20080963 Ver 1_Application_20080613

a.w SfAlE o
sew
.q uu. ws?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
o4? - %n,,
100.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 3, 2008
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 080963
ATTENTION: Mr. Andy Williams
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 7
SUBJECT: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permits 23, 33, Section 401 Water
Quality Certification, and Neuse River Riparian Buffer Authorization.
Replacement of Bridge No. 64 on SR 1561 (Lawrence Road) over the Eno River
in Orange County North Carolina. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1561(15), State
Project No. 8.2502701, WBS Element 33790.1.1, TIP No. B-4592.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 64 over the
Eno River. Bridge No. 64 has five spans and totals 177 feet in length. The project involves replacing the
current bridge at the existing location. The new bridge will be approximately 200 feet in length. The
proposed structure will be a two span, 39-inch, pre-stressed concrete box beam superstructure on
concrete caps and drilled piers. The interior bent will consist of three drilled shafts that will be 3 feet, 6
inches in diameter. During construction, traffic will be maintained by an off-site detour along SR 1002
(St. Mary's Road) and US 70 By-pass. Please find enclosed the Pre-Construction Notification, permit
drawings and design plans for the subject project. A Categorical Exclusion was signed in January of
2007 and distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies are available upon request.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: The project is located in sub basin 03-04-01 of the Neuse River Basin in Orange
County. This area is part of Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03020201. The project area is located within
the Central Piedmont Ecoregion of North Carolina.
The Eno River and Strouds Creek are both large perennial streams. Because both streams are perennial,
no Jurisdictional Determination was requested from the United States Army Corp of Engineers
(USAGE).
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] Of 2728 CAPITAL BLVD. SUITE 240
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 919-715-1335 RALEIGH NC 27604
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER FAX: [phone]
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
WEBSITE. WWW NCDOT.ORG
The Eno River and Strouds Creek are the only jurisdictional streams located within the project study
area. The Eno River is a perennial stream and has been assigned Stream Index Number 27-2-(10) by the
North Carolina Department of Water Quality (DWQ). The Eno River is described as having a substrate
ranging in size from silt to boulder with the majority of the substrate being gravel. The Eno River has a
channel width of approximately 80 feet, a bank height from 6 to 10 feet and a water depth of 6 inches to
8 feet. Within the project study area, Strouds Creek, a perennial stream, is approximately 10 to 20 feet
wide with a bank height of approximately 2 feet and a water depth ranging from 3 inches to 4 feet. The
surface waters in the project study area have been assigned a Best Usage Classification of WS-IV for the
Eno River and C NSW for Strouds Creek.
No portion of the Eno River, Strouds Creek, their tributaries, or other surface waters located within 1.0
mile of the project are listed on the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's (NCDWQ) 2006 Final
303(d) List of Impaired Waters.
No waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-In, nor
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
The Wildlife Resources Commission rescinded the in-water work moratorium for sunfish in an email
dated January 28, 2008. This email is included with this permit application.
Permanent Impacts: There will be 13 linear feet (<0.01 acres) of permanent impacts to the Eno River due
to the placement of two 3.5 foot diameter shafts in the water.
Temporary Impacts: There will be a total of 0.15 acres (145 linear feet) of temporary jurisdictional
impacts associated with the construction of this project. There will be two temporary causeways used
during the construction of the new bridge. Causeway #I will be constructed with Class 11 Rip Rap and
will result in 0.08 acres (66 linear feet) of temporary surface water impacts. Causeway #1 will be
removed before causeway #2 is constructed. Causeway #2 will be constructed with the same material
used to construct causeway #1 and will result in 0.07 acres (77 linear feet) of temporary surface water
impacts.
No more than 50% of the stream width will be impacted at a time.
Bridge Demolition: The existing two-lane structure consists of five spans, each 35 feet in length with a
timber deck and an asphalt wearing surface on steel girders. The existing bridge has one bent in the
water. The existing bridge will be removed without dropping components into the Eno River. All
guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed in addition to Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
Utility Impacts: There will be no sewer, water, electric or other utility impacts due to this bridge
replacement project.
IMPACTS TO THE NEUSE RIVER RIPARIAN BUFFER
This project is located within the Neuse River Basin and is therefore subject to Neuse River riparian
buffer rules (15A NCAC 2B.0233). Construction of the new bridge will impact buffers along both the
Eno River and Strouds Creek. The buffer impacts to the Eno River (Site 1) are classified as a bridge
crossing and a road crossing. These impacts are allowable. The buffer impacts associated with Strouds
Creek are classified as impacts resulting from road impacts other than crossings or streams and other
surface waters. These impacts are allowable with mitigation. Please see Table 1.
B-4592 Permit Application
2
Table 1. Neuse River Buffer Impacts
Bridge Road Crossing Road Impacts Other Than
Crossings or Streams
Zone 1 (s q. R) 7264 0 4152
Zone 2 (s q. ft) 2445 573 2628
Mitigation Allowable Allowable (impacts less Allowable with Mitigation
requirements than 150 linear feet or one-
(exempt, allowable or third of an acre).*
allowable with
mitigation)
* Approximately 125 linear feet of road crossing impacts
Practical Alternatives Analysis
This bridge has been determined to be structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. Replacement of
this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations. Because this bridge
needs to be replaced, impacts to the riparian buffers of the Eno River and Strouds Creek are unavoidable.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered
(PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
lists five Federally Protected species for Orange County, as of January 31, 2008. Table 2 lists the species
and their federal status.
Table 2. Federall Protected Species in Orange Coun , NC
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Biological Habitat
Status Conclusion Present
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus
leucoce halus Delisted Not Required No
Michaux's

Sumac Rhus michauxii T No Effect Yes
Smooth Echinacea

Coneflower
laevi ata E No Effect Yes
Red-cockaded

Woodpecker Picoides borealis E No Effect No
Dwarf Alasmidonta

Wed emussel
heterodon E No Effect No
The bald eagle was officially delisted on August 8, 2007 (CFR 50 Part 17). The bald eagle is still
afforded protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. A description of the bald eagle and
its habitat is included in the CE. Suitable habitat for bald eagle nesting/foraging does not exist within the
project study area. Additionally, a review of the Natural Heritage Program database (last updated in
February 2008) revealed no occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Therefore, the proposed project will not affect the bald eagle.
Suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) does not exist within the project study area.
Pine trees located within the mixed pine hardwood forest found in the study area were not of sufficient
age or diameter to support RCW nesting or foraging. The biological conclusion of "No Effect" given in
the CE remains valid.
B-4592 Permit Application
3
A survey for dwarf wedgemussel (DWM) was conducted on June 8, 2004 by the Catena Group biologists
and yielded no individual DWM. The survey results indicated that a significant and viable freshwater
mussel fauna occurs in the Eno River within the project study area. However, based on the fact that the
record of the dwarf wedgemussel from the Eno River is represented by only 1 relict valve, it is unlikely
that the dwarf wedgemussel occurs in the surveyed reach of the Eno River. Therefore it was determined
by the Catina Group that the project construction was "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the dwarf wedge
mussel. In a letter dated April 13, 2006, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service concurred that the
replacement of Bridge No. 64 over the Eno River "May Affect, but is not Likely to Adversely Affect" the
dwarf wedgemussel. This letter is in the CE.
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac, in the form of sandy and/or rocky open woods and roadsides is
present in the project area. NCDOT biologists conducted a survey for this species on June 6, 2006. No
individuals of Michaux's sumac were observed during the survey. Furthermore, a review of the Natural
Heritage Program database (last updated February 2008) revealed no occurrences within 1.0 mile of the
project study area. Based on survey results and the lack of documented occurrences, a biological
conclusion of "No Effect" is warranted for Michaux's sumac.
A field survey for smooth coneflower was conducted on June 6, 2006. Although suitable habitat for
smooth coneflower is present in the project area, no species were observed during the field survey.
Therefore, a biological conclusion of "No Effect" is warranted for smooth coneflower.
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION and MITIGATION
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and
minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining,
unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and NEPA
compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize, and
mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the US. The following is a list of the project's
avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization: Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to "Waters of the US". The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and
practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts and to minimize impacts as part
of the project design.
• The proposed bridge will be replaced on its existing location.
• A preformed scour hole will be constructed on the northeast side of Lawrence Road.
• There will be two temporary causeways used during construction of the new bridge. Only one
causeway will be in the river at a time.
• Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and Bridge Demolition and Removal
will be implemented during the entirety of this project.
Compensatory Mitigation:
The Jeffrey's Warehouse Mitigation Site was originally constructed as on-site mitigation for R-1030 US
117 from south of NC 581 in Goldsboro to the US 264 Bypass in Wilson. There are two parcels
associated with this mitigation site. The west parcel (approximately 50.2 acres) is bounded on the
northwest by the Little River and on the southeast by the US 117 right-of-way. The east parcel
(approximately 37.5 acres) is bounded on the northwest by the US 117 right-of-way, on the northeast by
a Wayne County Board of Education school bus maintenance shop, and on the east and southeast by
B-4592 Permit Application
4
private property. The site was constructed in 2006 and has undergone two years of hydrologic and
vegetative monitoring.
To offset the unavoidable, 4,152 sq.ft. of Zone 1 buffer impacts and 2,628 sq.ft. of Zone 2, buffer
impacts associated with T.I.P B-4592, the Jeffrey's Warehouse Mitigation Site will be debited 16,398
S.F. of Neuse Buffer Restoration. These debits are reflected in the debit ledger below.
Site Name Site TIP HUC River Basin Division County
Jefferey's
Warehouse JALO
R-1030AA
3020201
N
4
Wayne

Mitigation Type As Built
O-uantit-v
Available
Debit
Debit
Debit
Debit
B-3528 B-4300 R-2719A B-4592
Stream Restoration 3,731 3,279 452(226@2: 1)
Riverine Wetland
Restoration
3.66
3.66
Non-Riverine Wetland
Restoration
23.02
23.02
Riverine Wetland
Preservation
12.36
12.36
Neuse Buffer Restoration 689,607 515,739 75,577 40,075 41,818 16,398
Due to the minimal impacts to the Eno River (<0.01 acres), the NCDOT is not proposing mitigation for
these impacts.
SCHEDULE
The project calls for a let date of January 20, 2009 and a review date of December 9, 2008. This project
has a date of availability of March 3, 2009. It is expected that the contractor will begin construction
shortly after that date.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that these
activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 47 Pages 11092-11198,
March 12, 2007). It is anticipated that the temporary impacts will be authorized under Section 404
Nationwide Permit 33 for the causeways. We are therefore also requesting the issuance of a Nationwide
Permit 33.
Section 401 Water Quality Certification: We anticipate Section 401 General Water Quality Certifications
(WQC) 3701 and 3688 will be applicable to this project. This project will impact Neuse Riparian
Buffers, therefore written concurrence will be required. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section
.0500(a) and 15A NCAC 213.0200 we are providing five copies of this application to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
B-4592 Permit Application
5
Buffer Permit: This project has been designed to comply with the Neuse Riparian Buffer Regulations
(15A NCAC 2B.0242). NCDOT requests a Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization from the Division of
Water Quality.
A copy of this pen-nit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/pennit.html. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Sara Easterly at 919-715-5499 or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
" Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Cc:
w/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
w/o attachment (see permits website for attachments)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J. M. Mills, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Jerry Parker, Division 7 Environmental Officer
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Ms. Theresa Ellerby, P. E., PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
B-4592 Permit Application
6
Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. 2 C C 8 0 9 6 3
DWQ No.
kit any parucuiar 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: Nationwide Permit 23 and
Nationwide Permit 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: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: Gregory J. Thorpe PhD Manager
Proiect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address: athome ct,dot.state.nc.us
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 Affilial
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Pagel of 8
III. Project Information
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 fonnat;
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: Proposed replacement of bridge No. 64 over the Eno River on SR 1561
(Lawrence Road) in Orange County
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4592
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Orange Nearest Town: Hillsboro
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Highway 70 west to Saint
Mary's Road to Lawrence Road.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): ON °W
6. Property size (acres): Please refer to attached drawings.
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Eno River
8. River Basin: Neuse
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at littp://Ii2o.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:_ The local area surrounding the proposed project consists of
gently rolling hills and land with both agriculture and residential development
Page 2 of 8
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: NCDOT
proposes to replace bridge No. 64 over the Eno River on SR 1561 (Lawrence Road) Heavy
duty excavation equipment will be used such as trucks dozers cranes and other various
equipment necessary for roadway construction
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of this project is to improve safety
by replacing to current structure that has a sufficiency rating of 29.9 out of a possible 100
The current bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally deficient
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional detenninations and/or pen-nits 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 pen-nit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
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
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.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: There will be approximately 145
linear feet (0.14 acres) of temporary stream impacts to the Eno River and 13 feet of
permanent impacts due to the replacement of bridge No 64
Page 3 of 8
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 Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year Nearest Impact
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) Floodplain Stream (acres)
(yes/no) (linear feet)
N/A
N/A
Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:
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, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Perennial or Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact
Intermittent'? Stream Width Length Impact
indicate on ma
( P) Before Impact (linear feet) (acres)
Temporary
Site I Eno River Causeway #1 Perennial 20 feet 68 0.08
Temporary
Site 1 Eno River Causeway #2 Perennial 20 feet 77 0.07
Site 1 Eno River Permanent Impacts Perennial 20 feet 13 <0.01
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 158 0.16
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 of Waterbody

p
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0
Page 4of8
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.16
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.00
Open Water Impact (acres): 0.00
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.16
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 158
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® 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 detennined 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.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Expected pond surface area: N/A
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.
watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
Page 5 of 8
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
http:i/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/'ncwetlandsistnngi(ic.litin1.
1. 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.
Compensatory mitigation will be derived from an inventory of assets already in existence
within the same 8-digit cataloguing unit (Jeffereys Warehouse).
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.nc.usiwip/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): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 6,780
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
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 ® No ?
Page 6 of 8
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 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 213.0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 0213.0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .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.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 4,152 3 12,456
2 2,628 1.5 3,942
Total 6,780 16,398
cone i extenus out su reet 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. Mitigation will be provided by Jeffrey's
Warehouse Mitigation Site
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
Page 7 of 8

the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
N/A
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)
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,'ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
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).
C<- ;r, J/?/ ? G,3,
Applicant/Xgent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8
RE: suntislrmoratoriums
Subject: RE: sunfish moratoriums
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:43:30 -0500
From: "Travis Wilson" <[e-mail]>
To: "'Rachelle Beauregard"' <[e-mail]>
WRC does not request an in-water work moratorium for B-4592 and B-4216
I of 1 5/12/2003 11:21 AM
s
1
.
r •?
a.........A' ' `?? ._ J ? _`'` [ 1R `, rr• ? A? .,.. ? •?+ ? FAA.:;, .?'1? y? }??+' .i" f
# j
5 JA,-
{ 4 § 4 a^ ?. 1?_ ,pa' '.,4? rs. .s? .r•r .,?, r...a, .: ? ? ? ae ?'{.k'
?. k 1
?.... ?'?' } ?y* 4 ?_y .f' ?•os° ?.i` ..sf "m :a,4 h` h..a?.y
51 a
t
x
yt r' fad k, .. tiJr' z? ,,
P", ,

