I K xy R GIs
o?D
t'n
Cb n / ??wp a
m
og I
10
yy X710 Vl ? +,• ? •' pw+
(n ?7 t71 ti•
Cb f71 Y ?„?
c
` Q D' 3; '66 poz k
0? ? ? o° ' ? rC'C4CCS ?k
(11 ?Qa ' ?3.BC.CI fCi V 1?.j '?? ? N VOw+. G!
?\ •sZ•CYI FY ?O P± M
m J
? n?im d 3.Bf.RCCi rs
m' 8
M ? I•

•?
a \ /
`71
1 , sK'
2 ?t 0
/$
;.90,54155
.9
? $3
u
;. a
00 ' a
-? Ny1= Ll z
N •' U
i Wm- sJ i
`D?_ na Gl
0
S3
a
( m
U 4 t
"
?I o
I "
S
Z
1 I r
'?I ••If$ rO
s'a?.• o
Op LI \
d
?P
Q r
n
WNK
20
1 .

?D `i?oD v
'M o t, VR
to -0
1 1 M t R II
t?, w o
b
It

x t G7
c? 1
?z
A4?j t

i 171 ui"i
4 }}_A.,, ^AA
C CC7

-° } 1 N r1i
no
r?l

i
m

1
2 IZ
I
s 'b
c EV
p7 Oz k
Z
g? z? ?
10/1©/2005
12:01:43 PM
r:\roadvoy\pro,l\b411©_rdy_p,h5.dgn
ti..:., n .., -
I I ! I I

.

i

4 '

i
1

;

?

:
1

I
1

;
.

q

.

"

?

?

?

I

'

.
1..1..

.J..
.1I

.
I

,

I
1:1

i...
-

._:.

.:.

I

?

.,.

I

..

I

1

... _:

. : t ,

l
1

I _:.

1
1

1
; , 1

.

{ ,

.:.

;

.

, 1: 1.; :

1

1
,

{

.

i

:.:- y

I :

1

..,..
1 ? i-11

I
I

I

?
I

1 '
.. I.

i.# ,
1
I
.,
+1; 1 :

: I I

j
?.
!, t1l

!
1

1

_

f

i

"

1

,
** ,

1
,

?

i

t

,

,

-

I

:

;
1

"

?'
,

?

/ l

._

t

1

_
:
...
;
- _

?
_

1
, _

,

t
t

1
;
1
-:1
i1
I
1

1

I. , I. i
,.

1

-1
_
,

._

Y
{ 11
__
.
..1;..

I

_ ii

__ .1

..i I

: l

..,

{

.

_

.

i I

:

A

I

'l

i
;i
... .
: .1
:

.

:

'

, .
I
II

j

4

I I
;

.

I
.

!
;? 1

:I.
I
I
I,
:

i?, ?

11
.

?

1
.. ,

.

I 1

1
1

I ,' , ,

j ? ;
-i"! _

.I. iii

i

f .I.

I
11 -
I
i
!,, I rl::

1 -I
11-1
_.
x:11' .

I
1..

:'?I
„I
:.I I
I.!

I;

L.i

.i

f

t-
I

I I.

1
I ?:

I

.. il 1

1 .f

1

.

E

.

1

I

1

a I

i

' ,

. .1

.

,

ll
:,
I
?

l

'.
,

I

1

.

;

._
L

I

., } r:

1
}:

I 1

1

T.
. IF 1
?.
. , . _ , . « 1, : , . ; , _ ( I . I

' 1 : I . 1 , , I .

i

{
{
{ _....
:

; ..
1
1
, , [} .. .,.

.

}
L1

1 4.. ..,_j..: j

t
1
•j.11I
,

i.111
; t;
.
1

1
, i
i
I
,
; .'
!
, .i;1
,

I 1..
. ,
?
I.
:I,
1 . ._ :
1 I1;

1 . . :.._:
{.1111

L_1:1.11
'1?11111i ..1.
1;

..
- l:t.i
i'ill? 4 1

1.
11

+
;1;
1

1
;-
f

,...1..,
,
.
!
,
,
:
-
:
1
.L A
.1
.

1 ?
I

I

-1

f

(.,

_

. $ A

{

I

.,

.

.
1

.

f

I

1.
.
II
,

j

1f

I
,

:1.:1

.

. !

. 1

I

.

-

r

I

.

}

?

I

?

.

11 :.
,.
r.: I

:

?.

I
1

?

.L

,

1

L

;
f
1
.:

,

..

1

.

.
1
.

1
,
.:

1

1

..

.
. .
r ; i t
.
,1
,I f}

::

.._ _.. , .
i
I
'
:
I

.
I
1
. #
+.
i 1

,:_

..
i
,i

.

.
I

i
,

..

.f
1
,
_:
;

.

l
I
.

il

..

, .__,
I ?
,'L j
.
I ;
.,1 :
1 f
i
..ill
1
1:. .!

.. .: _
f
r
f

? _

1 I ;
_..i
,i 1 ;

,
: v_ r?
f : I - T .
Ti
I ; i , r :
. ..:_.
. ,11';
1;
...__

`_ ..1:

(
- _ I .."
;I f 1
. ! # 1
I ._ : .
t
t
..

..:.:..
. I ? "I i .
, III
I r t , 1 ,
..n.. i .

#?4i
t i
1
.. I
L.l..: 1.1

.
A .
i, .
, i
irI
I

+
,
?..1_.

l
iri,

.:

I
1

:

:

-

N
I
,

i

11, I

.I

1
.
-

i

_

.
..
1:1
1
:

_
.1
I

,
.:?
?.

::.1

.

1
I
,
"I'll

,
:. 11 ... ?
i

.

,
.;.
? ....

I
- ..

:
.....
1:1
.

::

T
1
.__ I
A

.l
I

:

.

.*

1

.

.

?..,
1 .
1

l
I i

I

4

:1
1
+
..

I

'

1

11

i 1

1

I

{

1? ?

..
1

j-

1
I

,

I

!

?

I

...

_
t

I

:
(

1

I
I

_ .

. ,

:.1;

, l :
.... ,.

_ I

i :
; 1
1
1Y
11'

L ..1_
;
1

. .

1;. I

1

i

4 I
1

,

_.I
, ,
i

j

. I
I I .t 1i
I;I it

:, ;

, _
L _(
1
I

i f 'i I
.11

-1' f

_ ;#.
, i; is

1 I i
1

1 1; 1;
1

_ f
11;j
1,'11

1 .
T1 i!I
!
4 1 t1
1111
'I
i 11, (;.

1 I
#
1:1 ?. jl:
t

_i..._i.l

,

I

, #

1

_,

_
-i

_

1

o

I

I

.

.

I

. 1
.'

t
l

i,

.
:I

11

1

i

k

;. f

...

?

?

