20080808 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20050131

' NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: NCDOT (TIP B-4303) File Number: 200420708 Date: 01/31/2005
Attached is. See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B

PERMIT DENIAL C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above
decision. Additional information may be found at hM?://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/rep or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, incluuding its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return
the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of
the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your
letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your
concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having
determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the
district engineer will send you a proffered permit for our reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terns and
conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal
Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must
be received b the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form
must be received b the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.

POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact:
Eric Alsmeyer Mr. Michael Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office CESAD-ET-CO-R
US Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date: Telephone number:

Signature of appellant or agent.

DIVISION ENGINEER:
Commander
U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3490

PSMENT Oc ryP United States Department of the Interior

G 4 '~T
y o FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
~4gCH `eRaleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
m FEB February 18, 2004
atvt-~lorr ~~a s
p2f~T H;Gii4y~q QF c
r~l, A N 1-k
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:

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
• B-4302, 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 minimize 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;

2. 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 projects 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;

8. 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 htt :/p /nc-
es.fws.gov/es/count ft.html . Additional information about the habitats in which each species is
often found can also be found at http://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:

1. 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
Corns of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers;

5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. 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;

6. 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,

4~4, ~ y%o

Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor

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

R., h "

~h

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director

MEMORANDUM

TO: Gregory J. 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. B74002, 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 (NC)ATRC) 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:
1. 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.

Bridge Memo 3 February 27, 2004

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 floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area 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.

wwpT e"` srgtp o
7

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office

Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David L. S. Brook, Director
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

FROM: David Brook
it
SUBJECT: Request for comments 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.

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.dcr.state.nc.us

Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone].733-8653
occ rnn eTil1N 515 N. Blount St Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 276994617 [phone] •715-4801

March 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: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT

Federal Aid # BRZ-1844(1) TIP # B-4303 County: Wake
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 102 on SR 1844 over Lower Branch Barton Creek
On 10/14/2003, representatives of the

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
~ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
b North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? 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 less 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 property identified as
is considered not eligible for the National
Register and no further evaluation of it is necessary.
There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.

All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)

Signed:

r )0 ( ' `2
~ v3
Representative DOT Date -
I. FHWA, for e Division A ministrator, or other Federal Agency Date

IO
3
Representative, HPO Date

State Historic Preservation O6icer Dat

If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

NCDENR
Y .
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation

Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary Philip K. McKnelly, Director

MEMORANDUM

TO: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Bridge Replacement Unit
Department of Transportation

FROM: Brian Strong, Environmental Review Coordinator 13
DENR, Division of Parks and Recreation

DATE: September 6, 2002

SUBJECT: Review of Department of Transportation Bridge Replacement Projects

The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit comments prepared by the Division of
Parks and Recreation (Division) on a number of proposed bridge replacement projects. These
projects were received from Mr. William T. Goodwin (dated April 24, 2002) and John Williams
(received June 25, 2002).

Prior to discussing individual comments on specific projects I would like to make one
general comment. A number of projects are listed as replacement of bridges with culverts. The
Division would like to express concern with this type of replacement. As you know, culverts are
often beset by a number of persistent problems associated with their installation and
maintenance. Culverts are frequently the focus of restoration projects as either culvert removal
or mitigation efforts designed to remediate their destabilizing influence. Since culverts are often
used in lieu of bridges as a cost savings alternative, the proper design of the culvert is often not.
factored into the cost of the project. Impacts of improper design and installation include the
angle of insertion (too high or too low), sizing of culverts, culvert placement (too low or too
high), and lack of culvert maintenance resulting in degradation of streams. In addition, culvert
are often insufficiently designed to handle fish passage due to inadequate depth of water at time
of passage, inappropriate water velocity, inadequate resting places above and below the stream
structure, and- physical obstructions to passage. Culverts have been identified as one of the
greatest sources of stream morphology change in the United States. In general, the Division
recommends that bridges be used in all instances where practical.

Enclosure 1 presents the bridge replacement projects were potential environmental
impacts were identified. The majority of the impacts involve impacts to significant natural

heritage areas, rare plant and animal species. Other impacts include proximity to state trails,
state parks, and natural heritage aquatic habitats.. Enclosure 2 presents the accompanying maps
discussed in Enclosure 1.

Please let me know if there is any further information you need or if you have any
questions regarding the enclosed material, my telephone number is [phone].