TOPO MAP
SCALE: I' :2000'
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ORANGE COUNTY
PROJECT: 33790.1.1 (B-4592)
BRIDGE NO.64 OVER
THE ENO RIVER AND
APPROACHES ON SR 1561

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
NAMES ADDRESSES
DAVID R. MARION &
1
WENDY M. MARION
2 JOSEPHINE BARBOUR
JOHN W. HARTWELL &
3
PATRICIA H. HARTWELL
4 RUTH R. PETTY
211 LAWRENCE RD
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
P O BOX 258
OAK RIDGE, NC 27310
3001 HARTWELL POND DR
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
P O BOX 698
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278-0698

(ac)
(ac)
(ac)
(ac) Hand
(ac)
(ac)
(ac) Existing
(ft) Existing
(ft)
(ft)

Note: The 7' stream impacts come from (two) - 3.5' diameter shafts
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ORANGE COUNTY
WBS - 33790.1.1 )B-4592)
SHEET 2/21/2008
ATN Revised 3IJ1l05
WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.
Station
(From/To)
Structure
Size /Type Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands Temp.
Fill In
Wetlands Excavation
in
Wetlands Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands Clearing
in
Wetlands Permanent
SW
impacts Temp.
SW
impacts Channel
Impacts
Permanent Channel
Impacts
Temp. Natural
Stream
Design
1 -L- 22+85 to 24+85 2 @100'39" Box Beam Bride <0.01 7
1 -L- 23+47 +/- LT
<0.01
6
1 -L- 22+44 to 23+95 +/- Causeway #1 0.08 68
1 -L- 23+92 to 24+53 +/- Causeway #2 0.07 77

TOTALS: <0.01 0.15 13 145

A?
.
K
_ y+
r x `
.
i
,
f ! f
a_
A
a• r 'S
' r?+" `k • ' ?' ? ?? ?Tit
4,
bct
/ r'?.+'''?% ., ry ? _ .. •`$i>? "._.? +?' fia+: r ` s? x. i.LL 'k k
00 N
i i .,` '"'••4 4''°t L6 it + f ?.r*?iy`'R f t,g s rf j "Ya.
4 44
y P
2
k tE . ^k 7 s S -..r
71
l.-8 ?40
pt F s y

SCALE; b" ; 2000"
ma
{ ,? •'' ?r ? .Lis „? ? __.-?,,.,?,"+4 i ?.'"
'? r ,tom
s
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ORANGE COUNTY
PROJECT: 33790.1.1 (B-4592)
BRIDGE NO.64 OVER
THE ENO RIVER AND
APPROACHES ON SR 1561
SHEET OF
2/21/2008

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
NAMES ADDRESSES
DAVID R. MARION &
I
WENDY M. MARION
2 JOSEPHINE BARBOUR
JOHN W. HARTWELL &
3
PATRICIA H. HARTWELL
4 RUTH R. PETTY
211 LAWRENCE RD
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
P O BOX 258
OAK RIDGE, NC 27310
i
3001 HARTWELL POND DR
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
P O BOX 698
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278°0698
BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACT BUFFER
TYPE ALLOWABLE MITIGABLE REPLACEMENT

SITE NO. STRUCTURE SIZE
/ TYPE STATION
FROM/TO ROAD
CROSSING
BRIDGE PARALLEL
IMPACT ZONE 1
(ftz) ZONE 2
(ftZ) TOTAL
(ft2) ZONE 1
(ft2) ZONE 2
(ftZ) TOTAL
(ftZ) ZONE 1
(ftZ) ZONE 2
(ft2)
1 BRIDGE* 22+85 to 24+85 X 7264 2445 9709
1 ROAD** 24+85 to 25+05 X 573 573
2 ROAD 20+24 to 22+85 X 4152 2628 6780

TOTAL: 7264 3018 10282 4152 2628 6780
Notes:
Linear impacts along ENO River are 125 feet.
** Linear impacts along ENO River left of -L- are 38 feet and right of -L- are 24 feet.
Rev. May 2006

C
(D
L
E
T
N
N
Q
L
d
v
m °6:2
0 a
0
NDM
ns_
a
Xn
10
I:q
H
U
O

See Steet 1-A For Index of Sheets
See StL-et 1-B For Conventional Symbols

14.. PROJECT

RIDGE 1
140.64

b END
PROJECT

'h Wi 4°- )
?
1

- - Im
VICINITY Al " • DETOUR TE
TO
t/kr
cy
?MULKEY
ENOINEEREI 6 C0.13 -
PO B9i 33127
Ru -, N.C. 2763.
19 1 91 8 511 91 3
WWW8.M5U1.1918
W W WLKETINC.CO
COM
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
OIMNGE . COUNTY
LOCATION: BRIDGE NO. 64 OVER ENO RIVER ON SR 1561
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, AND STRUCTURE
WETLAND IMPACTS
STA. 27+50.00 -L- END TIP PROJECT B-4592
STA. 27+50.00 -L- END CONSTRUCTION B-4592
'01
BEGIN BRIDGE I i END BRIDGE
-L- 22 + 85.00 -L- 24+85.00
?WRENCE Rp
% STROUDS CREEK`', \
\ti0\
STA. 18+.50.00 -L- BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-4592
STA. 18+50.00 -L- BEGIN CONSTRUCTION B-4592 \ FR
SR 1561
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III.
TO US 70
BY-PASS
All-
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT OBB MR CONSTRUCTION

GRAPHIC SCALES

50 25 0 50 too
DESIGN DATA

ADT 2008 = 3,970 11
PROJECT LENGTH

LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B-4592 = 0.133 MILES Prepared in tte Office of:
•--MULKEY
-?
ENOINEERa 6 CON BULTANTS
FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION HYDRAULICS ENGINEER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Of RDRT.,
°

ADT 2030 = 7
400
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-4592 = 0
038 MILES
mob STANDARD SPECLUCAnoxs h
PLANS ,
DHV = 13 %
D .
TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT B-4592 = 0.171 MILES
TIM JORDAN
PE
PE
'
50 25 0 50 100 = 75 % RIGHT OF WAY DATE: , SIGNATURE.
T - 2 °k'
JANUARY 18
2008 ROADWAY PROJEcT ENGE&ER ROADWAY DESIGN
RC
°
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
V = 50 MPH

,
DAVID BOOKER, PE

ENGINEER

E iRbtlS
10 5 0 10 20 ` I IST 1% DUAL 1% 1ET17NG DATE: S^,DPALMIC PROJECT--VGD?.:E
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION JANUARY 20.2009 DOUG TAYLOR, PE
PROFILE (VERTICAL) LOCAL RURAL NCDOT ROADWAY DESIGN PROJECT ENGINEER PE Pi
slcxaruRE STATE JDCtmAr DPSrcN ExcDtiEER

Iii
U
O
U
is ermi ts_e -onmentoI\b4592_hyd_br m_p5h4_wetl.dgn
sApf My , 4
!! M
i^
I
I
x
T
T
-I 1:,
aZ

0

;
> m o m
5
+ m n
1m
i
my s
uo
r T
Y Y
8
N
1 ??1
? rrry`t s
i1
>1.'k
E
SS°a
? I
s P?? c
?} K
° I
lCp(D
\o
1 o V /?
8 A?.
aO ?iO / !X
r /
It/V ; -
,
y,
i
i
= is I
I
I,
C
d? '
r .Sv
?LIM
i
moooo )
myz?
I'? I
Y .T 1
>m / `
?aH g?? . ?O z? i
z
al
TT ? ?
a?
l
++
og i
++ 12
O 8 ? /
Y r u
T T ??
++ b N ?y
Asa f /
m ?
x? 3?n Nc
T T ?•Q ? cr I
.. m
9
I
I ?
u
II

`b'tib

I8

/
N 25400
P.
.r
I I
b
MVMN
K?
11.3
30100
+? g .. Z rp ,., i t. A h
t?
1
P
P
• t` STREAM AND
V
H? cRO ,

WETLAND IMPACTS
(CAUSEWAY 2)
N
Z
0
C

O

N

XOO
ti
JOHN WOTWELL
PATRICA H. HARTWELL
B RIP RAP I / rn
TONS I I 25F0
SY RL FAB I I
I` y N
1 WOODS 18' P
NODOS J ?RODL?G ,??
? /; Yus uILET y
:4-

t 5
WI _
Bz1
\ WOODS
STRg705 RffW

SLOPE PROTECTION
SEE DETAIL E
EST. 85 TONS RIP RAP
EST. 87 SY FIL FAR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
WOODS
O EST. 5 SY RL FAIT
DAVID R. MARION
WENDY M. MARION
1> `
SLOPE PROTECTION
SEE DETAIL E
EST. 130 TO RIP RAP
Yl?„ EST. 135 SY FNSL FAB
". z
WOODS
RETAIN VaSTNG DITCH
;Ow•
WOODS
RETAIN EATSTING DITCH
1
WOODSA
\ \J\
Gfk
c noyC, l ? ? \ ? \
2S
;' CLASS B RIP RAP
E 1TON
a
E
BEG
-L-

BEGIN
T_ <
Q
0
JOSEPHINE H. BARBOUR
SPECIAL BASE DITCH
SEE DETAIL A
WOODS
?r
N
ICAO

WOODS
? 1
p `L -
4 TYPE-all 'K
b ? '? TYPEJII V T1I
R II
• ANODIZED GUARDRAIL AND 2 BAR METAL RAIL ON BRIDGE
SKETCH SHOWING RELATIONSHIP OF BRIDGE TO PAVEMENT AND SHOULDERS
WOODS
DETAIL A
SPECIAL BASE DITCH
Not to Scale) C{
Natur0l
GaunO ?3.. 41
?? ??D
J
Min.O =L0' Ft.
B = 3' Ft.
-L- 5TA 19+00 TO STA 21+70 IT
/END SHWLDER' j
BERM 4-25+18
SITE 1
RIP RM AT ^
1W
C
i
w
CAUSEWAY #2
i=-MLJLKEY
•,W . ••..N.,.,.,.
ORANGE COUNTY, NC
BRIDGE 64 ON SR 1561
OVER ENO RIVER
2 /21 /OB
ENGLISH
0
JOSEPHINE H. BARBOUR
HAUL ROAD #2
• N
B CLASS B DP RAP
/-EST. 2 TON
/ EST. 7 Sy FF

PROJECT REEERENCT N0 . SHEET NO-
B-4592
4
Rol SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
Permtt Dr awing
Sheet of
PRELIMINA RY PLANS
Da NOT USE PO CONSTRU=,,N
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 5
DENOTES TEMPORARY FILL
IN SURFACE WATERS
.?.®DENOTES FILL
N SURFACE WATERS

CAUSEWAY1
*2
OUANTITIES
,,
_
VOLUME OF CLASS lI-1PIP RAP
BELOW ORDINARY HIGH WA7ER= 28.5 YD'
,/- WOODS

WOODS
1: l
WOODS PATRICIA H.
HARTWELL
RETAIN EMSTING DITCH w0a05
411' 4SSW LATE
rs c aiW v ?" EIP
--118'RCP -
SR 1551 L4WRENCE RD c'Y,BST
lSr? -R/1
RETAIN EIUSTING DITCH
SEAT 5,i WITH -
L=487.64 WOOD DECK
ES TNT Riw
m

CLASS II RIP RAP
STRUCNRE PAY
+ I SPECIAL IL 0
/
QASS B 0.8' RAP J SEE DETAIL D
:a EST. 2 IN
EST. 7 SY FF
i /
?9 9r
WOODS 0 N0005
RUTH R, PETTY /
LOWELL T, PETTY
1:.) VICKY PETTY
-"t
?1 y+?
,i
DETAIL B
.11 -
-T 1?
a rt
•.u ?`T 401 NI
x I , F
.1 AS
AT •ST-1 S
u ro ..
.R as
W RET
W A , OW9
aAnoN
CONCRETE \
MONUMENT DETAIL C DETAIL D DETAIL E
9.0TNORTH -- RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT SP JAL CH SLOPE PROTECTION
PB 9OF7 L PO LINE I Not m Sc-) I Not to scmel I Na+ +o scale)
L4S5 'I' - _ - D.1 2' MIN
;/,Ip Front ELEV. 485.0
Iw'CSP Wi FF / NpturO NpP }\ slope
YIN Gouna 2., D 1d"
3'lG4- I Nptyd
Mln. D = I Ft. 5 uIN Grnna
/ 'L ASS 1 .o
-L- STA. 25+90 TO STA. 27+00 IT W 1 FF TO
1- STA Z6+10 TO STA 27+00 0.T ELEV. 485.0
?- STA.20+35 TO STA 21+20 KT
-I- STA. 22 +00 TO STA. 22+73 ITT
N
Z
0
Vt
C
.? MoNUMENr? DETAIL C DETAIL D DETAIL E
4.07' NORTH RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT SP IAL 1 CH
OF LINE SLOPE PROTECTION
OpN A-' Irv°r ro scaei
xo
r ra scae1 ixor scaiei
se _ PB 97 PG XEI
Trc t ELEV. 185 REi ? IB'CSP W/AFF / Natural ? J'FS.? S?b°e 2 WN
X55 . M p r --pi?ird?- i i' Mw Go?°a 2y D 1.?'
r r[xT bRC I xar_nc
1-9--I uiNF e I Min. D = I Ft. `'. r•y C. -u a
LASStIRR
xAn°x -L- STA. 25+90 TO STA. 27+00 LT r-W
i rF To
/ {-STA. 26+10 TO STA. 27+00 RT ELEV. +es.o
1- STA. 20+35 TO STA. 21+2o RT
-L- ST& 22+00 70 STA. 22 +73 ITT
E
a _ N y
u
y a ? -ttrEail
,f o TYPEaII
AU f ANODIZED GUARDRAIL AND 2 BAR METAL RAIL ON BRIDGE
Sm
?? SKEfCH SHOWING RELATIONSHIP OF BRIDGE TO PAVEMENT AND SHOULDERS
V
W
m
m
C
.C
U7
E
L
Q
a
N
Q1
N
Q
N
E
L
a
u
o °a
° L
?N
N
E90
V
O
a