.

I

(
!::

I

.,
:
f.
_1
,
_.

,

-

:

4.

-
I
1

. .

..i.

_ !.

.

i

1
:1
II

I

-
:
'

?

,

t I

;

1 ,

r

•

1 ;_
1

I

.I

I

.

,

I

;

1

!
?

.

1 ,

"

tI 1`

(

,

'

.i11
,.

.

1 i

i.

,

-

1,1

,

. :

1-

?

j
i

;
1

i

t

1

I

.:

+ t

I., 111

-...

..j:l

,

i

1}

i
,
,
I .1,:
{

I
C.

.1

l; 1

, .'
(
(,I
., , :

I.l

; 1.. 1

I

I
i
;

i i
..:

1

!_

t

I

1.

.J

.

I

..

..

i

f

i

}

T

:

:

:

:

I

.1

1

21

L

.:

t

_

1

.

.

1
I

? _

I

I

I

.

1

I

.

1

I

I

{

I

1

l

I

I

r?

1

1
I

I

i
.

!

1 ..:..

- ..:..

l

I

1
I

.

1

1 :.

.

I

I !

I '

i.

:

i ...-.

_: l

1

;I

1

!

r
I

1

, - _:. •.
-,,1

I
.t:I:
...,
l

.:

i

,

.

i :....r..

;

.

1 l

.

;.

I 4:..

I

i

, ..:

;

, .F.

..

1.

( ....i_-....
1;

11
, ;II

I _t..

, _+. 1 .:

_
:

1 ..,_i-

I ....
.
#
.k ,
?,.
. I

I

} I . ,

i • . r... _

7t

., 1;_..
I :I: ;'

, .......' 1.

:

L. 1 , ,1.. I.

I ..... . I . I ::...:. .

Il,i rl

_._. I.
'.I.;,1I

, ! 1

1 { 1 i ,
_>.
: I .......

:11 I I

1
I; ,

1
; 1 , I i ; 1

1 ...1...

i i,I

..,..'..

I ,

`

,

.: ;

..1..: ??

/.

.

1.

-

:

1

I

..... 1

1

i

1

:.

'

-

I

1

.

.

..

;

-

t

1

I
.

.

L

,

[

I

..

{::

}..

.

1

I

...J

!

,

..t.t

, -

/

(

.1-!

.i:; - 1.1

.
: .

1

.

f

:

I

L: I
I .

i

1

#'

_

?

I

I

1

1

i

.

i

1

*

?
+

;
,

I
I

;
I

I

.

I

l

.

;.

? ....t
1

I

.
I

,
1

.
. ,

,
_:i.1I
V

i

:
.
I ,

I
II

1
,

I
'

.
1

.
i

?
I

,

}
.1?
1 1.
, 1:1
11
:. i ,

_,i.

i
}

1
- . .

. 1
;:. i

11.:

#
,I.II

11.111111
.1 . .
I . . I
1 :,, I
,, i 1

,

(

1 1
:;?? 11;.

i

--

j _

..;....1..1

,

1!1

i
.
..,,

. }

I

1

Gf

.
-

_

,
.
I I I
I

_
I j

I

.
, ... -
,.

_

11

4

1
+;
,?
? _T

:
....
j
1 ,,..?,? I

1

,

P?

#

{

T

f
?..
.1;
?

,

I

i

I

..

.

I

.1.1

1

;
.

}

I

1
I

-1

m

,-
_1 1

I

rI
r

I

,

+

t

1.
.....
:?

,I

._
.

I
i

I
I

I

;

{
L, 1

1

:

. ,111

, .

I

: f

'

i

,

:

t "

f

,

1

;
.,

i1
._
I

,

t. I i
.......
t. 1 i

I

i

1
_ :

1 II#:
_ ,._

_...,_jII
11 . .

jll

,
:.
1

11, ,
1 :.; ..
111

..i 1-..1, .

1

}111

i 1

1:,f1..l
1

1
1
?
1.1_

I

f

I Ij

r

! :1

A

I
_
-

{

#

tl

I

j

?

1

;

1

,

.

_

4

,

'

L

f

!

?.

r

4

1..f

0 Jb

.. 1,

i

N
__

P

i
.

{

.
_.
_:.

..;_

;::

I

,
_.
a

d

i

(
_._
1:

1
..I_.:.
.

}:
..._

`,

!

r

?

`1
A

b

?
_..

"
_
I t

?

i.
f
...
i

_
_,....

1
L... _

1
I

,

,
1
_.

..

i 1( ....
,
.._. .....
:
_._ .
, 1 .
:I .
_ .
t...
_,
... l
,
I 1
_, ,
_,_
,
. -
i . .
_.. ,
.,. 1
.
_. ,.
.1_1 1
+
- .
1 I
I
:..1_{.1 1 { t
_ . _ ,.., J
}
it , f
.,..
,..,.I
1
:... - .
.

. , '14 +
5 ,
5'

'
EE
?.
.
4
01
4
.. j
_:._
i
1 I
.
I

.

1 _.,

} .._

f
; . p p
x

J

t

`
' I 1

r

.
1

1
I

1.

? '

.....
1{

: I

..

.
?: ?

?

I +

_l.
1

'
,

I

I 1

_..?{
.

_.4

1 .

...

.
1

C '

..
I ,

1 ,

,
1 .

..... '

..:.

I

.

,

.

1 1

..
11

, 1

.:..
1

. 1

-..
:
,
j

,

I

_

,

.'

i

;

-

+
,?
I

11

I

I_I

,

.l

i

1
, 1

I

;

:
1
1
i?r, :
, * -
, , ??

L

;

;

1

t

I

.

?

I

.I

,.

:

1

_

I

I
;I
,

i

_

.,..11

!
11

*
, 111'
! „

_

{

.

..;..

_ t

:

!

1

?
11

1

..t

11

i?

.,..

+

-

I.

i

-1

.•

:

I

.

I

.

,

.

I

1

. ?.

, B

E

I

.

, EGIN
a3
L
1 x+.95

_ A T B AS

f

l

P =
L O

.

,

5 rTCH

+

,

0 RT --r

,

/.

`
. r.

.

..I

.

I

:

:

I

I

(

_

.

-

,
a

?
hl

I

-

.

a

,

;. 1

I

.

?

;

?

,

1

I ......
i
T!

:I
.....

?
l
:

;:

i
;
_...i

I
l
I

I
i

1 1

I

T
_

.
.

..

?

II

,1

i
.i
t
I

1

I

1I

i
.i

.
:
:
I _

{
.,

...
..,

.:

_

?

11
11

I

;
_..

.

t.
.

,

,

i

7
...;
-:,.,.1:1.1
.
l.. :

I

I

!
.i-;,...!
.,11:,1
,:I

t
..,
1

1......