1615 Mail Service Center, RuleiJh. Forth Carolina 2;699-1615
r,i i .l t J i T'._... ll l - . ~I)Q Z r--ar. i't1t; nr'T•t t•:-C ^.~r

Bridge Replacement Project Potential Impact
Stokes County Impacts to SNHA: National significance, rare
Replace Bridge No. 60 on NC 8-89 over the mussels.and fish
Dan River
B-4281

Wake County Impacts to SNHA: Local significance
Replace Bridge No. 102 on SR 1844 over
Lower Barton Creek
Y .
B=4303`--
Wake County Impacts to rare mussel
Replace Bridge No. 143 on SR 2217 over
Beaver Dam Creek
B-4304 (!ti4U~

Warren County Impacts to raze sedge
Replace Bridge No. 4 on US 401 over Shocco
Creek
3-4307 ~ ttJ~;~~:'Jt:l

Page 1 of 2

Pam Williams

From: Lebsock, Victor [[e-mail])
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 1:05 PM
To: Lamb, Eric; Pam Williams
Subject: RE: Bridge Replacement projects in Wake County

You have picked up most of the greenway issues, but must note that the Southeast Raleigh Urban Service area
extends to the east and encompasses Poplar Creek. Poplar Creek is on the Capital Area Greenway Master Plan
and accommodations in replacing the Poole Road Bridge over the creek should take into account the future
greenway trail. For further information you can contact me.

Victor (Vic) Lebsock
Park and Greenway Planner
P. O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602
Telephone [phone]
email [e-mail]

-----Original Message-----
From: Lamb, Eric
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 8:35 AM
To: 'Pam Williams'
Cc: Lebsock, Victor
Subject: RE: Bridge Replacement projects in Wake County
Pam:

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. I hope this information helps - please let me know if you have any
questions. Thanks once again for seeking our input and coordinating with us on these NCDOT projects.
8-4300
Although this is slightly outside of my jurisdiction, there are a few elements of concern that I have.
1) Poole Road is an arterial thoroughfare in the City of Raleigh's plan and will likely be widened to a
multilane facility at some point. The design of the bridge should accommodate this future widening.
2) The Eastern Wake Expressway (1-540) will be coming through this immediate area in the future. You
should extrapolate an approximate corridor based on the location of the interchange with US 64 Bypass.
3) US 64 Bypass is severing your detour route. In fact, you may want to consider building the project with a
full closure and use the bypass as your detour route.
Also, please coordinate this project with the Town of Knightdale.
B-4301.6-4302
Both are way outside of my jurisdiction, and you'll be dealing with Knightdale and Fuquay-Varina respectively.

8-4303
This is just outside the City of Raleigh, but I know the area. I think your detour route looks fine. There will need to
be a greenway accommodations beneath the bridge as Lower Barton's Creek is part of our greenway master
plan. Please contact Vic Lebsock at 890-3293 for more information. You also need to contact Tim Clark at Wake
County Planning at 856-6320 for additional input.
B-4304
Old Milburnie Road is classified as a major thoroughfare, whose ultimate section will be a five-lane roadway with
sidewalks on both sides. Any bridge design should accommodate for this ultimate section. There are also
significant impacts to Old Milburnie Road in association with the construction of 1-540 (R-2000G). This project is
also identified as a greenway corridor on the City's greenway master plan, and will also require accommodations
4/8/2004

} Page 2 of 2

as part of the project.

With respect to the detour route, 1-540 will also be an issue. You may wish to check the construction schedule for
this project and familiarize yourself with the interchange locations.
Thanks again,

Eric

Eric J. Lamb, PE eric.lamb(a.ci.raleigh.nc.us
Manager, Transportation Services Division http://www.raleigh-nc.org
City of Raleigh Public Works Department [phone]
P.O. Box 590, Raleigh, NC 27602 fax[phone]

4/8/2004

V ED

WAKE COUNTY _ TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 1551 ROCK QUARRY ROAD
U RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27610
PHONE: [phone]
cyt7y 2 FAX: [phone]
C.
March 3, 2004
f?~'~EPJTAL. Gregory Thorpe

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548

Dear Mr. Thorpe:

Outlined below are school bus bridge crossings and projected impact Bridge Replacement
Projects will have on our ability to transport children to required destinations.

B-4300 to replace Bridge429: 46 daily school bus crossings which will severely impact school
bus routing.

B- 4301 to replace Bridge4229: 46 daily school bus crossings which will severely impact school
bus routing.

B-4302 to replace Bridge #336: 52 daily school bus crossings which will severely impact school
bus routing.