N
V
O
v
TO
??09!kbu'
A/
*-MULKEY
ENGINEERq 6 CGNGULTANTG
10 B9x 331ST
Rw?L19N, N.C. 27636
(9191 651 1913
"191 651.1916 11^1
W W W-LKEYINC.°OM
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ORANGE. COUNTY
LOCATION: BRIDGE NO. 64 OVER ENO RIVER ON SR 1561
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, AND STRUCTURE
tiq
0
He ORip I
STA. 27+50.00 -L- END TIP PROJECT 8-4592
STA. 27+50.00 -L- END CONSTRUCTION B-4S92
I W /l
I -k I
\ !2
W
\
\ BEGIN BRIDGE i END BRIDGE
-L- 22+85.60 -L- 24+85.00
L41yRENCE Rp
-L-
` STROUDS CREEK -
STA. 18+50.00 -L- BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-4592
STA. 18+50.00 -L- BEGIN CONSTRUCTION B-4592
SR 1561
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III.
TO US 70
BY-PASS
ANN
PRELIMINARY PLANS
W NOT USE FOR CONSTRU=ON
el
GRAPHIC SCALES

50 25 0 50 100
DESIGN DATA

ADT 2008 = 3,970
PROJECT LENGTH

LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B-4592 = 0.133 MILES e Prepsred in ttE office of:

-MULKEY
*
ENGINEERR 6 CONl ULTANT6
FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION HYDRAULICS ENGINEER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STA1E OF NORTH CAROLINA

91 NORr
E r

ADT 2030 = 7,400
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-4592 = 0
038 MILES
1006 STANDARD SPECMICATIONS ?
t
PLANS DHV = 13 %
D
75 ° .
TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT B-4592 = 0.171 MILES
TIM JORDAN
PE
Pe '
_
so 25 o so 10o =
k RIGHT OF WAY DATE: , S'cw"°RE'
T = 2 %`
JANUARY 18
2008 ROADWAY PROJECT ENGDIFER ROADWAY DESIGN
O
'?"
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) V = 50 MPH , DAVID BOCKER, PE ENGINEER p TRIO
10 5 0 10 20 ` TTST 1% DUAL 1% LE777NG DATE: HYDRAUEIC PROJECT ENGAIF.PA
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION JANUARY 20, 2009 li DOUG TAYLOR, PE
PROFILE (VERTICAL) LOCAL RURAL NCDOT ROADWAY DESIGN PROJECT EN PE PS -
SIGNATURE: STATE HIGHWAY DESIGN ENGD?ER
See Sheet 1-A For Index of Sheets
See
See Sheet 1-B For Conventional Symbols
m
Z
0
r
E
a.
I
N
c
Q
-iD
nUFFEIRIA. IMPACTS
O
? JOSEPHINE H. BARBOUR
l
RETAIN EXISTING DITCH
S
S
6
' SERE ?aBASEE DITCH

Waoc y
- E--"\
? ??.
'
\
~
RETAIN EMSTING DITCH

I
O

CLASS B PIP RAP

I O ^ EST. I TON
EST. 5 O Rt FM _
,
\
I DAVID R. MARION
_ WENDY M. MARION
)
i
x
SIOPF PROTECTION

Ir J
SEE DEVIL E
_
! EST.130 TONS RIP RAP
EST. 135 SY FL FAB

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

WCO;'.
-L- cc*aD.UU 209 -L- 24+85.00
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB END APPROACH
-L- 22+61.00 -L- 25+09.00
h
_ 4 I JII :L^L
? TYPE-III _
V ? ^t r}
o TYPEJII 'v ; I
i ANODIZED GUARDRAIL AND 2 BAR METAL RAIL ON BRIDGE T
_

?6 (.
N
?
I O

- N
J a`
JOHN W. HARTWELL
PATRICA H. HART WELL F;
.
n1' L
? •ry?

?
END SHOULDER
\ L BERM GUTTER
RIP ?AA1 B
RAP
1 4-25+18
`

EST NS
11 TONS
Rf'
6T. 16 SY RL FAB

,.' SITE 1
•I f
I
l ??f RR RAP AT
'
r ?? ?, SEEMBAN E AIL C I J °
, gy 11 r
.
A:
.
s i f a
,
e
P

• t ROD 8 G
VWS EVE ASKET
t
..;..

2CA O A
' EXCAVATION
L
Rte. ?. _ STRUCTURE PAY ITFAI?

' PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO.
MULKEY B-4592 4
WW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE I ENGINEER ENGINEER

® ALL."ABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2 ORANGE COUNTY, NC
BRIDGE 64 ON SR 1
6 Suffer Dra wing
5
1
OVER ENO RIVER
S /
f
MTIlAB1E IMPACTS ZONE I Sheet O
3/12 /O8
® MITI-.LE IMPACTS ZONE 2 ENGLISH PRELIMIN
W NOT USE 3B 10 R N PLANS
[ONWTRUrnA1N
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 5

C)

JOSEPHINE H. BARBOUR -
-
vCgV
PREFORMED y
SCOUR HOLE
SEE DETAIL B CLASS B RIP RAP
EST. 2 TON SPECIAL DITCH
EST. 7 SY FF 5EE DETAIL D
(' 1
NOJpS
'
PATRICIA H
.., HARTWELL

- P •. a.. _ ., RET AIN EX1571NG DITCH

E
Off- -- -------------

CA

RETAIN EXISTING DITCH
S-PECIALL
DITCH
SEE DETAIL DN /
-? CLASS B RIP RAP j
'>•., L. ?, EST.2 TON
SLOPE PROTECTION - 'r EST. 7 SY ff
SEE DETAIL E
EST. 85 TONS RIP RAP
ESL. RT Sy FR FAR CUSS R AR RAP `1. 6r `' w•.; CS
?•• \ n.nEH j/
STRUCTURE PAY ITEM
? A2
WCnOS RUTH R. PETTY
j
LOWELL T.PETTY
VICKY PETTY
S G \
?T \
DETAIL -A
SPECIAL BASE DITCH ?t•
f Not to Scale) Y
Natural
u
Min. D , LD• Fr.
B
-L- STA 19+00 TO STA 21+711 IT
?ETALL B
Nco Yu ,ae
nu a. ,
TT. 1-1
11 -ALL"..
-T- .-A
Rv[
wIFRI ant
SfAMMI F+i
bib lT
q _ \
w \ \
?\ x
j t DETAIL C DETAIL D DETAIL E
RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT 7FEciAL TjTCH SLOPE PROTECTION
L (Not to SC-) INot TO S.-I )Not to Scale)
r
j _ Fra-t ELEV. 485.0 /
7 - CLASS T - - P S Ditch 2'MIN
P }: oe
F -I /%- lA'CSP yy2 /uIN , GaounO 2;r0\/ J2+ o
TIAN--Wp - 1 "atyry
Min. D = Ft, 7.5' uIN ?y- - , Grauna
LASS IIR_
R
-1- STA- 25+90 TO STA. 27+00 LT W i FF To
i
i 1- ST0. Z6+10 TO STA Z7+00 Ri ELEV. W85.0
i
-L- STA. 20+35 TO STA.21+20 IT
-L- S0. 22+00 TO STA. 22+73 RT

BRIDGE HYDRAUL
IC DATA BL :6
EL = 497.50 -BL-7 BM-'I
EL = aea9e RAILROAD SPIKE IN 15°oAK TREE
?
MULKEY PROJECE REFERENCE NO. SHM NO.
B-4592 5
ROAD WAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 8350 CFS

-
-L- STA 25+4736 36595' LEFT
-
'

-^ - ?^^^^
ENG NEER ENG NEER
DESIGN FREQUENCY = 25 YRS - _
EL = 477.34 Buffer Ing
DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 483.6 FT
-?- -
Sheet Of
BASE DISCHARGE = 11.400 CFS
BASE FREQUENCY = 100 YRS -- PRELIMINARY PLANS
BASE HW ELEVATION = 485.6 FT
00 NOT V58 CONSTROC110N
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = 21,300 CFS
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY = 500+ YRS 0R -' P LAN V'EW SEE SHEE T 4
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 4912 FT
W.S. ELEVATION -BL-B
AT DATE OF SURVEY = 4705 FT EL = 501J1

520
DATE OF SURVEY
= 4120106
- h
Lc _ -

520
-_
_

510_ -

.
wo
L,8

510

_ P1- 21-25 00 Q
-
a?
-
_..
? -?-
? EL = 493.30'
' 2 Q-' P,- 26+25.00
m t
?
- VC 2S0 N EL = 49100,. - a

500
-- - C?j
- K=79
D5- - 45 mpn- be=150
97
w F W
- X00 _

v 50 mpn

490 m?I

n

Q N
g N
\
_ \

?r _1 4

000
2eoc

4600

C.46 c' tCC9 3
--- -

.':

!'
N -

.,490 ----
cl: ? ? . o

480

-

?? ?f

© I w R

?Io? o

oLr,
J
T
_
w°?t

480

Q2 Cc I
7
TT

-Z _

.

- c\j

-
?

? N R
fl :? OHW 473 - a n h. C7 Rl
?
u
2

70

T BLEhi
D
O EX ST II
% ? r
. -
vl ti ?? a

o0 r,
_. '. O (O 'J .GOO}

0? o O !!

z U c?

-

- w l w
a

I w_

, ?o

470

+
y R
N
NWS-470.5 m 2
22 .
i .
cz)
w zo-oa{
? 5LENJ

60

,

-

LLIJ?{
m
41

Z?J
1 -
}t W ??
wJJ Ij

f _l FXI.,7
-

460
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

P
c
E
m
a
V
09O
O?Q
0=-

C
D
L
T
L
N
01
LC)
0
a
T
CD o<
ova
? 4c
? oN
?!c
MT-
V\
H
U
O

See Suet 1-A For Index of Steels
See Steel 1-8 For Conventional Symbols
J + ?

BEGIN
r
PROJECT

MOCA
NO. 64
ENO ?-
y. Elm
PROJECT

VICINITY M AP • •
• DETOUR ROUTE
-F-MULKEY
ENGINEERG 6 LCINBULTANTB
nG ea: as 1 z!
R.LLN9w, N.L. 1!030
19191 BSI-191 Z
(9191 BSI 191 B (iAIU
W W W.MULKEYINL.LLM

ORANGE COUNTY
LOCATION: BRIDGE NO. 64 OVER ENO RIVER ON SR 1561
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, AND STRUCTURE
PO
e0Ro
icy
0 i
V
O
U
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STA. 27+50.00 -L- END TIP PROJECT B-4592
STA. 27+50.00 -L- END CONSTRUCTION B-4592
I??l
?? .
BEGIN BRIDGE II (r END BRIDGE
-L- 22+85.00 i ` -L- 24+85.00
??RENCE RD• ( \ -L-
SR 1561
1 STROUDS CREEK.
/STA. +50.00 -L- BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-4592
STA. 18+50.00 -L- BEGIN CONSTRUCTION B-4592 \\P \,\
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III.
TO US 70
BY-PASS
PRELIMINARY PLANS
W NOT USE POR ltlNSTRUlT10N
vlvun?V ??.ftt.eJ

50 25 0 50 100 LJCJI6IV LAIA

ADT 2008 = 3,970 PROJECT LENGTH

LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B-4592 = 0
133 MILES Prepared in the Office or:
•
MULKEY
CNBI -q 4 CGN eY LTANTB HYDRAULICS ENGINEER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ADT 2030 = 7
400 .
LENGTH ST FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION OF RORjk
`
PLANS ,
DHV = 13 % RUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-4592 = 0.038 MILES 2906 STANDARD SPECTFTCATFONS 1
'+\

50 25 0 50 100
D = 75 % TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT B-4592 = 0.171 MILES
TIM JORDAN
PE
PE
T = 2 %' RIGHT OF WAY DATE: ,
ROADWAY
RO
ECT
NGnX S1GM1rURE
J
P
E
WR T

PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) V = 50 MPH JANUARY 18, 2008 ROADWAY DESIGN
oe
+l

10
' TTST 1% DUAL 1% DAVID BOCKER, PE ENGINEER
o`'"""'a
5 0 10 20 LETTING DATE: HYDRAULIC PROJECT ENGDff"
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
IOCAL R JANUARY 20 2009 DOUG TAYLOR
PE
PROFILE (VERTICAL) URAL - ,
?VCDOT ROADWAY DESIGN PROJECT P.E.
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
(FINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN)
A CONCRETE WEARING SURFACE (STRUCTURE PAY ITEM)
Ct PROP.
AT AN APPROX. 2L+2"
AVERAGE RATE ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE SF9.5A,
OF 137.5 LBS. PER SO. YD. IN EACH OF TWO LAYERS.
E1 PROP.
AT AN APPROX. 412"
AVERAGE RATE ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE B25.OB,
OF 513 LBS. PER SO. Y0.
T EARTH MATERIAL.
....... .......??.. ?..... ?...? .? -1 ... -1- -V-1 V InCtl1E1Jt.

1'-3"
ANODIZED
TWO BAR
METAL RAIL
6?4" MIN.
CL -L-
1 Z'-A"
12'
12' 4'-3"
A
_ 0.04

GRADE
POINT
1'-3"
E
ANODIZED
TWO BAR
METAL RAIL
6?4" MIN.
IL DVA VIKUCK UNIib
DETAIL OF BRIDGE
-L- STA 22+85.00 (BEGIN BRDIGE) TO STA 24+85.00 (END BRIDGE)
* WIDENED FOR HYDRAULIC SPREAD ON STRUCTURE
CL -L-
8' 12' 12' 8' 8'
11' WiGR I 11' WiGR
r 4'
FDPS FDPS
GRADE
cl POINT
0;08 _0.02 0.02 0.08
TO
VAR• 2' 7„
VANAMA
GRADE TO
THIS LINE

c TYPICAL SECTION NO.1
°•
a USE TYPICAL SECTION NO. I
AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS
TRANSITION FROM EXISTING TO T.S. NO. I FROM
-L- STA. 18+50.00 TO STA. 19+00.00

o -L- STA. 19+00.00 TO STA. 22+85.00 (BEGIN BRIDGE)

a -L-STA. 24+85.00 (END BRIDGE) TO STA. 26+50.00
TRANSITION FROM T.S. NO.1 TO EXISTING
o?N -L- STA. 26+50.00 TO STA. 27+50.00
aN
a