I

'

1
1
.iI

1

_1.1

r
r

t

,
.

I

L.. ;

I_

il ,- i

I

:

l

..i.
4.1
-i

?

1

'

}

,

I

I

t

.`

,

1
_

}

.

1_

l

I

,

}

:

1 f

1
1_. L 1
jt1 ,
,j ( i
I,: II l !

......... .

,t.
ir.
{:,..., I

:

.
1 1
1, , 1

.... .. (

,,.

.{. I, t

,

, !?

,_ . 11

,?.: t
I ...?
i:?11

.

1

:
I
I
_,_: 1

1. 1 I
,I: I :
.I 1.-

f -
, 11 t
..
, . (
1 1.. . :_1:.1.:;, .

1. . I 1, I , 1
-' I I ,
,1 11 I: #:
;11
.•

1
,,
I{ III
;1 II

1I 1
...

I
11 t.11
1

,

t I: #

,1: ,
1.t

t . I

; , I I t

{,1 1

.I.:? I1II;;

.,I ,

_I -
. {}

I

1.111, .?..
I

m

_

' 1

I 1

..,I
{I tI

t

I

{
I

t

? i

, r_f ?

..1.....

I 1
{{

1
i !1I
#
-
t. ., }
f ..I
I -
t I
t I

i
11

I ,
i. 1'l I
.i 1.
1:
i
i
I
1.1 I 1
,:
t
m mm !
i
:I_I_'.J I
:1 .
I :'
1.1
?5
F_N
+25 R r I j
D'3'LAT BASE
# 1 I
117 ' CH

L. 1

i
{1 p2

,%
!
.._

1.
.l
1 i
f.
1
#._I I
.

-1
1
Ik
1

I
;:
1 1,
111

! ; I

;
II

I .

'

' i
.

i

! I
;j
.
.I ,

,

f11
,

' .
.?
1 ?
. 1
..I V Vn

1

!t
-?

,.

1
1 1

__ e t

1
1
!

I
1 r-

? '1

I

I? l.t

8''2

1

I
:f

1'

I

I 1
t

. ; 1 1 1

' I

1

1' 1 I 1 k

1

t

f 1

}
1
, ?. ..1', 1

_,

1
.,, :.;

.._.
,
I: .: t

';,I
i •
i
!,.

._ i
: i

,

:

? I

_:
; 1 '

f

?

L r+? - I I n, x I I
r r r r
r m
p? 11-4 r

! -aa?-- )
a
I
I
Na+
rm
b

ji
:
1

-

-

J

' 1
:
11. '':!

i
;t
' (
_
-I---, 5
f

f
..It 1?
+"

i

'•
•i_'.

1
1
-, }
!
!.1,..i:

1 Lil
il I
(;
!

f 4
.I .1 11

1

i

u I
,1..1..

p

-_ I I: I 1
,- I

I 1
1 1

1

I._I_1_._
: i
:f i i.1

ill. 11

1, , I
14. -
i I1I1
f -,-,--
' - I 1

I 1 -

1
k I

: ,I,I a
No
CD
N
N
V
?? i
I
{
I I --
-
---- ?
.i
- , i , . __
i
I __,__
_
,
I ? I ,,
-
'
,! 1 1
, ?
I
?
(il
_>

1
' i ,

1
? I ;
, , ,
I
?
' -
u a
65
w? ? 7 ?
I ;
4
? i I l? I I ?1

f I

1
?
1

I

?
?
?

:

1
I I
1

l

ri

'

`
; ..I

!
?0?
oc? ?~

O?N L71

I

, I 1;

- l
;
8

'B
.' 1.
+10 R

EGIN 4,

AT

-
-

#
? ?
Y5•/i ?

#

: ?. 1 I

`ii
i

1

:i
,:

-
I
I
8

? i

?'
_
1
I

,

_
1

I_ 1-,.
,

i

i
? ' _ --_
??

I

11 '' j
i
i

irii
I 1- w
j
BASE-D1rC? :
N
1 it

I
I

I
I

1

'

I

?
!
1

? ; i
L

:
? {'I 1 1, i, d l
i
I # EC 377 08
1 i
1 1
! { 1 1 i! .! t I I 1

1
:j I i ?
1-11 _
1:1 Ii''

_

"': , , ,

I

-77

i

?: ; ;
!:

",

!..
I

ILI.

i
? I i
I
-,
1 -
I-

O
A

11

?

? I

I 111 il

;

l

i 1? . ?
-

, I I 1 ,

I .

! ! '!

I

1

I 1

d
` "1
;,I

?

,'

1

'
I

t
g
I.

?

w-

t?

?

I
1
.
!
j1

{

1I
1

I

f

I

I

? 1
R
--

:
t

O ?w?oOO

m
?
?K,K,

-

I +
I
19+15
ffl

? ,

A .45E

.

L

C

1

?

-

_!
k
1

I !
1

-
1
I
kI
1 ._1

1

t• • ,
Iii. • 1 '
,
. 11
:
?
1
:1.t1
II : 1 or
!'
*I m q ? o ? :b ?mmn, iii
''
W
1?~ O OOO??Q
? ? b
m ?a ? ?, o .
.,:, ..
i:
, IL
H 1
L
37
I 1:
t
1
1..
j
:t
j?
r
I
!,

1
I
?
I,

?
,
;
' - ,

?
1
1 ' I
- - I ,
1!
.
:I I
: .:I

_ -
1
.J-
1 1.
1

}
,I1

1
:
T O ci = c? R1

x ?? ??z
1

, ^'?Q
r
?, i ' , ; 1.

';
4

l : I ? l _
1 ! i

1:1 '

I!1

1 1 ,'i 1

, I I
, 1
1`
;
I1i

!

'
li? I

1

,
1 ' _
j-.

;
i , I ? 1? I
.i

! 1 ..I 1 1

; I ,

I

?1II .
1
t

11
t 1

I k
:11
'
; '
,
-
s y
?
' 1 ? ? i a , "? o

!

o

-

-1-r ?-l

i iI

- j -' 1

'
I i

!-4

{
1

1-- _?
IT, :1

l

`- 1 k '
I

III
I

! I

I
ii it
1 i
_? g
=1
''I.i
I
I
I
1
:
f '
1
1
!
". _:-_..

1 j:
._,.
_,
.
• •
._._._...,.,, _
!
- I R
.?.,.. p p 4 p a p 4 11 II 4 4
p
1

L4 N 1A N Z4
tt
n :I ,;
-:- : I

-
--- t. I,,

- -1 ; i I

1 l : I I

,__ .
;- ;
T ;

i
1 1

? ?
A
i-
i I 1;.
:
- --
-1' 1 1
? ?
; Ii
1 `-
x I-; I
-
!I

, Ii; I
-'
.
; I:;
}
'
-1 l .
I,
I
1« 8
p?
?
W
?ln
'1
w O N O
II ! III;
' 1
1 1
( I 1 1
V
' 1-i

1t

i ..

