19950883 Ver 1_Complete File_19950822

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Planning
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
A&4
D FE [**NJ 1=1
August 20, 1997
Durham County
WQC 401 Project #95883
TIP #B-2875
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place fill material in 0.02 acres of
wetlands or waters for the purpose of bridge replacement at SR 1322, as you described in your application
dated 31 July 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 3107. This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number
23 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local
permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control,
Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire
when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you
change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required
as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions
listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions
are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
n Howard, Jr. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
95883.1tr
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
r
?d •„ q
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAIfMK%RRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
AUC o s 1997
July 31, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: Durham County, Replacement of Bridge No. 235 over Ellerbee Creek on
SR 1322 (Broad Street), Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-0505(5), State
Project No. 8.2351201, T.I.P. No. B-2875, Action I.D. 199505098.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace Bridge No 235
over Ellerbee Creek on SR 1322 (Broad Street). On August 17, 1995 sent you a
planning document and notice that we proposed to proceed and atio wide Permit 23
in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The Nationwi e 23 erification was
issued August 28, 1995 (Action I.D. 199505098). Please find enc osed three copies of an
Adden to the project planning report for the subject project.
The August 1995 planning document described the replacement of Bridge No 235 with a
triple barrel 3.4 meter (11 ft) x 2.7 meter (9 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert. The
design has changed and we now propose to replace the existing structure with a double
barrel 4.0 meters (13 ft) x 2.7 meters (9 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert. In addition,
the roadway cross section was changed to make the structure compatible with recently
planned improvements to Broad Street. Bridge No. 235 will be replaced at its existing
location. Traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads during construction. No
jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted and approximately 0.02 hectares (0.06 acres) of
jurisdictional surface waters will be affected.
?r
2
We anticipate that the 401 General Certification will continue to apply to this project, and
are providing one copy of the CE Addendum document to the North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, Division 5 Engineer
Mr. Byron Brady, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer

Durham County
Broad Street (SR 1322)
Bridge No. 235 over Ellerbee Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-0505(5)
State Project No. 8.2351201
T.I.P. No. B-2875
ADDENDUM
TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DATE H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NCDOT
I l 2i ? "-
DATE Nicholas L. raf, P.E.
/ Division Administrator,FHWA
I -
Durham County
Broad Street (SR 1322)
Bridge No. 235 over Ellerbee Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-0505(5)
State Project No. 8.2351201
T.I.P. No. B-2875
ADDENDUM
TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
October, 1996
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
12? -1
Lisa Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
o
71
0
O
0
o
a
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
J.A. Bissett, P.E.
Consultant Engineering Unit
By n Brady, P.E.
Project Manager
Y -
Durham County
Broad Street (SR 1322)
Bridge No. 235 over Ellerbee Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-0505(5)
State Project No. 8.2351201
T.I.P. No. B-2875
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts. No special or unique environmental commitments are necessary.
. I
Durham County
Broad Street. (SR 1322)
Bridge No. 235 over Ellerbee Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-0505(5)
State Project No. 8.2351201
T.I.P. No. B-2875
Bridge No. 235 is included as a Municipal Bridge Replacement Project in the 1997-2003
Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.). The project is scheduled for construction to begin
in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1997. The project location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
The replacement of Bridge No. 235 was evaluated and documented in a Categorical Exclusion (CE)
dated April 28, 1995. After completion of the CE the recommended roadway cross section was
changed from a 7.2 meters (24 ft) roadway with 2.4 meters (8 ft) usable shoulders to a 13.2 meters
(44 ft) face to face curb and gutter facility. This revision was necessary to make the proposed bridge
replacement project compatible with recently planned improvements to Broad Street (SR 1322). The
planned improvements to Broad Street (SR1322) are proposed to accommodate planned development
southwest of the bridge replacement project and will be constructed by private developers. The
planned development improvements will provide a 13.2 meters (44 ft) face to face curb and gutter
facility from the beginning of the bridge replacement project southward toward Murray Avenue.
This Addendum is to document the changes in the proposed bridge replacement project since the
completion of the original CE, dated April 28, 1995.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 235 will be replaced in its existing location as shown in Figure 2 of the CE. It will be
replaced with a double barrel 4.0 meters (13 ft) x 2.7 meters (9 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert.
The roadway grade will be approximately the same as the existing bridge grade at this location.
Tile new crossing will provide a clear roadway width of 13.2 meters (44 ft) face to face of curbs (see
Figure 2, Addendum). The approaches will be improved for approximately 50 meters (165 ft) south
of the culvert and 120 meters (394 ft) north of the culvert. The new cross section will function as
two-lanes, one travel lane in either direction, until the remainder of Broad Street (SR 1322) is
improved. Right of way will be acquired to contain an ultimate 20.4 meters (68 ft) face to face curb
and gutter facility. The ultimate facility will provide two travel lanes in either direction with a center
2
I
turn lane. Construction of the ultimate five-lane facility has not been programmed in the
Transportation Improvement Program.
As planned in the April 28, 1995 CE, the length of the culvert will be extended on the downstream
(east) side to provide a 4.2 meters (14 ft) clear area for a future pedestrian/bike path behind the curb
and gutter. A 1.50 meters (5.0 ft) chain link fence will be provided on the east side of the
pedestrian/bike path in the immediate area of the culvert for the safety of potential pedestrian/bike
users.
During construction, traffic will be detoured along, existing roads as shown on Figure 1 of the CE and
this Addendum.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $502,500 including $117,500 for right-of-way and
$325,000 for construction. The total estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1997-2003
Transportation Improvement Program, is $335,000 including $0 for right-of-way, $200,000 for
construction, and $135,000 prior costs.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The projected traffic volume is 7,040 Vehicles Per Day (VPD) for 1998 and 16,440 VPD for the
design year 2018. The volumes include 1% trick-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired
vehicles (DT).
Broad Street (SR 1322) in the vicinity of the Ellerbee Creek crossing is included as a proposed
bicycle route on Durham's Bicycle Route Master Plan Map (1988). The recommended cross section
includes 0.6 meter (2 ft) wider outside travel lanes that will be compatible with existing and future
bicycle use.
3
. I
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the recommended replacement, based on current prices, are as follow:
Structure Removal $6,500.00
Box Culvert $114,250.00
Roadway Approaches' $81,570.00
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $60,680.00
Engineering and Contingencies $62,000.00
Right-of-Way/Utilities* $117,500.00
TOTAL $502,500.00
* Utility costs are the responsibility of the City of Durham and are not included in the Right-of--Way
costs.
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 235 will be replaced at its existing location with a reinforced concrete box culvert
consisting of two barrels, 4.0 meters (13 ft) x 2.7 meters (9 ft), approximately 30 meters (98 ft) in
length. The roadway grade will be approximately the same as the existing bridge grade and will
require a total of approximately 170 meters (558 ft) of new approaches. The new crossing will
accommodate a 13.2 meters (44 ft) face to face of curbs roadway and provide a design speed of 60
kilometers per hour (35 miles per hour).
VI. NATURAL RESOURCES
Vegetation.
Bridge replacement and associated approach improvements will occur in existing location. Therefore,
impacts to plant communities will be restricted to narrow margins bordering the existing corridor.
A total of approximately 0.3 hectare (0.7 ac) of disturbed, successional vegetation will be affected
4