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
B-4592 2
R"" SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAUUCS
ENGNEER ENGINEER
PRELIMINNRY PLANS
W NOT USE MI CONSTRUCTION
-L-
PL Sta 20+75.63 PI Sto 30+47J4 PI Sto 32+81.63
L = 30'02' 412" (L T) L = 3' 17' 30.4" (RT) L = 15' 57' 34.8" (RT)
D = 8' 03' 30.5" D = 2'12'133' D = 5' 14' 48.7°
L = 372.83' L = 149.38' L = 304J8'
T = 190.8/' T = 74.71' T = 153.08'
R = 711.00' R = 2,600.00' R = 1,092.00'
SE = 04 SE = 04 SE = 04
RO = 88' RO = 88' RO = 88'
DS = 45 mph DS = 45 mph DS = 45 mph
- POT St(7 _15+
z RETAIN EXISTING DITCH
.50.00
X. Rita
96
.,..`^, 3F
Z woc;
RETAIN EXISTING DITCH_
+5000
' i vv Ex R/W C
_ l
_ 85 00
- 20+02.16 19.43 RT)
Kr 11
C -L- 22+61.00
r 4
a-
P
v
'C
F --
STRUCTURE PAY ITEM
2
-IUD
RiL
\ n
50.0
70.00 --
SLOPE PROTECTION :.-.
SEE DETAIL E
EST. 130 TONS RIP RAP SLOPE PROTECTION
EST. 135 SY HL FAB SEE DETAIL E
EST. 85 TONS RIP IU
EST. 87 SY HL FAB
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
06 3878 PC 461
PB 98 PO 11
,,.....
-I -
a
?a
oI 1YPEJR L
? ANODIZED GUARDRAIL AND 2 BAR METAL RAIL ON BRIDGE
SKETCH SHOWING RELATIONSHIP OF BRIDGE TO PAVEMENT AND SHOULDERS
0
JOSEPHINE H. BARBOUR
08 3636 PC 459
OB 3730 PC 121
DB 174 PC 210
PB 97 PC 76
BEGIN PROJECT 8-4592
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
-L- POT Sta.18+50.00
-L- PC Sto.18+84.82
SPECIAL BASE DITCH
SEE DETAIL A
00.00
65.00 180.C
60.01
E 50.00
40.00 80.00
43.10
Hq
0
4"C'
xQ
N
O
N
' JOHN W.HARTWELL I?}
PATRICA H. HARTWELL }1
OB 782 PG 207 L?
OB 3730 PG 124
.. PS 97 PC 76 -
f' 7
3 END SHOULDER
BERM GUTTER -
CLASS B RIP RAP -'-L- 25+18
EST. 11 TONS
EST. 16 SY FIL FAB ,
l ? t ti ,1
SOS 0' 1 l t RIP RAP AT
60.00 EMBANKMENT
SEE DETAIL C a r
1
.19.36
46.00 `
iB' SP
75.00?[ROD 3 LJG
' ?. . 0 / W/S 40 ASKET h 1
E W 5.00 65.0
E\ QR

1
? I 4
m I
PROJECT REFERENCE N0.
_____ SHEET NO.
_
MULKEY B-4592 f
4
II SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
PRELIMINP(RY PLANS
W NM USE PO C NSTRUl ION
acs .
PATRICIA H.
50 00 HARTWELL
E% R/W OB 388 P6 657
?.
' RETAIN EXISTING DITCH e /
_! RETAIL
- - _
/ .,n nn r `RETAIN EXISTING DITCH
1 SLY iIXf 1 N'Grc EX. R/W /
e ,v .30.00
60.00 /
?- 1
SERE DETETAIL D DITCH
cuss B uP u f END PROJECT B-4592
EST. 2 TON -L- PC Sta.29+72.43
EST. 7 SY FF END CONSTRUCTION
-L- POT Sta.27+50.00
LASS 11 PIP RAP
STRUCTURE PAY TEm
RUTH R.PETTT j
OB 132 PG 195
i LOWELL T.PETTY
VICKY PETTY
t, ' TA VV 08 248 PC 1461
5755
-BL-7 PINC 20+08.01
(-L- 24+78.00 18.12 RT) v v
DETAIL A
SPECIAL BASE DITCH
(Not to Scale)
Natural
G- o
U
MIn.0 =1.0' Ft.
8 = 3' Ft.
-L-STA 19+00 TO STA 21+70 LT
DETAIL B
M'ErpNNF n S?Ea xqE
RAN rCv
SECT- w A
RPF
OR i
WR[! P
TT :
v ?t F-4-4 -
AASIaN r-I
BM -1
-81-- STA 20+95.51
41 380.35 LEFT
ELEV.477.34'
PREFORMED
SCOUR HOLE
rSEE DETAIL B
35.00
65.00

_
c\\
a \
to \ \\
-r DETAIL C DETAIL D DETAIL E
RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT TFECIALI CH SLOPE PROTECTION
to Scpe INot to Scpe (Not to Scple)
Tf ?? f ?
front EL"V. <85.0
?-r IR'CSP w14FF Natural 1 JPP 55 lope 2 MIN
.$ P'wirv crpwa 7.t 0 qd v
i 1_ Nat,.-pl
3' MIN - 3.5' IN Min. p = I Et. Ground
?CL ASS IIPR
-L- STA. 25+90 TO STA. 27+00 LT w i fP Ta
S/ ELfv. a85.4
1- STA. 26+10 TO STA. 27+00 IT
STA 20+35 TO STA.21+20 BT
-L- STA 22+00 TO STA 22+73 RT
0
JOSEPHINE H. BARBOUR
OB 3636 PC 459
06 3730 PC 121
OB 174 PC 210
PB 97 PC 76
B RIP RAP
N SPECIAL DITCH
SY FF rSEE DETAIL D
-===G_RAU 350
P
m 'BL'6 -BL-7 -- BM-'I I FROIER REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
" BRIDGE HYDRAULIC DATA EL = 4_97_50 tMULKEY
EL = 488.98 RAILROAD SPIKE IN 15'OAK TREE B-4592 5
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 8350 CFS -L- STA 25+4736 36595'CEfT W° •' RoAowArnESwN xroRAUUCs
ENGINEER ENGINEER
_ = ......,..,...m,
DESIGN FREQUENCY = 25 YRS - -
DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 483.6 FT
BASE DISCHARGE = 11,400 CFS -L-
BASE FREQUENCY = 100 YRS EC 477.34'
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
BASE hhY ELEVATION = 485.6 FT -- 0o NOf USE MNSrR0cn0N
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = 21,300 CFS FOR -L- PLAN VIEW SEE SHEET
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY = 500+ YRS f
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 491.2 F7 - -
- ---- ------ ---
WS. ELEVATION -BL-8
AT DATE OF SURVEY = 4705 FT EL = 501J1
520- DATE OF SURVEY = 4120106 -
L'i
510_._ °o w? r
------'- - P = 21+zsa ?m - acc, Q? _S1Q
EL-= 49130' ro , + 0
PY= 26+25.00 w -P
KC° 7960' o? EL 491001 )
- o
w VC = t5O' I
Soo__: DS 45 mvn 2 z -__soo _
_ l u r _- r -977 w t w
_" o w o OS 50
m 001 1 ??? . ?? ?? ??
- - DOi , -
490 o o 3s0Cr ?_ r 0.46001 -1.460c +11.Q933f
o g N T2.8L r- ----- _ v o _- 490__
o -
o +120000/ -, - o
- 0.O+ 2? h ? ?.. ? r to
L'i
.980 - ?l lui ?r :_411 W :a UdN GdVS U?O ? ? k? wO? ? j0
mQ:l I Q+03-??Q - _980_
0
a 71
Z J)
FNr do yN
ENV 41N? _ ti ti Q)NP ?o+
U-) f R R O { Y O .._..._.
470- t w ??? ooh o°o of
WIw WI.W Wmo QZ?I
_ o _470
LENS
L?j
- - mIw ? w `m?I? TO EXIST
460 w a
460
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
P
a _
P
o?N
-mac
n¢-
r
a
U
a
N
N
D
n
m Q
p ?Q
N Um
0^
•.... _...,.: .: 0 2.5 5 PROI. REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
B-4592 X-4
75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 '10, . 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

5?n -

495
__
T

490 ------- - ------

\ -
\
\
48l?

?
U
JtJ
- ?r
,
?

990
a 490

4S

4,5 _

L
75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10, 5 0 5 _,10 IS 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

0 2.5 5 PROL REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.

75 70 65
6 8-4592 X-6
0 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15, 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
SOC- _

405 _ ?_ _
4a5
0A 4?W
4

485
4P5
48i? -
-
480 `
4Z5
1715
/
470
_
- -
465
-

-
250
00
- ,
-

--L- too U4

-487

?
- 485
480
-
---- -- -- ------ - --------- 4,8C
475.
v (00,01 47F
BEG I N BR I DGE 22+85. 00

75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 1,5 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
c
n
N
N
d
U
x
Wa
aN
a^
?¢4?
L1 7 JU;VG
495 _
_ 495
,y
' ?-
- 490
495
495
a
a
N
D
U
X
m QQ
a?
nQ"
Q?00 ?
-------------
--? ? - 490

4S
490
_
1----
_
t-
?

_485__

v T 00
0
.
480

a 64 -L?