`.;

'

I

I .,

1
I
I
..._ '
!
'? \ ?
O
O
8
+ a N b b n
I.I 'Kn Kn 'tn
1'..
:4 ??AP'
i n
1
,,
', i.:

i
'
:!

_
I".'

1
i

1
I. i _'

,, !

: #: n, 1

fi
,.I

i

?
1'!'

k

r
'I
1

i

i

1 1
_ __

1 I '
?..

I I '

Il ?1

1
' I 1

_i 1.1 _I
,

'

I
t!. 1i;1
t

t

14 11
1 : ; !
; 1
?

?

1 1

I
: I 11
1
,;; ';t I? 1 [
1' ,
;: :1
' 1 ,
i

?.1

I

, I 1 ? -

1 1 1 !

I - 1.

( r

j p '- A
x o t I`'
p
I t, a t
I

1. ?

1

1

f l i

:
1 1

1 1 1

'

i

1

'I
1
_._,_

:1

1

1
?

, 1
1 1
I
_
i
(
'1

11

*

?
?; ,
N

;
I

, I

, I
I

I
.I.
I -1.
,1 . ?
, ?, ?i 1
I
!
1 ; I :_
::-;?J :t?! :,
j, :1; ? ,
?'I ? ? ?,
: 1 ;,: I
1.
i

1 : . !1

k. H ! i I 1, I

,.I
1
:L

_::___

_ ?
! I I
_ _ ?
-
'..1,! 1111 11 1 {.. i,l 1
- r_ _ _- :
,
N
.1, O
a
f
. i -
I i (-
f
i.
-
1
I.
I
l- __1
I,
. _-- _,-
1
I __ I - - I I
L.
; - -

1

,
I .

I T

1 .
:. :

,
1 ._J_I :_ _

I
I. 11 . . 1
t I1:t I r
1. 1. 1 ! 1 :It; J?
,'+11 it I !l i 1;
+
.... I i I t .I 1 . , ! -i ?

1

1:

i

I

E
1'
l!

t
I
?

l

I -1 11 11 , , , I I , ,

1

.
1.'a 1; , I

1

,
,

1
i
111; ?

.
1 1 ?
1
1
I
: :i I

i ?
i F

. ?
I- ? I I ?:
t..1 i ? , I i 1

.

! 1

1
1

,

o

0

n
1

1 r

.

t
._

.

t

II I .

,

;

;

I

I ,
:.,
I'.I:! 1 - - - " '_
.. !..:
((

: -
.:`

I
1

I
'

< ?
?
,

I

t

I

1
I
I 1 t

1

;
?,

,

I?2 1 1

t
I

I

1
1 1
I

I I
1 1I

1}
1

1

'

.l
:i.

_

1

I

-
-

N

.

I I

1 ?

R

I

-'

1~

I

f

'

?

?

,

, I

1

1 $

10

A i?;

a

?
??,

?, ?
11

.
1:ill ?_

'.. 1 ,: '

, .- .-
---

li
-

1
1
-im-
It
I
11,

{
.1:'- ,
ii

,
;,11,11
,:
1. 1

?

,!

1:

:
-1 ___

.I ,
I-
--

.. ! f
i I-

11

'
(4

f
I
11

L._1:.

1

.:
7[

,
#=

1

1
I f 1 1

I
I'
f

1

i
i1

1...

?

t
1 1

r

I
1
i

1

(
zr

y

5
?

_
L

c

«
a ? ?;

,; II
I
.::

!

!

k 1
1
1?

I I

.

.

,
'

. ,1,i

I

1_;!.11

I

.

1
,

{ I

I

_

;.1

I ?

i;
I

k I

1t '

1

.
i 4 ._

? .

az

? te
?z

a

V
f1i

,
IL;

ii i1
'

1 I 1 __

i1 I

1

,

k

:
I '!{111

1

I 11

.

.

t

. j

j

I

.,

1

'

'Ij}
? i

1!

I

I

1

I

'

I

'1

,
11i

+

=

p

P

N

O

?
m
n,

1
?
O r?
?1`C
'?
I.
j,

..I 1 I

I.
,..1 I' }
iii

,;I:1.11

,..
,I.

,
1 ?
1!
j
.I I'

1.I
1
1.: 1

i li

I_ t I r 1_I -
.1 +1

. .1 II

.,
{_ t.
1'

!

.
..

. .
j:

1 -,
1 I

1

,
?
1
,1
I

. ; I
? I

I

, . ,..,

1
1
i _, . I ,
i

l

1
{ .
I

N
1

!
.

'
1-? i
I

1

,

.

_ [
I 1

11
1
1 }
, 1
1

I-1
1,
1
? I

,
1

!
+
:+#

t
i:

.?? ,

I
-
a

O
?Z
ro

'

e y

Z

?,
_
1 110i.
(
Z 7

m

y
o

O

:

t

I

?
u_n
I
( L

j

j U
ZZ

O
A i 1 I Q
br.g.11
'D
43
Z
O

N
" J - - J 1 - J _ J J - J -
" O O M M M Co M cn m m O W 0 m A A N
t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t .
O M O M O M O M -? O n> Oo 01 N O (n 0 O d
O O O O O O O O M V
• N W O O O O O O m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V in 0 iJt 01 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D
Z

? ? Z
n ? I
-
c ? c ? n
n i O
CL x n r
.
'
A V V ? O O O O O O --• N ? V V N W O

r
c
• c m ? m v

r v a Cr vi
L W

N Cl) N W 11 V O W W (11 (J1 W W A (O W 0
i Vl W N N O tD (A cD W O N A CD W N V A O
, 'T1

' O

Z

,

' n

•
:

?
0 ?
CCU

VA
H

Iql
broyoll
r:\roodroy\Xao\Xpl\b4110_rdy_1_zpl.dgn
1014/701?I5 4:37:53 PM
broyoll
rAroedwoq\Xao\Xpl\b4110_rdy_1_xpl.dgn
10/4/2005 4:38:A2 PM
broyell
r:\roedv ry\Xso\Xpl\b4110_rdg_1_xpl.dgn
10/4/2005 4:38:09 PM
o stem
{ ?} Q it,
PROGRAM
INVOICE
August 30, 2006
Mr. Greg Thorpe, PhD, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Project: TIP B-4410
County: Durham
DWQ No: 05-2138
USACE Action ID: n/a
EEP Record No. ILF-2006-4794
C) S
You have elected to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements of the Section 401permit issued for the above reference project
through payment of a fee to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). In accordance with 15A NCAC
2H.0500, the amount you owe has been calculated as follows.
Buffer Zone 1 606 sq ft
Buffer Zone 2 3,351 sq ft
Buffer Total 3,957 sq ft x $0.96 = $ 3,798.72
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 3,798.72
A budget transfer will be processed in the Total Amount Due. If you have any questions concerning this payment, please contact
Beth Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Please note that a payment made to NCEEP is not reimbursable unless a request for reimbursement is received within 12 months of
the date of the receipt. Any such request must be accompanied by letters from the permitting agencies stating that the permit and/or
authorization have been rescinded.
YOU MUST BE IN POSSESSION OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT FROM NCEEP PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE
ACTIVITIES AUTHORIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ARMY 404 PERMIT AND/OR THE 401 WATER QUALITY
CERTIFICATION.
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Bruce Dillard, DOT External Audit
File
P. c?2 oe14?
SEP 7 2006
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
RP.storu-t9..-'E.. Prot" Our fta&