B-4303 to replace Bridge 4102: 16 daily school bus crossing which will moderately impact
school bus routing.

B-3528 to replace Bridge 9429: 6 daily school bus crossings which will minimally impact school
bus routing.

Thanks you for soliciting our input.

Sincerel

Vernon W. Hatley

V WH/as

,Copments Bridge Replacement Projects

Subject: Comments Bridge Replacement Projects
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:46:40 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Dear Ms. Ellerby:

We received a memo regarding request for comments on Bridge Replacement Projects. I
have a comment/request regarding two Bridge Projects that we are now aware of:
Project B-4303; SR 1844, Bridge #102 (Mt. Vernon Church Road), future project and
current Project B-3704; SR 1834, Bridge #108 (Norwood Road)

Both of these Bridges provide critical access to densely populated areas of our Fire
District. As such we need the Bridge Load capability to handle our largest vehicle.
Our largest vehicle is a 105 foot aerial ladder truck, with a GVWR of 73,500 lbs.
Our request is to confirm that both of these Bridge Replacement projects provide
adequate load capability to accept travel by our apparatus.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If there are any questions please
contact me.
Ron Roof

Ron Roof, Chief
Bay Leaf Volunteer Fire Dept.
Office 919- 847-3858
Fax 919- 847-3892
[e-mail]

1 of 1 3/1/04 12:04 PM

~s

' ~xr«- "rc !

~,IS'e ~uC,s !d)[rp t,9' C 1) 1,
pI t:q>itdltw (1(S Ll€,vsi,a€ i (}E (1173
LYM catI, wrlt~., c-11'1ad
-)fie o•' [lie cotiLicAs provided below.

'1'b-c:rC a,r 1_:111, iI)v
'I_: C _T _I'r 0 70ses R eplicenzent tt_;i>{ } ['-i ~1
0f1hid l' Af0. 02 OI2 [ =,,1 Isail ,7 P t'ic;: t ,t rf c i°
IS (AITI ~c'1120r1 1 <rlt_I, i~, tc i ' f 1c,}t, 1

ChLI1-Ch R0,,-/(~ Ofirer ({~l c.7h~~ct)c,ln( :~ta.t -u..l s
LO wcr- _ artons :z-eek.
t}i:

O, B-4.30," Pail] VVIIIi,rt'u'i
T!'~

1-~~trill.iatusfciil~z~.rth~ ~zt7c.c~1t~1
~r{
..W
n
I~
sa
February 2006

f
r-

c~ U
i
^ 1C. fii.f w11f. v i
r S-~
d~~ti f a,
14 C-~
rQ VV NV V\ I I C! 1)
a bt

~ f• (ti
~ 1
r'
Cllf; 1'Ji3i.t~}S~(llTiT'P1)S{L1P1~~7<A1C~
n) O
ri
14 c q 't1 U C U
r,

r, •F ~ 7-
Fes, f~~~t~~ , ~ ~ < •.~1~.
0 16
r-r
iii I L;3 ~iJ l1S Ta b.' [TEJ'q ii 1,J- (
V 3 t, i t l -D, l 1 a
~f.

00,

"~',a::B:'v"~;'~~j ' ~s,as11:`~:3 k.k"S;.g3;~at:~~~. d.?i1[I?J-'a ,'r.>.r}~„~~.

tdd'i ~~~d ;fp 1?~ rL~`S~ vv gg& n rz ;r 4 A

r1,1 oT'i)lJl v) LIJJIO J<.,1

Action ID. 200420708

Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Eric Alsmeyer at [phone], ext. 23.
Basis For Determination: The study area contains stream channels of Lower Bartons Creek and an unnamed tributary,
tributaries of the Neuse River, with indicators of ordinary hiLyh water marks and wetlands adjacent to Lower Bartons
Creek.
Remarks: _

Corps Regulatory Official:

Date 01/31/2005 Expiration Date 01/31/2010
Corps Regulatory Official (Initial):

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
• A plat or sketch of the property and the wetland data form must be attached to the file copy of this form.
• A copy of the "Notification Of Administrative Appeal Options And Process And Request For Appeal" form must be
transmitted with the property owner/agent copy of this form.
• If the property contains isolated wetlands/waters, please indicate in "Remarks" section and attach the
"Isolated Determination Information Sheet" to the file copy of this form.

Copy furnished (with drawings): Julie Gibson
Mulkey Engineers
PO Box 33127
Raleigh, NC 27636

Page 2of2