:era

75 70 65 66 55 50' 45 40 35 30 26 20 15 10, 5 0 5 10 _15 20 25, 30 35..140 45 50 56 60 65 70 75
a )
ORANGE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 64 ON SR 1 561 (LAWRENCE ROAD)
OVER ENO RIVER
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. B RZ-1 561(5)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2502701
WBS No. 33790.1.1
T.I.P. NO. B-4592
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
0"fDoa
regory J. orpe, Ph.D.
OG
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
1/10 y/0 7 0
Date ? John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
r
ORANGE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 64 ON SR 1 561 (LAWRENCE ROAD)
OVER ENO RIVER
FFEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1 561(5)
STATE PROJECT NO. B.2502701
WBS NO. 33790.1.1
T.I.P. NO. 8-4592
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
JANUARY 2007
DOCUMENT PREPARED BY:
MULKEY ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA
*`?•eeeeeneehnh
?H CAR0 K/F
o r ? ?
.
'Q l
SEAL
? s s
z 19661 0
°
b
Date L. Kevin Austin P.E. °°• kF ' '°•°"'•Sg? `?e`?`
Principal 4*44ilateA? %
l U 1 Jv l l -v ?? `1L
Date Nicole H. Bennett, AICP
Project Manager
FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
0 3 u 7 ?-
Date Theresa Ellerby
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Group
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
ORANGE COUNTY
BRIDGE No. 64 ON SR 1 561 (LAWRENCE ROAD)
OVER ENO RIVER
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1 551(5)
STATE PROJECT No. 8.2502701
WBS No. 33790.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4592
The standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit Conditions,
Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's
Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, Erosion and
Sediment Control Guidelines for Contract Construction, General Certification Conditions, and
Section 401 Conditions of Certification will be used. The following special commitments have been
agreed to by NCDOT:
HYDRAULICS UNIT / STRUCTURES
Anodized two-bar metal railing will be provided on the bridge.
Bicycle safe bridge railing will be provided.
Four-foot paved shoulders will be provided along both roadway approaches to the bridge for 100
feet.
DIVISION ENGINEER
Coordinate construction scheduling with T.I.P. Project B-4216 (replacement of Bridge No. 66 on SR
1002) to insure that only one bridge is closed at any given time.
The Neuse River Riparian Buffer rules will be implemented during design, construction and
maintenance of the project
ROADWAY DESIGN
Allowance will be made for a future ten-foot multi-use path under the bridge on the east side of the
Eno River.
January 2007
Categorical Exclusion
Green Sheet
ORANGE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 64 ON SR 1 561 (LAWRENCE ROAD)
OVER ENO RIVER
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1 561(5)
STATE PROJECT NO. B.2502701
WBS No. 33790.1.
T.I.P. NO. B-4592
NTRO D U CTI O N : The replacement of Bridge No. 64 is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) and in the
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program:. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
1. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 64 has a sufficiency rating of 29.9 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer, more efficient traffic
operations.
11. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 64 is located on SR 1561 (Lawrence Road) in Orange County, east of Hillsborough, NC.
The statewide functional classification system classifies SR 1561 as Rural Local. It connects to US 70
approximately 1.5 miles south of Bridge No. 64. The Eno River State Park is located approximately
two miles upstream from Bridge No. 64. The proposed future boundary of the park will encompass
the project site (Figure 2).
Land use along SR 1561 consists of scattered residences, forest, and the Eno River State Park.
The 2006 estimated average daily traffic (ADT) volume is 3,650 vehicles per day (vpd). The
projected ADT is 7,400 vpd by design year 2030. The percentages of truck traffic are one percent
dual tired vehicles and one percent truck-tractor semi trailer (TTST). The speed limit on
SR 1561 is 45 mph in the vicinity of Bridge No. 64.
Bridge No. 64 was built in 1955. It is a tangent two-lane structure with a clear roadway width of 18.7
feet (Figure 3). The bridge has five spans and totals 177 feet in length. The superstructure is
composed of a timber deck on a steel girder/timber joists/steel floorbeam system. The substructure
consists of reinforced concrete spill through abutments and reinforced concrete post and beam
interior bents. Height from crown to streambed is 22 feet. Bridge No. 64 is posted at 12 tons for
single vehicles and 16 tons for TTSTs.
The approach roadway is 18 feet wide with two-foot grassed shoulders. The northern approach
curve has a radius of approximately 860 feet and posted speed of 45 mph. There is no evidence of
overhead or buried utilities in the vicinity of the existing bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be
low.
There are four daily school bus crossings on Bridge No. 64.
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 1
Three accidents were reported in the project area during the period from October 2002 through
September 2005. There were no fatalities.
This section of SR 1561 is designated as a Secondary Priority Route in accordance with the Orange
County Proposed Bicycle Transportation Route Map (Appendix).
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on preliminary hydraulic analysis, the recommended replacement structure is a bridge
approximately 36 feet wide. The recommended bridge clear roadway width is 33 feet 5 inches
(33'-5") to provide two 12-foot wide travel lanes with a 5-foot 2.5 inch (5'-2'/z") shoulder on the
east side and a 4-foot 2.5 inch (4'-2 '/z") shoulder on the west side (Figure 4). Standard bicycle safe
bridge railing, 54 inches in height, and four-foot paved shoulders will be provided. Because of the
project's proximity to St. Mary's Rural Historic District and the Eno River State Park, anodized two-
bar metal railing will be provided. The existing vertical clearance will be maintained. A minimum 0.3
percent grade is recommended to facilitate bridge deck drainage. The length of the new structure
may increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydrologic studies. The bridge will accommodate a future ten-foot multi-use path underneath on
the east side of the Eno River.
The approach roadway will provide two 12-foot lanes with eight-foot shoulders, including four-foot
paved shoulders (Figure 4). The design speed is 50 mph.
B. BUILD ALTERNATIVES
Two build alternatives were studied for this project. They are described below.
Alternative A (preferred) replaces the structure at the existing location (Figure 5A). The new
structure will be approximately 200 feet in length. During construction, traffic will be maintained by
an off-site detour along SR 1002 (St. Mary's Road) and US 70 Bypass. The detour is approximately
two miles long and is expected to be in operation for approximately eight months. The detour will
result in about two minutes additional travel time. No substantial impacts are anticipated to
emergency services and school bus routes (Appendix). NCDOT Division 7 concurs with the use of
this detour.
The construction schedule for the replacement of Bridge No. 64 will be coordinated with the
replacement of Bridge No. 66 (B-4216) over the Eno River on 1002. Bridge No. 64 could be
replaced first so SR 1561 can be used as the detour route for Bridge No. 66.
Alternative B replaces the structure on new alignment north (downstream) of the existing structure
(Figure 5B). The new structure will be approximately 195 feet in length. During construction, traffic
will be maintained on the existing structure. This alternative is not recommended because of
impacts to Eno River buffers and property owners.
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 2
C. ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY
The No-Build alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not desirable due
to the traffic service provided by SR 1561 over Bridge No. 64.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that "rehabilitation"
of this bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
Upstream replacement options were not considered because of impacts to Strouds Creek.
D. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Alternative A, replacing the bridge on existing alignment while using an off-site detour to maintain
traffic, is the preferred alternative. Although impacts for Alternative A and Alternative B are similar,
Alternative A minimizes impacts to previously undisturbed areas. Also, Alternative A is more
economical than Alternative B.
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternative A as the preferred alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
Table 1 shows estimated costs based on current prices.
Table 1. Estimated Costs
Alternative A
(Preferred) Alternative B
Structure Removal (Existing) $ 42,000 $ 42,000
Proposed Structure $ 684,000 $ 666,900
Roadway Approaches $ 237,050 $ 413,840
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $ 246,950 $ 307,260
Engineering Contingencies $ 190,000 $ 220,000
ROW/Contt. Easements/Utilities $ 38,100 $ 104,700
Total $1,438,100 $1,754,700
The estimated cost of the project as shown in the 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program
is $1,380,000, including $200,000 in prior years, $80,000 for right-of-way, and $1,100,000 for
construction.
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 3
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. METHODOLOGY
Field investigations within the project study area were conducted by qualified biologists between
January and June 2004. Field surveys were undertaken to determine natural resource conditions and
to document natural communities, wildlife, Waters of the U.S., and the presence of protected species
or their habitats.
Published information about the project study area and region, water resources, and protected
species was derived from a number of resources including:
• National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps
• USGS 7.5-minute topographical quadrangle maps (Hillsborough, North Carolina)
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) soil survey maps of Orange County
• North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats
• North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aerial photography and Geographic
Information Systems Data/Maps Distribution
Dominant plant species were identified in each stratum for all natural communities encountered.
Plant community descriptions are based on those classified in Schafale and Weakley (1990), where
applicable. Names and descriptions of plant species generally follow Radford et al. (1968), unless
more current information is available. Animal names and descriptions follow Rohde et al. (1994),
USFWS (2003), Martof et al. (1980), Parmalee and Bogan (1998), Webster et al. (1985), Russo (2000),
Stokes and Stokes (1996), and UNC (2003). Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are provided for each plant and animal listed. Subsequent references to the same
organism include the common name only.
During field surveys, wildlife identification involved a variety of observation techniques, which
included active searching and capture, visual observations (both with and without the use of
binoculars), and observing the characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, and burrows).
Any organisms that may have been captured during these searches were identified and released
without injury. Quantitative aquatic sampling was not undertaken.
Presence of jurisdictional wetlands and jurisdictional wetland delineations were performed using the
three-parameter approach as prescribed in the Corp of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Supplementary technical literature describing the parameters of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils,
and hydrological indicators were also utilized. Surface waters in the project study area were evaluated
using the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet.
B. PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS
The project lies in Orange County, which is situated in the north-central portion of North Carolina
and is primarily located in the Piedmont ecoregion. The geography of the county consists
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 4
predominantly of rolling areas creating an undulating terrain. Orange County includes the divides of
three major river basins (Roanoke, Neuse, and Cape Fear). Approximately 50 percent of the county's
population is considered urban.
Elevations in the project study area range from approximately 484 feet above mean sea level (msl)
under Bridge No. 64 at the Eno River to approximately 530 feet above msl located at the northern
end of the project study area along Lawrence Road.
The project study area lies within the Carolina Slate Belt geological region. This section of the
Carolina Slate Belt is comprised of felsic metavolcanic rock. It contains metamorphosed dacitic to
rhyolitic flows and tuffs, interbedded with mafic and metavolcanic rock, meta-argillite, and
mudstone. The soils in the study area developed from the Carolina Slate Belt system that is part of
the Piedmont soil region.
The Tatum-Goldston soil association occurs across the study area. This soil association is described
below, and the local soil units are summarized in Table 2. Congaree soil is the most abundant series
mapped in the study area.
The Tatum-Goldston soil association consists of sloping to steep, well-drained soils that have a
subsoil of silty clay, silty clay loam, and silt loam on uplands. The soil is derived mostly from
saprolite. This association is found on side slopes adjacent to the major drainageways. Tatum soils
occupy about 80 percent of the association, while Goldston soils make up about 10 percent of the
association. The rest of the association is made up of Georgeville, Herndon, and Wilkes series.
Table 2. Soil Map Units - B-4592, Orange County
Available High Shrink- Site
Series Taxonomy Slope Permeability Hydric Water Water swell Index
(Subgroup) (%) Class. Capacity Table Potential ProductivityB
Congaree
*
Ty
"
fine sandy ent
P 0 moderate B high 30-48 low 89-100
loam
Georgeville Typic 2-6 moderate - high 72" low 63-81
silt loam Hapludult
Georgeville Typic 6-10 moderate - high 72" low 63-81
silt loam Hapludult
Herndon Typic 2-6 moderate - medium 72" low 61-91
silt loam Hapludult
Tatum silt Typic 8-15 moderate - low 48-72" moderate 65-89
loam Hapludult
Notes: All soils are classified as well-drained.
B Site Index: Based on a base age of 50 years; the range presented covers the species listed by the USDA-NRCS.
Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of
hydrophytic vegetation. Soils referred to as "Hydric A" are generally completely hydric throughout
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 5
the mapped soil unit. "Hydric B" soils are non-hydric soils that contain inclusions of hydric soils,
usually in depressional areas or along the border with other soil units. Congaree fine sandy loam is
the only Hydric B soil map unit that occurs in the project study area. There are no Hydric A soils.
C. WATER RESOURCES
1. Waters Impacted
The project is located within the Neuse River Basin, the third largest basin in the state, covering
approximately 6,235 square miles. The project study area is within Neuse River subbasin 03-04-01
and USGS hydrologic unit 03020201. The Eno River and Strouds Creek make up the Waters of the
United States in the project study area. Strouds Creek connects to the Eno River approximately 70
feet upstream of Bridge No. 64. Both waterways are depicted on the USGS quad map as perennial
streams through the project study area.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
During the site visit, the Eno River was slow to medium-flowing, with substrates ranging in size
from silt to boulder; the majority of the substrate being gravel. Strouds Creek is approximately half
the size of the Eno River, and is very similar to the Eno River in composition.
A classification system for stream channels based on fluvial geomorphologic principles and
landscape position was used for stream analysis. Based on this classification method and field
observations during the site visit, the Eno River appears to be a Type C4 channel that is slightly
entrenched but stable. Specific channel information on the river is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Stream Dimensions
Characteristic Approximate Stream
Dimensions of the Eno River
Bankfull height 4 feet
Channel width 80 feet
Water depth 6 inches to 8 feet
Bank height 6 to 10 feet
The NCDWQ classifies surface waters of the state based on their intended best uses. The Eno River
is currently classified as "C, NSW" upstream of the bridge, and "WS-IV, B, NSW" downstream of
the bridge. Strouds Creek is classified as "C, NSW." Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) are waters
needing additional protection because they are subject to excessive microscopic and macroscopic
vegetation growth. Class "B" waters are protected in accordance with their usage for primary
recreation, in addition to other usage specified by the "C" classification. Class "C" waters are
protected in accordance with their usage for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. Class "WS-N" waters are protected as water supplies which
are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds. Local programs to control nonpoint
source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required.
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 6
Neither high quality waters (HQW), outstanding resource waters (ORW), trout waters (Tr), 303(d)
listed waters, nor water supply watershed waters (WS-I or WS-II) occur within one mile of the study
area. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) advises
that the Eno River from Hillsborough to the Neuse River is a nationally significant aquatic habitat
for the following species:.
• Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), State Endangered and Federal Species of Concern (FSC)
• Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata radiata), State Endangered
• Notched rainbow (Villosa constricta), State Special Concern
• Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lewisz), State Special Concern
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water-quality
monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water-quality
data. AMS monitoring station A-1 is located on the Eno River near Durham. This station has no
noted parameters on water quality.
The nearest benthic macroinvertebrate sampling site (B-3) to the project study area is located on the
Eno River, approximately 4.5 miles downstream of the bridge site. This site was given a rating of
"excellent" in 2000. The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) is used to assess the
biological integrity of streams by examining the structure and health of the fish community. As of
August 1998, the Eno River had been given an NCIBI rating of "excellent."
Point source dischargers throughout North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Dischargers are required by law to register for a
permit. There are nine permitted dischargers in this subbasin of the Neuse River. One discharger
holding a minor NPDES permit, and one discharger holding a major NPDES permit (Hillsborough
Wastewater Treatment Plant), are located upstream of the bridge site.
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
a. General Impacts
Increased erosion and sedimentation may result from roadside construction. Removal of vegetation
may result in a temporary increase in water temperature. Quick revegetation of these areas will
reduce impacts by supporting the underlying soils and shading the stream. Since the study area is
located within the Neuse River buffer basin, Best Management Practices (BMPs) for sensitive
watersheds will be used for this project.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from the selected alternative.
The proposed project calls for replacement of the bridge at the existing location, which will allow
for continuation of present stream flow within the existing channel, thereby protecting stream
integrity.
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 7
4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
The rails of Bridge No. 64 can be removed without dropping any components into Waters of the
U.S. during bridge demolition. There is potential for components of the concrete deck and concrete
portions of the substructure to be dropped into Waters of the U.S. during removal. The resulting
temporary fill associated with the concrete substructure is approximately 19 cubic yards.
D. BIOTIC RESOURCES
1. Plant Communities
Four plant communities were observed in the project study area: mixed pine-hardwood forest,
bottomland forest, alluvial forest, and man-dominated community. Descriptions are provided below.
a. Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest
Mixed pine-hardwood forest community is present in the upland area of the site. Typically this
community is characterized by a variety of hardwood species in the canopy, a moderate understory,
and a sparse herbaceous layer. In forests with a frequent disturbance regime, loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), and sweetgum (Ilquidambar styraciflua) may become dominant canopy
species. This forested community is best classified as a variation of Schafale and Weakley's Dry
Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest. The Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest community is dominated by a
mixture of oak (Quercus spp.) and hickory (Carya spp.) species. The southeast and northeast
quadrants of the project study area contain a mixed hardwood and pine forest community located
east of the bottomland forest community. The overstory includes sweetgum, northern red oak (Q.
rubra), southern red oak (Q. falcata), loblolly pine, Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), and tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera). The understory, vine, and herbaceous layers include eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), American beech (Fagusgrandifolia) saplings, Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium
vimineum), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), and Japanese honeysuckle (L onicera japonica).
b. Bottomland Forest
The bottomland forest community is situated in the floodplain of the Eno River, between the banks
and upland on the eastern side of the river in both the northeast and southeast quadrants of the
project study area. This forested community is best classified as a variation of Schafale and
Weakley's Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest. This community is characterized by plant
species which are tolerant of occasional flooding and often contains a dense understory and
herbaceous layer. Dominant species observed in the mature canopy include hackberry (Celtis
occidentalis), red maple, sweetgum, tulip poplar, southern red oak, white oak (Q. alba), sycamore
(Platanus oceidentalis), and river birch (Betula nigra). The understory tree and shrub layer includes
painted buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica) saplings, eastern red cedar, Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus). Woody vines observed
include greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle, muscadine grape, and poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans). The herbaceous community includes Japanese stilt grass, river oats
(Cbasmantbium latifolium), aster (family Asteraceae), and various grasses (family Poaceae).
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 8
C. Alluvial Forest
The alluvial forest community is in the floodplain of Strouds Creek. This forested community is best
classified as a variation of a Schafale and Weakley's Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest. The
alluvial forest community is characterized by plant species typical of a bottomland forest. Dominant
species observed in the mature canopy were American beech, northern red oak, southern red oak,
river birch, and tulip poplar. The understory layer includes musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana) and
eastern red cedar. Woody vines and herbs include poison ivy, greenbrier, aster, river oats, and
various grasses.
d. Man-dominated Community
Man-dominated communities represent areas that are periodically maintained by human influences,
such as roadside and power line rights-of-way, regularly mowed lawns, fields, and open areas. Man-
dominated areas comprise a majority of the project study area including agricultural fields, roadside
maintained areas, and residential lawns. The man-dominated roadside areas are primarily covered
with herbaceous vegetation that includes various types of grasses and common weedy species such
as plantain (Plantago spp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), chickweed (Cerastium spp.), and Indian
strawberry (Duchesnea indica). Various grasses and ornamental shrubs are the dominant vegetation in
the residential and commercial lawns. Also found were Chinese privet, loblolly pine, tulip poplar,
and red maple.
2. Wildlife
Communities within the project area offer a moderate diversity of foraging, nesting, and cover
habitat for many species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals that have adapted to highly
impacted and fragmented landscapes. Species that may be associated with these types of
communities are described below. An asterisk (*) indicates the species that were directly observed or
that evidence was noted during field reconnaissance.
Reptile species associated with the project study area may include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), rough green snake (Opheodgs aestivus), eastern milk snake
(L ampropeltis triangulum triangulum), black racer snake (Coluber constrictor), and brown snake (Storeria
dekayz). These reptiles inhabit fields, woodlands, streams, wood piles, and old buildings of the
Piedmont and lower mountains in North Carolina.
Many bird species may inhabit or migrate through the study area. Common inhabitants include red-
bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), downy woodpecker (P.
pubescens), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), tufted titmouse
(Baeolopbus bicolor), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), American robin (Turdus migratorius),
northern cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), house finch
(Carpodacus mexicanus), Carolina wren (Tbryothorus ludovicianus), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis),
American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), American crow (Comus brachyrbynchos), and brown-headed
cowbird (Molothrus ater). Predatory species may include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey
vulture* (Cathartes aura), eastern screech owl (Otus asio), and barred owl (Strix wria).
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 9
A wide variety of mammals are expected to inhabit the project study area and surrounding
landscape. Virginia opossum (bide phis virginiana), woodchuck (Marmota monax), gray squirrel* (Seiurus
carolinensis), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), beaver (Castor
canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra .?bethicus) and white-tailed deer* (Odocoileus viginianus) are species most
likely to be found. In addition, bats such as the eastern red (Lasiurus borealis) and big brown bat
(Eptesicus fuscus) may also be present in the project study area.
3. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic habitat of the Eno River is expected to be good based on observed conditions during
field visits and the existing NCDWQ water quality assessment. The stream has a coarse bottom
beneficial to macrobenthic invertebrates.
Common fish that are likely to utilize the Eno River include bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), chain
pickerel (Esox niger), crappie (Pomox7s nigromaculatus), bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), and largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides). These fish thrive in moderate moving, soft to coarse substrate waters like
those present within the Eno River.
The study area likely exhibits an amphibian population of frogs and toads. Spring peepers (Hyla
crucifer), pickerel frogs (Rana palustris), and green frogs (R. clamitans) are most likely to be present in
the study area. No frog or toad species were observed during the field investigations.
Reptiles that spend the vast majority of their lives in aquatic communities and are somewhat
common throughout this portion of North Carolina include the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina),
eastern musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), yellowbelly slider (Chrysemys saipta), and northern water
snake (Nerodia sipedon).
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a. Terrestrial Communities
Anticipated impacts to terrestrial communities based on preliminary alternative designs and are
summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial Communit Alternative A Alternative B
y Acreage Acreage
Bottomland Forest 0.3 acre 0.28 acre
Mixed Pine - Hardwood 0.3 acre 0.6 acre
Alluvial Forest 0.1 acre 0
Man-dominated 0.91 acre 1.2 acres
Totals 1.61 acres 2.08 acres
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 10
b. Wetland Communities
There are no wetlands within the project area.
C. Aquatic Communities
Aquatic organisms are very sensitive to the discharges and inputs resulting from construction
activities. Appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage of construction materials and
control runoff. Such measures should include an erosion and sedimentation control plan, provisions
for waste materials and storage, stormwater management measures, and appropriate road
maintenance measures. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Vaters (BMW-PSW),
sedimentation control guidelines, and design standards for sensitive watersheds will be enforced
during the construction stages of the project.
Impacts usually associated with in-stream construction include increased channelization and
scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the substrate and impacts adjacent stream-
side vegetation. Such disturbances within the substrate lead to increased siltation, which can clog the
gills and feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and amphibian species.
The removal of stream-side vegetation and placement of fill material during construction contributes
to erosion and possible sedimentation. Quick revegetation of these areas helps to reduce the impacts
by supporting the underlying soils. Erosion and sedimentation may carry soils, toxic compounds,
trash, and other materials into the aquatic communities at the construction site. As a result, sand
bars may be formed both at the site and downstream.
E. SPECIAL Topics
1. "Waters of the United States:" Jurisdictional Issues
Surface waters and wetlands within the project area are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as "Waters of the United States." The USACE has the
responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The
USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act grants authority to individual States for regulation of discharges
into "Waters of the United States." Under North Carolina General Statutes, 113A "Pollution
Control and Environment" and codified in NCAC 15A, the NCDWQ has the responsibility for
implementation, permitting, and enforcement of the provisions of the CWA.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. No
jurisdictional wetlands occur within the project study area.
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 11
2. Permits
Permits may be required for roadway encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters.
The USACE issues Section 404 Nationwide 23 permits for activities that are categorically excluded
from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions that do not
have a significant effect on the environment. Regional conditions also require compliance with
General Condition 13 concerning notification and coordination with the USACE for permit
applications for projects with greater than 150 total linear feet of impacts.
The USACE issues Nationwide Permit 33 when construction activities necessitate the use of
temporary structures such as cofferdams, placement of access fill material, or dewatering of the
construction site. In addition to the requirements for NWP 23, any work below the ordinary high
water mark must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date and a restoration plan of
reasonable measures to avoid and minimize adverse effects to aquatic resources must be submitted.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is necessary for projects that require Section 404
permits. The state has General Certifications which will match the permit type authorized by the
USACE. The NCDWQ must issue the 401 Certification before the USACE will issue the 404
Permit. Compensatory mitigation may be required when more than 150 linear feet of stream and/or
more than one acre of wetland impacts occur. Written concurrence from the NCDWQ is not
required.
Due to a lack of jurisdictional wetlands within the project study area, permits involving activities that
discharge fill into jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are not anticipated.
3. Buffer Rules
The Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rule applies to 50-foot wide riparian buffers directly adjacent to
perennial and intermittent 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. The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers (15 A NCAC 2B .0233) provides a
designation for uses that cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Neuse Basin. Neuse River
Buffers are divided into two zones. Zone 1 includes the first 30 feet out from the water and
essentially must remain undisturbed. Zone 2 consists of the landward 20 feet which must be
vegetated, but allows for certain land uses. Grading and replanting in Zone 2 is allowed provided
that the health of the vegetation in Zone 1 is not compromised.
Simple perpendicular bridge crossings are designated Allowable within the riparian buffer. The
Allowable designation means that the intended uses may proceed within the riparian buffer provided
that there are no practical alternates. Allowable with Mitigation buffer impacts for bridge
replacement projects are addressed when parallel impacts to jurisdictional waters occur. Allowable
and Allowable with Mitigation buffer impacts require written authorization from the Division of
Water Quality prior to project development. Both of the proposed alternatives are expected to have
only Allowable buffer impacts. Table 5 shows anticipated Neuse River Buffer impacts for the
proposed project.
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 12
Table 5. Estimated Neuse River Buffer Impacts
Alternatives
Allowable (acres)
Zone 1 Zone 2 Total
Alternative A 0.07 0.09 0.16
Alternative B 0.04 0.07 0.12
4. Mitigation
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the Council on Environmental Quality to include
avoidance, minimization, and compensation. These activities must be considered in sequential order.
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to waters of the
U.S. Given the condition of Bridge No. 64, it is reasonable to conclude that avoidance is not a
feasible option.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce adverse
impacts to waters of the U.S. Both alternatives minimize the amount of in-stream activity due to the
use of a bridge as opposed to a culvert. The new bridge will be approximately 25 feet longer than the
current bridge, pushing end bents further away from the waters edge and increasing the floodplain
area.
Compensatory mitigation includes restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation of wetland
and stream functions and values that are lost when these systems are converted to other uses. The
USACE usually requires compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act when unavoidable impacts total more than 0.10 acre of wetlands or 150 linear feet
of perennial or intermittent streams. The NCDWQ may require compensatory mitigation for
activities authorized under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for unavoidable impacts to more
than 1.0 acre of wetlands or more than 150 linear feet of perennial or intermittent streams. No
mitigation is anticipated for this project.
F. RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Federal law (under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected be subject
to review by the USFWS. Other species may receive additional protection under separate laws.
1. Federally Protected Species
Species which are listed, or are proposed for listing, as endangered or threatened are recorded in
Section 4 of the ESA. As of the latest list dated April 27, 2006, the USFWS identified one
threatened and four endangered species known to occur in Orange County (Table 6). Species
descriptions and biological conclusions are provided below. A pedestrian field survey was
conducted between January and June 2004 to determine if suitable habitat is available at the project
site for any threatened or endangered species. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 13
(NCNHP) maps were reviewed on January 13, 2004, in March 2005, and in August 2006 to
determine if any protected species have been identified near the project area. This map review
confirmed that no species identified as endangered or threatened by the USFWS have been
identified within a one-mile radius of the project area.
Table 6. Federal Protected Species for Orange County, North Carolina
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocepbalus Threatened
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta beterodon Endangered
Michaux's sumac Rhus micbauxii Endangered
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Federal Status: Threatened
State Status: Threatened
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
The bald eagle is a large raptor that ranges in size from 32 to 43 inches tall and has a wingspan
averaging six feet. These predators weigh an average of 10 to 12 pounds. Adult body plumage is
dark brown to chocolate brown, and white on the head and tail. Juveniles are brown and irregularly
marked with white until their fourth year. Bald eagles are year-round but transient species in North
Carolina and are primarily associated with large bodies of water where food is plentiful and suitable
nesting sites are typically found within 0.5 mile of the water. Nests are made in the largest living tree
within the area, with an open view of surrounding land and a clear flight path to water. Nests can be
as large as six feet across and are made of sticks and vegetation. These platform nests may be used
by the same breeding pair for many years. Breeding begins in December or January and the young
remain in the nest at least ten weeks after hatching. Bald eagles eat mostly fish robbed from ospreys
or picked up dead along shorelines, or other carrion. They may also capture small animals such as
rabbits, some birds, and wounded ducks.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the bald eagle consisting of large bodies of open water does not exist within the
project area or within 0.5 mile of the project area. The Eno River does not provide suitable habitat
for the bald eagle until the back waters of Falls Lake approximately 12.5 miles east of Bridge No. 64.
Based upon this consideration, the project will have NO EFFECT on the bald eagle.
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 14
? r
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Piciodes Borealis)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
This bird is a small, seven to eight inch tall woodpecker with a black and white barred back and
conspicuous large white cheek surrounded by a black cap, nape and throat. Males have a very small
red mark at the upper edge of the white check and just behind the eye. The red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) is found in open pine forests in the southeastern United States. The RCW uses
open old growth stands for southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging
and nesting habitat. A forested stand optimally should contain at least 50 percent pine and lack a
thick understory. The RCW is unique among woodpeckers because it commonly only nests in living
pine trees. These birds excavate nests in pines that are usually more than 60 years old that are
contiguous with open, pine dominated, foraging habitat. The foraging range of the RCW may extend
500 acres and must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
Living pines infected with red-heart disease (Formes piny) are often selected for cavity excavation.
Cavities are located from 12 to 100 feet above ground level and below live branches. These trees can
be identified by the presence of "candles," large encrustations of running sap that surrounds the
trees. Colonies consist of one to many of these candle trees. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May
and June; the eggs hatch approximately 10 to 12 days later.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for RCW does not exist within the project study area. The percentage of pine within
the mixed pine and hardwood forest in the study area is too low for sustaining the red-cockaded
woodpecker for nesting or foraging. The project will have NO EFFECT on the RCW.
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered
Date Listed: March 14, 1990
The dwarf wedge mussel is small, rarely exceeding 1.5 inches in length. The shell's outer surface
(periostracum) is usually olive brown or yellowish brown in color, with light green rays that are more
noticeable in juveniles. The nacre (inner shell surface) is bluish to silvery white. The shell shape is
subtrapezoidal. A unique characteristic of this mussel is its dentition pattern; the right valve
possesses two lateral teeth, while the left valve has only one. This trait is opposite of all other North
American species having lateral teeth. Three potential fish host species for the glochidia of the dwarf
wedge mussel are the tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedt), Johnny darter (Etheostoma nignun),
and mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdt).
The dwarf wedge mussel inhabits creek and river areas with a slow to moderate current and a sandy,
gravelly, or muddy bottom. In North Carolina, this mussel is documented in the Neuse and Tar
River systems. The dwarf wedge mussel population declines are attributed to industrial, domestic,
and agricultural pollution. Loss of habitat due to siltation of streams and chemical pollution,
especially in the highly developed Orange County site, threaten the survival of this mussel.
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 15
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Notlikely to adversely Affect
Suitable habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel consisting of nearly silt-free streams, with slow to
moderate currents exists within the project study area. However, the Eno River watershed currently
exhibits a moderate silt load resulting from development upstream, and therefore, does not provide
exceptional habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel.
A freshwater mussel survey was conducted by qualified biologists on June 8 and July 8, 2004. Four
types of freshwater mussels were observed: elliptio mussels (Elliptio spp.), yellow lampmussel
(Lampsilis cariosa), Carolina fatmucket (Lampsili radiate conspicua), and notched rainbow (Villosa
constricta). No dwarf wedge mussel individuals were found. The survey report gave a recommended
biological conclusion of MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT. The
USFWS concurred with this determination in a letter dated April 13, 2006 (Appendix).
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxir)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered-Special Concern
Date Listed: September 28, 1989
Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous, densely hairy shrub, with erect stems from one to three feet in
height. The compound leaves contain evenly serrated oblong to lanceolate, acuminate leaflets. Most
plants are unisexual; however, more recent observations have revealed plants with both male and
female flowers on one plant. The flowers are small, borne in a terminal erect, dense cluster and
colored greenish yellow to white. Flowering usually occurs from June to July; while the fruit, a red
drupe, is produced through the months of August to October. Only 36 extant populations are
known, with 31 in North Carolina, three in Virginia and two populations in Georgia.
Michaux's sumac grows in sand to rocky open woods in association with basic soils. It spreads by
producing cloning shoots from the roots of mature plants. Apparently, this plant survives best in
areas where some form of periodic disturbance provides open areas. At least two of the plant's
populations in North Carolina are on highway rights-of-way, roadsides, or on the edges of artificially
maintained clearings.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is not present in the project study area. Forests in the study
area are found on loamy soils and generally have a closed canopy. Disturbed areas that may have
provided habitat at one time are maintained as residential lawns and agricultural fields. The project
will have NO EFFECT on Michaux's sumac.
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 16
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered
Date Listed: October 8, 1992
Smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows up to five feet tall from a vertical
root stock. The stems are smooth, with few leaves. The largest leaves are the basal leaves, which
reach eight inches in length and three inches in width, have long stems; and are elliptical to broadly
lanceolate, tapering to the base, and smooth to slightly rough. Mid-stem leaves have shorter stems or
no stems and are smaller in size than the basal leaves. The rays of the flowers (petal-like structures)
are light pink to purplish, usually dropping, and two to 3.2 inches long. Flower heads are usually
solitary, with flowering occurring from May through July. The species is now known to survive only
in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Six populations survive in North Carolina.
The North Carolina populations are in Durham and Granville Counties.
The habitat of smooth coneflower is open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone
bluffs, and power line rights-of-way, usually on magnesium- and calcium-rich silts associated with
limestone (in Virginia), gabbro (in North Carolina and Virginia), diabase (in North Carolina and
South Carolina), and marble (in South Carolina and Georgia). Optimal sites are characterized by
abundant sunlight and little competition in the herbaceous layer. Natural fires, as well as large
herbivores, are part of the history of the vegetation in this species' range.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower may be present in the project area. A successional
(approximately 20 years old) mixed pine and hardwood forest dominated by Virginia pine, loblolly
pine, eastern red cedar, and tulip poplar, with an herbaceous layer dominated by Japanese stilt grass,
is located uphill of the bottomland hardwood rest in the northeast quadrant of the project area. A
survey for smooth coneflower was completed on June 1, 2004 and again on June 6, 2006. No
smooth coneflower individuals were observed during either survey. The report gave a
recommended biological conclusion of MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECT. The USFWS concurred with the findings and biological conclusion in a letter dated July
8, 2004. A copy of the USFWS concurrence is included in the Appendix.
2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed
as Threatened or Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa which may or may not
be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species or species under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing. The USFWS
lists 11 FSCs that are known to occur in Orange County.
Species identified as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the State of North Carolina are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. Orange County FSCs per the August 2006 NCNHP
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 17
database, their state status, and the existence of suitable habitat within the project area are shown in
Table 7.
Table 7. Federal Species of Concern, State Status, and Potential Habitat