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
r I**.-
4l;ji
o stem
PROGRAM
RECEIPT
August 31, 2006
Mr. Greg Thorpe, PhD, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27609
Project:
County:
DWQ No:
USACE Action ID:
EEP Record No:
Amount Paid:
Check Number:
TIP B-4410
Durham
2005-2138
N/A
1LF-2006-4794
$ 3,798.72
N/A (fund transfer)
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) has received payment as indicated above for the
compensatory mitigation requirements of the 401 Water Quality Certification/Section 404 Permit issued for the above
referenced project. This receipt serves as notification that the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project have
been satisfied. You must also comply with all other conditions of this certification and any other state, federal or local
government permits or authorization associated with this activity.
The NCEEP, by acceptance of this payment, acknowledges that the NCEEP is responsible for the compensatory mitigation
requirements associated with the project permit and agrees to provide the compensatory mitigation as specified in the permit.
The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the US Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998, as indicated below.
River Basin Wetlands Credits Stream Credits Buffer
CU (Sq. Ft.)
Ri arian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh Cold Cool Warm
Neuse 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,957
Please note that a payment made to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program is not reimbursable unless a request for
reimbursement is received within 12 months of the date of the receipt. Any such request must also be accompanied by letters
from the permitting agencies stating that the permit and/or authorization have been rescinded. If you have any questions or
need additional information, please contact Beth Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
-V-?tj
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
John Hennessey, Wetlands/401 Unit
File
William D. Gilmore, PE
Director
Rector' 'E.. Prot Our rte
oe?P
SEP , 2006
DENR - WATER QUALI
WETLANDS AND STQRMWATE
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
imap://rob.ridings%40dwq.denr.ncmail.net(ci),cros.ncmail.net:143/fet...
w
.I
Subject: Re: B-4110 Pre-Con
From: Rob Ridings <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 14:54:14 -0400
To: Anthony Talley <[e-mail]>
Anthony,
I will not be able to attend this meeting ...I'll be on site in Northampton County
that day.
At this time, I have no concerns for this project, so long as all conditions of the
401, GCs, and Buffer Authorizations are met. However if you need DWQ
attendance/input, I will attempt to schedule another meeting or get a representative
in my place. Just let me know.
Rob Ridings
Transportation Permitting Unit
Anthony Talley wrote:
Guys,
I have attached a preconstruction conference invitation letter to
this e-mail. This is an invitation to attend the precon meeting
for a bridge replacement on Bahama Rd. that crosses Mountain
Creek. If you can not attend or would like to have a separate
environmental pre-con just let me know and I will try to set one
up at your convenience.
( r,,) ,-) -Z- / __5E
1 of 1 5/11/2006 3:00 PM
wwyydM T 7E
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 10, 2006
Contract ID: C201490
TIP: B-4110
Federal Project: BRZ-1616(5)
County: Durham
Description: Bridge over Mountain Creek & Approaches on SR-1616
Mr. Lee Bradley
Dellinger, Inc.
P.O. Box 929
Monroe, North Carolina 281 11-0929
Dear Mr. Bradley
This serves to confirm the Preconstruction Conference for the above referenced project scheduled for
10:00 A.M. Tuesday, May 23, 2006, at the Division Office located at 2612 Duke St. Durham, North Carolina.
The following information should be submitted to the Department at the Preconstruction Conference:
• List of Project Personnel (i.e. Project Manager, Project Superintendent, Traffic Control Coordinator, Erosion Control
Coordinator, Concrete Plant Superintendent, etc.)
• List of Material Suppliers
• List of Subcontractors
• List of Company Officials Authorized to Execute Supplemental Agreements
It is requested that you invite any proposed subcontractors deemed necessary. By copy of this letter, I am inviting various
Department representatives having involvement and/or interest in this project.
Should you require additional information on this matter, please contact this office at [phone]
Sincerely,
A. V. Earwood, PE
RESIDENT ENGINEER
AVE:alt
cc: Mr. E. C. Powell, PE
cc: Mr. T. N. Parrott, PE
Mr. E. B. Nelson, Jr., PE
Mr. Donald Pearson, Roadside Environmental Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, Division Environmental Officer
Mr. Steve Johnson, PE
Mr. Ronnie Moore, Civil Rights
915 STADIUM DRIVE, DURHAM, NORTI I CAROLINA 27704 [phone]
Ecosystem
a
PROGRAM
November 7, 2005
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
D '
T ?NDSAN? ?OR?q'?UfY
?R??NCII
B-4110, Bridge 5 over Mountain Creek on SR 1616 (SR 1793),
Durham County; Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201);
Central Piedmont (CP) Eco-Region
. This mitigation strategy letter replaces the mitigation strategy letter issued
on September 20, 2005. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) will provide the compensatory stream mitigation and buffer
mitigation for the unavoidable impacts associated with the above referenced project. As
indicated in the NCDOT's revised mitigation request letter dated October 20, 2005, the
project will impact 60 feet of stream.
Also, this project will impact buffers located in CU 03020201 of the Neuse River
Basin. The total buffer impacts are 202 square feet in Zone 1 and 2,233 square feet in
Zone 2. The NCDOT estimated buffer impacts in the 7-year Impact Projection Database
submitted to EEP in May 2005. The buffer mitigation required for the NCDOT's impact
projections was incorporated into EEP's biennial budget that was approved in June 2005
by the NCDOT. However, EEP intends to continue managing all of the NCDOT's buffer
mitigation requests and approvals through the In-Lieu Fee (ILF) Program's Buffer Fund.
Any buffer impact associated with projects located in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River
Basins, and portions of the Cape Fear and Catawba River Basins are automatic
acceptances by the EEP, per the agreement with the NCDWQ.
The NCDOT will be responsible to ensure that the appropriate compensation for
the buffer mitigation will be provided in the agreed upon method of fund transfer. Upon
receipt of the NCDWQ's Buffer Certification, the NCDOT will provide the EEP a copy
of the Certification along with a letter verifying the buffer impact/mitigation amounts and
NCDEE R
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
..
requesting a fund transfer to provide the required compensation. The EEP will transfer
funds from the MOA Account (Fund 2984) into the ILF Buffer Mitigation Fund (Fund
2982).
EEP will commit to implementing sufficient compensatory stream mitigation and
buffer mitigation to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA
year in which the permit modification for this project is issued, in accordance with
Section X of the Tri-Party MOA, signed on July 22, 2003. Compensatory stream
mitigation assets available include, but are not limited to, Jalo, Cox, and Lowell Mill
mitigation sites, and the Neu-Con Mitigation Bank.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
L adZ"S-
liam D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT-PDEA
\/4r. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4110 Revised
lO stem
PROGRAM
November 7, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4110, Replace Bridge Number 5 over the Mountain Creek on SR 1616
(SR 1793), Durham County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide the compensatory stream mitigation and buffer mitigation for the subject
project. Based on the information supplied by you in a letter dated September 8, 2005 and
revised letter dated October 20, 2005, the impacts are located in CU 03020201 of the Neuse River
Basin in the Central Piedmont (CP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Stream: 60 feet
Zone 1 Buffer: 202 square feet
Zone 2 Buffer: 2,233 square feet
The NCDOT estimated buffer impacts in the 7-year Impact Projection Database
submitted to EEP in May 2005. The buffer mitigation required for the NCDOT's impact
projections was incorporated into EEP's biennial budget that was submitted to the
NCDOT for approval in June 2005. However, EEP intends to continue managing all of
the NCDOT's buffer mitigation requests and approvals through the In-Lieu Fee (ILF)
Program's Buffer Fund. Any buffer impact associated with projects located in the Neuse,
Tar-Pamlico, and portions of the Catawba and Cape Fear River Basins are automatic
acceptances by the EEP, per the agreement with the NCDWQ.
The NCDOT will be responsible to ensure that the appropriate compensation for
the buffer mitigation will be provided in the agreed upon method of fund transfer. Upon
receipt of the NCDWQ's Buffer Certification, the NCDOT will provide the EEP a copy
of the Certification along with a letter verifying the buffer impact/mitigation amounts and
{ t t t ' ?`r NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