Common Name
Scientific Name
State Status Habitat
Available
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis le idinion Sc Yes
Roanoke bass Amblo liter cavi mns SR Yes
Atlantic i toe Fusconaia masoni E Yes
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa E Yes
Green floater Lasmi ona subviiidis E Yes
Savanna Wh ut Toxolasma ullus E Yes
Yellow lam mussel Lam silis caniosa E Yes
Cream tick-trefoil Desmodium ochroleucum SR-T No
Sweet inesa Monotrosis odorata SR-T No
Torrev's mountain mint P cnanthemum torrei SR-T No
Buttercup Phacelia Phacelia covillei SR-T Yes
Notes:
E-Endangered, SC-Special Concern, SR-Significantly Rare, -T-Throughout
* Limited information available on this species. Accounts of habitat include "on sandstone" and "on boulders
subject to inundation." Habitat is assumed present due to sparse information.
Several state protected species have been identified at various locations within one mile of the
project area. These include Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), creeper (Strophitus undulates),
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia mason), and Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lenisz). In addition, three areas
mapped as NCNHP Identified Priority Areas (IPA) are located within three miles of the project
area. These IPAs are the Eno River Aquatic Habitat, located throughout the Eno River; the Poplar
Ridge Slopes, located along the southern side of the Eno River; and an Upland Depression Swamp
Forest.
V1. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. COMPLIANCE GUIDELINES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires federal agencies to
take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 18
properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and to afford the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on July 28, 2004. All structures
within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by NCDOT architectural historians and staff
at the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). In a concurrence form dated January 21, 2004, the
HPO concurred with the NCDOT and FHWA that there are no historic architectural resources
either listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places within the APE. A
copy of the concurrence form is included in the Appendix.
0. ARCHAEOLOGY
The HPO, in a memorandum dated March 4, 2004, recommended an archaeological survey for this
project because of a previously recorded site (31OR228). An archaeological survey was conducted
in October and November 2005 in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the guidelines issued by the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation.
During the course of the survey, one Native American archaeological site (31OR565) was located
within the project area. Due to the lack of diagnostic artifacts and the disturbed nature of the site, it
was recommended that 31OR565 be assessed as not eligible for the National Register and no further
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. The HP4, in a
memorandum dated February 23, 2006, concurred with this recommendation. Copies of both HPO
memoranda are included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use; or zoning regulation. No substantial
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be
limited. No relocations of residents or businesses are expected with implementation of the
proposed alternative.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to determine whether
minority or low-income populations were receiving disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental impacts as a result of this project. The investigation determined the project
would not disproportionately impact any minority or low-income populations.
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 19
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no wildlife or waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the immediate
project area.
The Eno River State Park is located approximately two miles upstream from Bridge No. 64. The
Park proposes to expand its boundaries westward along the Eno River to US 70 Bypass. The
proposed future boundary will include Bridge No. 64.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider
the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction
projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS). Since the proposed bridge will be replaced at the existing location, the Farmland
Protection Policy does not apply.
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 64 by constructing a new structure. The project
will not result in any meaningful changes in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, location of the existing
facility, or any other factor that would cause an increase in emissions impacts relative to the No-
Build alternative. As such, FHWA has determined that this project will generate minimal air quality
impacts for Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and has not been linked with any special mobile source
air toxic (MSAT) concerns. Consequently, this effort is exempt from analysis for MSATs.
EPA regulations for vehicle engines and fuels will cause overall MSATs to decline significantly over
the next 20 years. FHWA predicts MSATs will decline in the range of 57 to 87 percent, from 2000
to 2020, based on regulations now in effect, even with a projected 64 percent increase in vehicle
miles traveled (VMT). Therefore, both the background level of MSATs and the possibility of even
minor MSAT emissions from this project will be reduced.
The project is located in Orange County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
nonattainment area for ozone (03). The area was designated nonattainment for 03 under the eight-
hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2004. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that
transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air quality
implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation control measures
for Orange County. The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the Burlington Graham MPO 2030 LRTP
and the 2004-2010 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs (MTIPs) conform to the
intent of the SIP (or base year emissions, in areas where no SIP is approved or found adequate).
The USDOT made conformity determinations on the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO LRTP,
the Burlington Graham MPO LRTP and Orange County projects from the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) on June 15, 2005.
For the donut area of Orange County, the projects from the 2006-2012 STIP conform to the intent
of the SIP (or base year emissions, in areas where no SIP is approved or found adequate). The
current conformity determinations are consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR
Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant changes in the project's design concept of scope, as used
in the conformity analyses.
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 20
Traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no receptors located
in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air quality will not be substantial.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990
CAAA and NEPA). No additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Division of
Solid Waste Management revealed no hazardous waste sites in the project area. A field
reconnaissance survey was performed and no underground storage tank (UST) sites were found
within the project area. If any unregulated USTs or any potential source of contamination is
discovered during right-of-way initial contacts with impacted property owners, then an assessment
will be conducted to determine the extent of any contamination at that time.
The drainage area of the Eno River at the proposed crossing is 85.2 square miles. Orange County is
currently participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. This crossing of the river is located
in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone and this reach of the river is in a detailed flood study with a
published floodway. It is not anticipated that a floodway modification will be required since the
bridge will be an "in kind" replacement. The Flood Hazard Boundary Map (Figure 6) shows the
approximate limits of the 100-year flood plain in the vicinity of the project.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Scoping letters were sent early in the planning process to involve local officials and agency
representatives in the development of this project.
A combined Citizens Informational Workshop for B-4592 and B-4216 was held on September 27,
2004 at C. W. Stanford Middle School. Residents, property owners, and business owners had the
opportunity to take part in project development, ask questions, and voice concerns. Bridge No. 64
proposed Alternatives A and B were displayed along with alternatives for Bridge No. 66. Seventeen
citizens attended the meeting and eight comment sheets were received. Four citizens preferred
Alternative A and one preferred Alternative B for Bridge No. 64.
An informational newsletter was sent to area residents and appropriate officials in March 2006
identifying Alternative A as the preferred alternative. No comments were received in response to
the newsletter.
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
The Orange County Planning Department requested that Bridge No. 64 and Bridge No. 66 not be
closed at the same time.
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 21
Response: Construction schedules for B-4592 and B-4216 will be coordinated so that only one
bridge is closed at a time.
All other agency comments were addressed elsewhere in this document. Letters are included in the
Appendix.
T.I.P. No. B-4592
Page 22
Q
.58
0
1 oorange
S90o1
. 05
1 CW Stanford
Middle 1§55
Wool 1 N
1002
1650
m
*05 01
IJ
A N 1554.
L
- 3
a
BRIDGE'
NO. 66 1
We. • I
GO\\ns 1f
1588 1587
15 ?n - 1002
-A?
ENO
8 o C
Ch.
i
tea.
i g
i ? g?pt
i 5
1538 i
i
i
1002
i .21
.14
1002
/-BRIDGE NO. 64 - 75
i i
i
1581 i ?
15
i Park
y /= 45
•? ?s ice' i __ m 39
HILLSBOROUGH 70
LIMITS .40

6
0 R.A N G E
Is":ebane '7
- C pel H1I`
Carrboro_
?i
O 1709
2
s
c
P
DETOUR ROUTE
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
ORANGE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 64 ON SR 1561
OVER ENO RIVER
B-4592
FIGURE 1
V/
c
x
0
0
a
W
9
CL

p
N
CU
N
m
to
Eno River State Park
--?I 7? J z ` ?;' lT
? - Y
r Sit 4 , I/
/ kX,
State Park
(` } Future Need
A
2000 0 2000 4000 Feet
Division of Parks and Recreation ?I
2003
}

h? r'L y

i

-------- -----

- j F <

¢ tt?
,{ I
Bridge No. - g north.
Bridge No. 64, east side (downstream).
w€ r?+ 1, Bride No. 64 from the conflucncc of Strouds Creek..
1 ?.
Figure 3
B-4592 Brldge Nc?. 64 on ': 1561 m-cr 1'-,o I i°,rcr
8 ft.* 12 ft. 12 ft. 8 ft. 8 ft.
P ft. 4PS
t
I
.08
.0 _ 0.02 0.02 0
7-,
VAR 6:1 SO 2:1 GRA 4:1
DE POINT
TYPICAL APPROACH SECTION
* 11 ft. IF GUARDRAIL IS WARRANTED (PROPOSED)
36'-0"
2„ 12'-0„ 12'-0„ 4'_2 2„
t
0.04 0.04
GRADE POINT
TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION
TRAFFIC DATA (PROPOSED)
CONST. YR.) 2006 ADT = 4,000
DESIGN YR.) 2030 ADT = 7,400
DUAL 1%
TTST 1%
EXISTING BRIDGE LENGTH = 180 ft.
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
V PR• 6:1 .?O 2:1 ;?,???
® Of Tr Carolina Department
Of
G Transportation
Project Development &
Environmental Analysis
ORANGE COUNTY
North LOCAL - RURAL
BRIDGE NO. 64 ON SR 1561
(LAWRENCE RD) OVER ENO RIVER
TIP NO: B-4592
FIGURE 4
c o /
W 502
Z
a
z

600 cb

M32

o 1 QgA
Qg ..

490
asp

I I ??
1002 485

ZONE C 480 • 5?"' 480
480
Strouds Creek ER
END ??V
R M 31 f
had 541
RM 35
?= o
562
Q
v
a v
a 505
e? 518
500
Earth
6) SpringDarri
?
Valley
Lake I
J
11 •
• ?J

480
APPROXIMATE SCALE I
1000 0 1000 FEET
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
ORANGE COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
(UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
PANEL 160 OF 350
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED(
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
310342 0160 B
EFFECTIVE DATE:
MARCH 16, 1981
federal emergency management agency
federal insurance administration
This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It
was extracted using F-MIT On-Line. This map does not reflect changes
or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the
title dock. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance
Program good maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.moc.fema.gov
Figure 6
7Cn
O
w
a
O
n
`(7:
C17
v
?'?,Jty' :I>.?•'•::: ?' ''! '/'1?0 t?'' :- ;; .y fir'.. ?<ry?(t? "?, ?'?l,N ?p;?
f ?,ti t ` '. ): tt •.'?wY'. • : i. •! •;• .:.- ? ? j . l . t ? , (yy?` 4?: ,, •yr `., ti i :? ?' /1 /J. ? -{?` .c J
' i..1' 1 Ql { ' .? - 3l } •°- f,`,? ` `'G' !; /?<% `•f'.<;• `•t'•? .lJ l'''/jrt I • ?'? ;'-? r ? ?f
• •-+? _?.' l.- ? f. .,;. r,' ?.:'s• ` f;.;i;'t? !-: Ji: y v%,•riy?f, ??;y;;'?, ? / " •' ?' 'y ?ti r?/?q/cr';? / s
61 v '? f yitj=i I
y.7. r\ Y l? r` - k - ` ?P is
/-, ?•• L
1: 4s
' L , t .. ? L. , r? Vii. • t / tl Y?`/%?' ' ? k I
i ,.:,f' .W''}`• ? ? ..l` ? } ,?lA:d '1 cal, !? .? 's .` ` ir p? ? 99 .'y, (? •! 01
.t lk /r1F? r!"Yi ft•, z ?•,r.--- ?_ .l M ?? '"' ? I ."?? 1?
Rl.
77
,?/ y r it{S,?j{ ?, r?r/fr}f?f?// ?f?J"?f• t')?f
y
ir?t1r1?1. tia.il'.r ?`.?..•'?r r.Le •?i'ir y. .I• •-,?:Si: .. .?:Y Y iYt inSitf?%`1-•?F _P62.511
f
W -F
i
99

Oc t
V.SIr? •'?? 1tf• Ga•y? `4y
S
'.;111 %r:- '' F ,: c5S y (?1•,
'iii •'"\ '•:,, _ ''1l(I?'? .?o-• \? , ri
APPENDIX
T.I.P. No. B-4592
RECEIVED,
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 13, 2006
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
APR 20 2006
MISIQN Cf MAYS
PMA41M OF NA ORk ErflgAOW,
This letter is in response to your letter of March 29, 2006 which provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
that the replacement of Bridge No. 64 on SR 1561 over the Eno River in Orange County (TIP No. B-
4592) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon). These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to information provided, mussel surveys were conducted at the project site on June 8 and July
8, 2004. The surveys extended 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of SR 1561. No dwarf
wedgemussels were found. Based on the information provided and other information available, the
Service concurs with your determination that the proposed bridge replacement may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the dwarf wedgemussel. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of
the ESA have been satisfied for this species. We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation
must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions regarding our
response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 8564520 (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
k?,Pete Benjamin .
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Todd Tugwell, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Sue Homewood, NCDWQ, Winston-Salem, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
John Sullivan, FHwA, Raleigh, NC
United States Department of the Interior '
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Sax 33726
Raleigh, North Carorma 27636-3726
July 8, 2004
--------------
Julie Gibson
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
P.O. Box 33127
Raleigh, NC 27636
Dear Ms. Gibson:
This letter is in response to your letter of June 23, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 64 on SR 1561 over the Eno River
in Orange County (TIP No. B-4592) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally
endangered, smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). These comments are provided in
accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (.16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
According to the information you submitted, a plant survey was conducted at the project site on
June 1, 2004. No specimens of smooth coneflower were observed. Based on the information
provided and other information available, the Service concurs with your determination that the
proposed bridge replacement may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect smooth coneflower.
We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this
species. We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if.
(1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
Tom Augspurger
Ecological Services Acting Supervisor
cc: John Thomas, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office B= 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 276363726
February 18, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
M 10

FEB 2d"1 t"?Od
oM ?o?r of
N?cr?ays
ZILAt4ALY?
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed replacement of the following
ten bridges:
• B-4002, Alamance County,.Bridge No. 96 on SR 2116 over Meadow Creek
• B-4063, Chatham County, Bridge No. 20 on NC 902 over Sandy Branch
• B-4109, Durham County, Bridge No. 120 on SR 1303 over Mud Creek
• B-4216, Orange County, Bridge No. 66 on SR 1002 over Strouds Creek
• B-4300, Wake County, Bridge No. 29 on SR 1007 over Clarks Creek
• B-4301, Wake County, Bridge No. 229 on SR 1007 over Poplar Creek
• B4302, Wake County, Bridge No. 336 on SR 1301 over Terrible Creek
• B-4303, Wake County, Bridge No. 102 on SR 1844 over Lower Bartons Creek
• B-4304, Wake County, Bridge No. 143 on SR 2217 over Beaver Dam Creek
• B-4592, Orange County, Bridge No. 64 on SR 1561 over Eno River
These comments provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
For bridge replacement projects, the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimise environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland, forest and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practical;
If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities
to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation easements, land trusts or by
other means should be explored at the outset;
3. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For proj ects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of
fish and wildlife habitat. At the completion of construction, the detour area should be
entirely removed and the impacted areas be planted with appropriate vegetation, including
trees if necessary;
4. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 - June 30;
5. New bridges should be long enough to allow for sufficient wildlife passage along stream
corridors;
6. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented;
7. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a
vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large enough
to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
The bridge designs should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology or
impede fish passage. To the extent possible, piers and bents should be placed outside the
bank-full width of the stream;
9. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. If spanning the flood plain is not feasible,
culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to restore some of
the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of flood waters
within the affected area-
A list of federally protected species for each county in North Carolina can be found at h ://nc-
es.fws. gov/es/countvfr.ht nl . Additional information about the habitats in which each species is
often found can also be found at h=://endangered.fws.gov . Please note, the use of the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if
suitable habitat occurs near the project site. If suitable habitat exists in the project area, we
recommend that biological surveys for the listed species be conducted and submitted to us for
review. All survey documentation must include survey methodologies and results.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for these projects, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in

the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for these projects include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat and waters of the US;
7. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on these projects. Please continue to advise
us during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
4u_,?t YAj
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
( i f
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
John Thomas, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
f
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Licbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
February 23, 2006
MEMORANDUM
A .
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Adnunat:ator
Office of Archives and 1lstory
Division of Flistorical Resources
David Brook, Director
TO: Matt Wilkerson
Office of Human Environment
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck P
SUBJECT: Archaeological Survey, Replacement of Bridge No. 64 on SR 1561 (Lawrence Road)
Over the Eno River, TIP B-4592, Federal Aid No. BRZ-1561(5),
Orange County, ER 04-0398
Thank you for your letter of January 3, 2006, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Caleb Smith of
your staff for the above project We apologize for the delay in our response.
During the course of the survey, one Native American archaeological site (3108565) was located within the
project area. Due to the lack of diagnostic artifacts and the disturbed nature of the site, Mr. Smith has
recommended that 3108565 be assessed as not eligible for the National Register and no further
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project We concur with this
recommendation since the project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: Caleb Smith, NCDOT
I.oeation Mwling Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919)7334763/733-9653
EMOR.ATION 515 N. Blount St=4 Raleigh NC 4617 Mai Service center, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919)7334547/7154801
SURVEY k PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617. Mai Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/7154801
Wchael F. Easley, Go a
Jef frey J-CC
Office of
LJ?
r
~A
,ecretary
History
March 4, 2004
MEMORANDUM
T - -? Q
yd y?M
a.
vaem`
orth Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM- David Brooka ,
Deputy State Histo ' Preservation Officer
Division of Historical Resources
David I.. S. Brook, Director
, t