requesting a fund transfer to provide the required compensation. The EEP will transfer
funds from the MOA Account (Fund 2984) into the ILF Buffer Mitigation Fund (Fund
2982).
This mitigation acceptance letter replaces the mitigation acceptance letter issued on
September 20, 2005. As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the
Memorandum of Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The compensatory stream mitigation for the
subject project will be provided in accordance with this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely, 2
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Njr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE-Raleigh
r. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4110 Revised
t
r-A;J
Ecowstem
PROGRAM
September 20, 2005
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
0 cUU?
DENR • WATER QUALITY
RTLANDSAND STORMWATER BRANCH
B-4110, Bridge 5 over Mountain Creek on SR 1616 (SR 1793), Durham
County; Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201); Central
Piedmont (CP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide the compensatory mitigation for the 60 feet of unavoidable stream impact
associated with the above referenced project.
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement (Tri-
Party MOA) between the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The EEP will commit to provide appropriate
compensatory stream mitigation up to a 2:1 ratio in Cataloging Unit 03020201 of the Neuse River
Basin to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA year in which this
project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Tri-Party MOA. Mitigation sites
currently containing surplus mitigation assets consists of, but not inclusive of, the Jalo, Cox, and
Lowell Mill mitigation sites, and Neu-Con Mitigation Bank.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
tl'iam D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT-PDEA
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4110
NC EA
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 1652 Mail Service Center. Raleigh. NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0416 / www_nceen.net

os, tem
PROGRAM
September 20, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4110, Replace Bridge Number 5 over the Mountain Creek on SR 1616
(SR 1793), Durham County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide the compensatory stream mitigation for the subject project. Based on the
information supplied by you in a letter dated September 8, 2005, the impacts are located in CU
03020201 of the Neuse River Basin in the Central Piedmont (CP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Stream:
60 feet
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The compensatory stream mitigation for the subject
project will be provided in accordance with this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
L
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
2?JA ,
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE-Raleigh
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4110
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N( 21699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.n ceep.net

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
September 8, 2005
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
D ?
?NpSANpSTpRMw''0:1r,
ATFR B?Nt:/,
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Request for Mitigation for TIP No. B-4110, Durham County, Bridge No. 5 over
Mountain Creek on SR 1616 (SR 1793), Federal Aid No. BRZ-1616(5); State
Project No. 8.2353201; WBS Element No. 33465.1.1; NCDOT Division 5
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) provide confirmation that you are willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the
project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT).
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 5 over Mountain Creek on SR 1616 (SR 1793), Durham
County. The existing bridge is structurally deficient and needs to be replaced. The bridge will be
replaced with a 95-foot long bridge in approximately the same location and at approximately the
same roadway elevation as the existing bridge.
RESOURCES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404 AND 401
OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Impacts to jurisdictional resources have been avoided and minimized to the greatest extent
practical, as described in the permit application. An application for a Nationwide Permit will be
submitted upon receipt of acceptance of this mitigation. A copy of the permit application, when
submitted, will be available at http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/perrnit.html. The
EEP will provide compensatory mitigation for the remaining jurisdictional impacts.
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
The project is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province in Durham County in the Neuse
River Basin (Hydrologic Catalog Unit 03020101, Subbasin 03-04-01). Jurisdictional impacts
and proposed compensatory mitigation are as follows:
Permanent stream impacts to 60 linear feet of Mountain Creek [DWQ# 19-30-3]. The
impacts will be to a third order or greater, perennial stream, classified as a warm stream.
Compensatory mitigation is proposed to consist of mitigation provided by the EEP for
the 60 linear feet of stream impact.
Please send the letter of confirmation to Eric Alsmeyer (USAGE Coordinator) at the USACE
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, 6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27615-6814. Mr. Alsmeyer's FAX number is [phone]. The current let date for
the project is August 15, 2006 for which the let review date is June 27, 2006.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ requires
a formal letter from EEP indication their willingness and ability to provide the mitigation work
requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT request that a letter of confirmation be sent to Mr. John
Hennessy of NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.
Please respond to NCDOT in writing within 10 business days with an EEP acceptance letter for
this NCDOT project. If you have any questions or need additional information please call Bill
Barrett at [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc: 1-`Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Christina Breen, NCDWQ
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh
Ms. Linda Fitzpatrick, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Mr. Omar S. Sultan, NCDOT Program Management/Scheduling Unit
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
File: B-4110
2
a"a 5"4u
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNVIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
September 8, 2005
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
V?
?T? o sF?1 d?
tios?tiR,? ??
LYNDo TIPPENC,y
SECRETARY
Subject: Request for Mitigation for TIP No. B-4110, Durham County, Bridge No. 5 over
Mountain Creek on SR 1616 (SR 1793), Federal Aid No. BRZ-1616(5); State
Project No. 8.2353201; WBS Element No. 33465.1.1; NCDOT Division 5
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) provide confirmation that you are willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the
project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT).
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 5 over Mountain Creek on SR 1616 (SR 1793), Durham
County. The existing bridge is structurally deficient and needs to be replaced. The bridge will be
replaced with a 95-foot long bridge in approximately the same location and at approximately the
same roadway elevation as the existing bridge.
RESOURCES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404 AND 401
OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Impacts to jurisdictional resources have been avoided and minimized to the greatest extent
practical, as described in the permit application. An application for a Nationwide Permit will be
submitted upon receipt of acceptance of this mitigation. A copy of the permit application, when
submitted, will be available at http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/pennit.htmi. The
EEP will provide compensatory mitigation for the remaining jurisdictional impacts.
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WE93/TE. WV1hN.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
The project is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province in Durham County in the Neuse
River Basin (Hydrologic Catalog Unit 03020101, Subbasin 03-04-01). Jurisdictional impacts
and proposed compensatory mitigation are as follows:
• Permanent stream impacts to 60 linear feet of Mountain Creek [DWQ# 19-30-3]. The
impacts will be to a third order or greater, perennial stream, classified as a warm stream.
Compensatory mitigation is proposed to consist of mitigation provided by the EEP for
the 60 linear feet of stream impact.
Please send the letter of confirmation to Eric Alsmeyer (USACE Coordinator) at the USACE
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, 6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27615-6814. Mr. Alsmeyer's FAX number is [phone]. The current let date for
the project is August 15, 2006 for which the let review date is June 27, 2006.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ requires
a formal letter from EEP indication their willingness and ability to provide the mitigation work
requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT request that a letter of confirmation be sent to Mr. John
Hennessy of NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.
Please respond to NCDOT in writing within 10 business days with an EEP acceptance letter for
this NCDOT project. If you have any questions or need additional information please call Bill
Barrett at [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc: Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
V-Ms. Christina Breen, NCDWQ
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh
Ms. Linda Fitzpatrick, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Mr. Omar S. Sultan, NCDOT Program Management/Scheduling Unit
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
File: B-4110
2

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
October 20, 2005
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
Ap,
AFT<s„ ?
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Additional Request for Mitigation, Durham County, Bridge No. 5 over
Mountain Creek on SR 1616 (SR 1793), Federal Aid No. BRZ-1616(5); State
Project No. 8.2353201; WBS Element No. 33465.1.1; NCDOT Division 5.
TIP No. B-4110
Reference: NCDOT Request for Mitigation letter dated September 8, 2005
EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter dated September 20, 2005
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) submitted a letter to the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), dated September 20, 2005, requesting that
EEP provide compensatory mitigation for 60 linear feet of stream impacts for the bridge
replacement project, in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22,
2003 by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and NCDOT. In a letter dated September 20,
2005, NCDOT was notified that EEP will provide the requested mitigation in accordance with
the MOA.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) has informed NCDOT that the
"allowable" buffer impacts for "bridges", in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0233(6), extend
from approach slab to approach slab. Due to the orientation of Mountain Creek to the existing
roadway (the creek turns and runs somewhat parallel to the roadway), roadway fill associated
with the bridge replacement project will impact 2,435 square feet of riparian buffer outside of the
bridge approach slabs. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0233(6), these impacts to the riparian buffer
are "allowable with mitigation".
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIc;H NC 27699-1598 WEBSITE WWW.NCDOT.ORG
RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACTS
Impacts to riparian buffers have been avoided and minimized to the greatest extent practical, as
described in the permit application. An application for a Nationwide Permit will be submitted
upon receipt of acceptance of this mitigation. A copy of the permit application, when submitted,
will be available at http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/pen-nit.html.
The project is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province in Durham County in the Neuse
River Basin (Hydrologic Catalog Unit 03020201, Subbasin 03-04-01). Riparian buffer impacts
and proposed compensatory mitigation are as follows:
• 202 square feet of impact to Zone 1 (outside of the bridge approach slabs)
• 2,233 square feet of impact to Zone 2 (outside of the bridge approach slabs)
Compensatory mitigation is proposed to consist of mitigation provided by the EEP for the
202 square feet of Zone 1 and 2,233 square feet of Zone 2 riparian buffer impacts.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed, the NCDWQ requires
a formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the mitigation work
requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT request that a letter of confirmation be sent to Mr. John
Hennessy of NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT. The current Let date for the project is
August 15, 2006 for which the Let review date is June 27, 2006.
Please respond to NCDOT in writing within 10 business days with an EEP acceptance letter for
this NCDOT project. If you have any questions or need additional information please call Bill
Barrett at [phone].
Sincerely,

Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc: ?1` - John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Christina Breen, NCDWQ
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh
Ms. Linda Fitzpatrick, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Mr. Omar S. Sultan, NCDOT Program Management/Scheduling Unit
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
File: B-4110
2
imap://john.hennessy%,[e-mail]].net:143/f...
Subject. B-4110 Permit _Certification Application
From: "William A. Barrett" <[e-mail]. nc.us>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:40:16 -0500
To: "Eric.C.Alsmeyer" <[e-mail]>, "John.Hennessy"
<[e-mail]>
CC: wilsontw <[e-mail]>, gary,jordan <gary,[e-mail]>, "David S.
Chang, PE" <[e-mail]>, Mark Staley <[e-mail]. nc.us>, Greg Perfetti
<[e-mail]. nc.us>, Jon Nance <[e-mail]>, Chris Murray
<[e-mail]. nc.us>, "Jay A. Bennett PE" <[e-mail]>, "Majed Alghandour, P.
E." <[e-mail]>, "Art McMillan, PE" <[e-mail]>, "Bill T.
Goodwin" <[e-mail]. nc.us>, Todd Jones <tjones@dot. state. nc.us>,
[e-mail]. mi1, [e-mail], Ting Fang PE <[e-mail]>,
Elizabeth Lee Lusk <[e-mail]>
TIP No. B-4110
Eric / John,
The NCDOT submitted an application (dated November 30, 2005) for a Nationwide Permit 23 and
Neuse River Buffer Certification, and Memo for Nationwide 13 for the proposed replacement of Bridge
No. 5 over Mountain Creek on SR 1616/SR 1793 in Durham County, TIP No. B-4110.
The application Cover Letter incorrectly stated the proposed bridge length as 95 feet, which was the
length presented in the Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) document. The actual bridge design
proposes a 150-foot long bridge, as depicted on the permit drawings, buffer drawings, and 1/2 size plans
(roadway plans) that were submitted with the application. The 150-foot bridge length was used to
calculate all project impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands and to the riparian buffer, so
there is no change to the project impacts.
This e-mail is to notify you of the correct bridge length for the project and to ask that the correct bridge
length be used for the issuance of any permits and certifications.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
me at the number below.
Regards,
Bill
William A. Barrett
Environmental Specialist III
NCDOT/PDEA
Natural Environment Unit
Phone: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
1 of 1 1/5/2006 3:41 PM
v?21
o?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA '
DEPARTWNT OF TRANSPORTATIO]' V1 Tom,oQ 006' U
MH' Y
PETT
MICHAEL F. EASLEY L NS T11
GOVERNOR SEC RY
February 14, 2006
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
Subject: Rescind Stream Mitigation, Durham County, Bridge No. 5 over Mountain Creek on SR
1616 (SR 1793), Federal Aid No. BRZ-1616(5); State Project No. 8.2353201; WBS
Element No. 33465.1.1; NCDOT Division 5. TIP No. B-4110
Reference: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter dated November 7, 2005
As noted in the referenced letter, the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) agreed to
provide compensatory stream mitigation and buffer mitigation for the subject project. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) determined that the 60 linear feet of stream impact associated
with this project could be, and therefore was, authorized under a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 13, which
does not require mitigation for this impact. A preconstruction notification (PCN) for the use of the NWP
13 was submitted to the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) as part of the application for a NWP 23
for this project, dated November 30, 2005. The NWP 23 issued by the USACE, dated February 1, 2006,
confirms that no mitigation is required for the 60 linear feet of stream impact. A copy of the NWP 23
may be viewed at: http://www.nedot.org/doli/preconstruct/pe/neu/perrnit.html.
The mitigation requirements for this project are revised as follows:
Mitigation Type Previous Request/
Granted Mitigation Revised Request for
mitigation Difference in
mitigation
Stream 60 LF 0 - 60 LF
Buffer - Zone 1 202 SF 202 SF 0
Buffer - Zone 2 2,233 SF 2,233 SF 0
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEB$ITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
NCDOT respectfully requests that the 60 linear feet of compensatory stream mitigation that was to be
provided by EEP, pursuant to the referenced letter, be rescinded. The buffer mitigation to be provided by
the EEP for this project is unchanged.
Please respond to NCDOT in writing within 10 business days with an EEP letter verifying that the
compensatory mitigation for the 60 linear feet of stream impact will be rescinded. If you have any
questions or need additional information please call Bill Barrett at [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc: Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh
Ms. Linda Fitzpatrick, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P.E., NCDOT Program Management/Scheduling Unit
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
File: B-4110
2
11 4W
05Z I M
r1t "*--
Ecosystem
PROGRAM
February 28, 2006
Mr. John I Iennessy
N. C. Division of Water Quality
Mail Service Center 1650
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Dear Mr. I lennessy:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
cy
B-4110, Replace Bridge Number 5 over Mountain Creek on SR
1616/SR 1793, Durham County, Neuse River Basin (Cataloging
Unit 03020201)
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EF,P) will provide the buffer mitigation required for the subject project.
Previously, the NCDOT had requested stream mitigation for anticipated 60 feet of stream
impacts; however, stream mitigation is now no longer needed by the NCDOT for this
project. This mitigation acceptance letter replaces the mitigation acceptance letters
issued on September 20, 2005 and November 7, 2005.
"rhe buffer impacts associated with this project are located in Cataloging Unit
03020201 of the Neuse River Basin. As indicated in the NCDOT's mitigation request
letter dated February 14, 2006, the project will impact buffers only. 'rhe buffer impacts
are 202 square feet in Zone 1 and 2,233 square feet in Zone 2. If the buffer impacts or
the amount of mitigation required from EEP increases or decreases for this project, then
this mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance
letter will be required.
The NCDOT estimated buffer impacts in the 7-year Impact Projection Database
submitted to EEP in May 2005. The buffer mitigation required for the NCDOT's impact
projections was incorporated into ESP's biennial budget that was approved in June 2005
by the NCDOT. All buffer mitigation requests and approvals through are administered
through the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund. Any buffer impact associated with
projects located in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River Basins, and portions of the Cape
Fear and Catawba River Basins are automatic acceptances by the EEP, per the agreement
with the NCDWQ.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652
RNMA
NCDEEWR
/ 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net
4F
'The NCDOT will be responsible to ensure that the appropriate compensation for
the buffer mitigation will be provided in the agreed upon method of fund transfer. Upon
receipt of the NCDWQ's Buffer Certification, the NCDOT will provide the EEP a copy
of the Certification along with a letter verifying the buffer impact/mitigation amounts and
requesting a fund transfer to provide the required compensation. The EEP will transfer
funds from the MOA Account (Fund 2984) into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund
(Fund 2982).
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,

William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, P.E., PDEA, NCDOT
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE - Raleigh
File: B-4110
4.,., : qx
rb??J
Ecosystem
PROGRAM
February 21, 2006
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. "Thorpe:
Subject: EE,P Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4110, Replace Bridge Number 5 over the Mountain Creek on SR
1616 (SR 1793), Durham County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the buffer mitigation for the subject project. Based on the
information supplied by you in a letter dated September 8, 2005 and revised letters dated
October 20, 2005 and February 14, 2006, the impacts are located in CU 03020201 of the
Neuse River Basin in the Central Piedmont (CP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Zone 1 Buffer: 202 square feet
Zone 2 Buffer: 2,233 square feet
Previously, the NCDOT had requested stream mitigation for anticipated stream impacts;
however, the USACE did not require stream mitigation for this project. This mitigation
acceptance letter replaces the mitigation acceptance letters issued on September 20,
2005 and November 7, 2005.
The NCDOT estimated buffer impacts in the 7-year Impact Projection Database
submitted to EEP in May 2005. The buffer mitigation required for the NCDOT's impact
projections was incorporated into ESP's biennial budget that was submitted to the
NCDOT for approval in June 2005. All buffer mitigation requests and approvals are
administrated through the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund. Any buffer impact
associated with projects located in the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, and portions of the Catawba
and Cape Fear River Basins are automatic acceptances by the EEP, per the agreement
with the NCDWQ.
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
The NCDOT will be responsible to ensure that the appropriate compensation for
the buffer mitigation will be provided in the agreed upon method of fund transfer. Upon
receipt of the NCDWQ's Buffer Certification, the NCDOT will provide the EEP a copy
of the Certification along with a letter verifying the buffer impact/mitigation amounts and
requesting a fund transfer to provide the required compensation. The EEP will transfer
funds from the MOA Account (Fund 2984) into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund
(Fund 2982) and commit to provide the appropriate buffer mitigation to offset the
impacts associated with this project.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
illiam D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE-Raleigh
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4110 Revised