SUBJECT: Request for comments on Bridge Replacement, B-4592, Orange County,
ER04-0398
Thank you for your letter of February 5, 2004, concerning the above project
Archaeological site 31 OR229 is located within the southeast quadrant of the intersection of
the Eno River and SR 1561. Although few artifacts were collected from this prehistoric lithic
site, no subsurface testing has been conducted to determine if any subsurface deposits are
present We recommend that the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for this project be surveyed
and if 31 OR228 will be affected by the proposed bridge replacement, the site be tested to
determine its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-
referenced tracking number. -
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
a vvw.hpadcr.shte.ncas
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
AD&IINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
RES I'ORATION 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone].715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone] •715-4801

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbcth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 4, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stacey Baldwin
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
` tit -
FROM: David Brook ?
?,?J
SUBJECT: Request for commeiAs on Bridge Replacement projects
B-4002, Alamance County
B-4063, Chatham County
B-4109, Durham County
B-4216, Orange County
B-4300, Wake County
B-4301, Wake County
B-4302, Wake County
B-4303, Wake County
B-4304, Wake County
B-4592, Orange County
ER03-0389 through ER03-0398
Thank you. for your letters of February 5, 2004, concerning the above projects.
Division of Historical Resources
David L. S. Brook, Director
We are unable to comment on the potential effect of these projects on historic resources until we receive further
information.
Please forward a labeled 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map for each of the above projects clearly indicating the
project vicinity, location, and termini. In addition, please include the name of the quadrangle map.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed 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.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
www.hpo.d crstate.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADKNISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone].733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone].7154901
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone].715-4801
I,Jarch 4.2004
Page 2

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future communication
concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: Diary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Hatt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Federal Aid # RR7,1561(5) TIP# 11_4;92 County: Qrnn& •
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIRI.F FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Descripti.un: Replace Bridge No. 64 on SR 1561
On Jan. 2J. 2004 representative% of the
® North Carolina Depunent ofTraneportation (NCDOT')
Fcdersl Highway Administration (FHW A)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HP0
? Other
Reviewed the subject project at
? Scoping meeting
® Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
? Other
All parties present agreed
® There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
? There are no properties lets than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
® There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the properties identified as Bridge. No. 64
(built 1955) are considered not eligible for the National Rcgixtux and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
® There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
® Ali properties greater dean 50 year., of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concur- rice, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project
® Thos are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Siancd:
Represeni3tivc; NCDOT.
FIIW A; for the Division Adminisa
T?i
r other FeJ raI Agency
Dale
State n ?
tf a $uryy eels +n is prepared, 5 final copy nr[hit form and lh+s atu?chCd list will lx includal.
Date
VC)`
Date'
TOTAL P.OE

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Corr ssion 92
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory I Thorpe
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator '' _ ??
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 27, 2004
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Alamance, Chatham, Durham, Orange, and
Wake counties. TIP Nos. B-4002, B-4063, B-4109, B-4216, B-4300, B-4301, B-
4302, B-4303, B-4304, and B-4592.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
I . We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block'fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters. - -
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live `concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
• i I T
Bridge Memo
2 February 27, 2004
S. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Hal
Bain should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
. Bridge Memo
3 r ebruary L /, zvv,+
T T
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplainn. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-4002, Alamance County, Bridge No. 96 over Meadow Creek on SR 2116. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
2. B-4063, Chatham County, Bridge No. 20 over Sandy Branch on NC 902. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
3. B-4109, Durham County, Bridge No. 120 over Mud Creek on SR 1303. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
t . T
tsnage iviemo
4 February 27, 2004
4. B-4216, Orange County, Bridge No. 66 over Strouds Creek on SR 1002. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Due to the close proximity of the Eno River we
request conducting a survey for the following state endangered and federal species of
concern mussels: Yellow lampmussel and Atlantic pigtoe. Also, a significant fishery for
sunfish exists at this site, therefore we request an in-water work moratorium for sunfish
from April 1 to June 30. Standard recommendations apply.
5. B-4300, Wake County, Bridge No. 29 over Clarks Creek on SR 1007. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines
for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15
to June 15. Standard recommendations apply.
6. B-4301, Wake County, Bridge No. 229 over Poplar Creek on SR 1007. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines
for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15
to June 15. Standard recommendations apply.
7. B-4302, Wake County, Bridge No. 336 over Terrible Creek on SR 1301. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
8. B-4303, Wake County, Bridge No. 102 over Lower Bartons Creek on SR 1844. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
9. B-4304, Wake County, Bridge No. 143 over Beaver Dam Creek on SR 2217. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
10. B-4592, Orange County, Bridge No. 64 over the Eno River on SR 1561. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. We request conducting a survey for the following
state endangered and federal species of concern mussels: Yellow lampmussel and
Atlantic pigtoe. Also, a significant fishery for sunfish exists at this site, therefore we
request an in-water work moratorium for sunfish from April 1 to June 30. Standard
recommendations apply.
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shallowed during initial bridge installation.
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
Cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
Subject: Comments concerning Bridge Replacement Projects in Orange County
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 200417:19:46 -0500
From: "Karen Lincoln" <klincoln@;o.orange.nc.us>
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: "Craig Benedict" <[e-mail]>
Ms. Theresa Ellerby
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina
Re: NCDOT request for comments on Bridge Replacement Projects B-4216 and B-4592
Dear Ms. Ellerby:
Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments early in the process for TIP
projects for two bridge replacements in Orange County.
Orange County staff has the following comments concerning Bridge Replacement
Projects B-4216 and B-4592:
1. Lawrence Road is on the approved 2002-2003 Secondary Road Pavement Program, and
is scheduled to be paved by October 1, 2004.
2. NCDOT should not close both roads (St. Mary's Road and Lawrence Road) during the
same time period because each of those roads is a potential alternate route for the
other for some traffic.
3. By 2005, Churton Grove will have completed the Phase II multifamily section (174
units), and can develop Phase III, which will add another 135 single-family lots to
the development. Bridge No. 66 is just east of Churton Grove's entrance off of St.
Mary's Rd.
If you need more information from Orange County regarding conditions in the study
area , please contact me.
Sincerely,
Karen Lincoln, AICP
Transportation Planner
Orange County Planning Department
306-F Revere Road
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]
Lincoln, Karen klincoln
Current Planning Supervisor
Planning
2
3/1/0412:02 PM
• l
Nicole Bennett
From: Mike Sisolak [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:33 AM
To: Nicole Bennett
Subject: RE: School Bus Crossings on B-4592 - Bridge No. 64 on SR 1561 (Lawrence Road)
2 buses and I don't think it would be much of an inconvenience
Mike Sisolak, Clerical Assistant
Transporation Department
231 Holman Dr.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone] X 14503
----Original Message----
From: Nicole Bennett [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:32 AM
To: Mike Sisolak
Subject: RE: School Bus Crossings on B-4592 - Bridge No. 64 on SR 1561 (Lawrence Road)
Good morning. Thank you for getting back to me. It would be extremely helpful if you could
provide with the exact number of bus crossings of this bridge because I have to include it in my
document Also, do you foresee rerouting these buses for the bridge replacement causing a huge
inconvenience?
Nicole
From: Mike Sisolak [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:28 AM
To: Nicole Bennett
Subject: FW: School Bus Crossings on B-4592 - Bridge No. 64 on SR 1561 (Lawrence Road)
Good Morning Mr. Miller asked me to email you in regards to the email you sent him. At this
time we do still have buses traveling on Lawrence Rd. From what we can think of it is probably
only about 2 or 3 buses. If you have any more questions or anything email me back,
Thanks,
Mike Sisolak, Clerical Assistant
Transporation Department
231 Holman Dr.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone] X 14503
12/28/2006
N .. •
Nicole Bennett
From: Kent McKenzie [[e-mail]. nc.us]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:46 PM
To: Nicole Bennett
Cc: Gwen Snowden; Mike Tapp
Subject: FIN: NCDOT Projects B-4592 and B-4216
Ms. Bennett,
Colonel Ball is no longer with Orange County Emergency Management, and I am serving as the Interim EM
Director. I received the text of your email to Col Ball, but unfortunately the attachments did not come through.
Based on your text descriptions of these projects, there will certainly be impacts to Emergency Services, but I
don't believe they will be insurmountable ones. The area involved covers two different fire districts, and the
project may increase response times for some locations. If you can please re-send the attachments to us, we will
consult with both of the Fire Departments that these projects will affect and get our response back to you.
Thanks,
Kent McKenzie
Major Kent McKenzie
Interim Emergency Management Director,
Emergency Management Deputy Director for EMS
Orange County North Carolina
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Office 919-968-2050
24-hour 919-933-2600
1 1 ? •
12/28/2006
?.z P
? 4 t ?f??f.? it y F
r q ? 14,i . f.
4,4
s. > K F. ?• ? ki l?
? ?•4 ?•,?, F ?? ? >. ??? k3 j1 x
4 ?r..
`r ?( a y? .?. r a r
AIR

71

R
S) t ;y
i.. m

r'? 5
y 1
V
?y I ? ?,
3

y
k :ma
:'
y
Imn
ook
"Opmom
all
At,

P i
fS;

f
}
{

1
• r : :.;
rt r?
I h ,? ,
i b
r
S t 1 rM4 ra ka t?? 7
S E
D f
u_
f' is
Y7 ;' ? ?' d
t'? l 1 ...: YA
i7 Ma j, l cl?ti
f at
ysii
r ? ? 2F t'
MAI
] L?
r r Y y s ,?`,, '"i
' { L yr„ w £. ssfrS ?hiM..}.?Z
tik }
Now Sao
H

ON (7
rf
?` >~?` {tom::
W Y '?
j«
?? 4 r
rid ?1i
f k' ?r
i t
let
5

wyC ,
Q m m
hlZ?m -n;v r
?22 n r"
D0Q do
Toc ?j
Z;
p *--? }
?? i
r
;; .
t ALTS RATE B
4 B-4592 r<W
GRANGE COUNTY MM,y ?
SR 1551 BRIDGE NO, 64
OVER ENO RIVER
;Any
',T:?
-.0c4 ?>?
Xp s rg? A ?;j+S•,tiv x?W.
5,7
'4A. 4 It
"
X. i_r, Ci f
?Ar
' c?" bx?tz u? ?, s
c:,??I ?'+; ,'fi W °"?"_?k'y" l ? +Ri g ? c? ? yyy?y i?+'1f'?? tFF .. 1?•?'?' Ti ,
'`Yl`r s y k x:, .Y?? r '°''fY 7dG? o -?°+ ?A ? ? ,?ti+C..7tt '- ,?• ? ? S '
?'a, :?,,. 7 x + ??? T r%r '?,'rr .;?i ,..?F>K,. w" ? • r ?'? ?i n8 , 4 ? . ?,
. ^rY„ h>' , d 2°,'i ? a.,?pa t ; a , j +I&?•..' ?gyx7y,` r
?? ??... tt° "r"uy, '.? ?Tr .'? '?? ?. `'*... _. * , e j.c.r•-.... ? is ? A ?;? la '?. ??? ?_ »
rj. r r`a ryp'? t..:' f 3 s rr.-.
r t' it 7?•"r- ?? sir-- ? e`?i,? ;'t +d'3'?? +;vY`"=;? 'WAS S s tom: :?€ ?,? >q`
w
w
44_, q
a'
y ..
»
cull
•" ,r ?» s;'° "'S.-k"C"" ?+M .?-,'" .."+t - .? lk I
rt'z ,? "<?' t Po 4 r'3?r ,',?'.r ? ; ,-? • ?J': r t ,r., ? 1 .:?. 'i: ?`'•.Y'•k,"'? TF?` 'h«?,? ' ?''t' ??? `'` t
4
ryµ S r!?- «.
'. », ?,a'r'x? .i;n: °? `?: ` ?;. 'k ."., `.?«z, •.. ;'9': ?e '{ S .s ??N Sr k..5o?+?1N
e ,.,Cw,K
?":
4w,
4 - • y+.. a . tit" r' .t '1a ?+,:. '°'''
^r = .? a .3tkY??u? r' ° ::Ma rm, t',».?*?^ ??". i`? ;k..eJ?,.?r' .W?" s .a?? kr?;.-, .?-•.
-: r
' y F a
Wool,
,ty? ?.? ,b j.
j oil `l k
I ? rr ?',?d , y» ^?e? ,"; ?,hr. . ,e .? r?i,"» x tea' y t'yv?,F" vkM •+;,?
I: a rr*. t
r;a'"h ? n A"
'1R ?? w, n ,r
- '
s ?.
s?w
{
h AA y?f WAR
,,r
Y {4f :'r tY h Ai"? ?? a? 8 k.
'iuji G 7 ?. k,s?t 1 ?r. ?tk s. r ?M hk r, ,ga43 T k .? a{
ryF4V9?Y }q ,?,,} iN ""5:?:
t t
r r+*?a t
ref 4 c Z? ». °ar y ry. !".
rr s? f 1s 1 1 ( y
?, +F„1'?'r
' --
1 `1 G U E 5 B
.: r
r:
r
s SSE