by the project (including riparian fringe areas); an additional 0.1 hectare (0.25 ac) of mixed forest
cover will be taken along the expanded corridor in the northwest project quadrant.
Wetlands
Wetlands are defined by the presence of three criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
evidence of seasonal hydrology (DOA 1987). Based on the three parameter approach, there are no
jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. In addition, NWI mapping also shows no wetlands in the
immediate vicinity of the project.
Surface waters within the creek channel are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. Proposed bridge replacement with a culvert may impact approximately 0.02
hectare (0.06 ac) of open water area.
Protected Species
The following listed species have ranges which extend into Durham County (FWS listing, August 23,
1996):
Name Federal State Habitat
Status Status Yes No
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalns) E E X
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni)* FSC T X
Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cario.sa) FSC T X
Green floater (Lasmigona snbviriclis) FSC E X
Septima's clubtail dragonfly (Gornphussep/ima)* FSC SR X
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigala) E E-SC X
Michaux's sumac (Rhos michanxii)* E E-SC X
Tall larkspur (Delphinium exallatam) FSC E-SC X
Sweet pinesap (A1fono11-o1)si.s odorala) FSC C X
Liverwort (Plagiochila cohtmbiana)* FSC C X
Panhandle peeblsnail (Somologyrrrs virginicus) FSC SR X
Butternut (Juglans cinerea) FSC NA X
E = Endangered
FSC = Federal Species of Concern
SC = Special Concern
SR = Significantly Rare
C = Candidate
T = Threatened
* = No specimens sighted from this county in the last 20 years
5
I
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally
funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity
to comment.
The general project area was reviewed in the field by the consultant. All properties in the general
project area were photographed. The Historic Architectural Resources Section of NCDOT reviewed
the photographs with the office of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The SHPO
provided the following comments: "In terms of historic architectural resources the Liggett & Myers
tobacco warehouses located just east of Broad Street near the existing bridge are over fifty years old
and are considered potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. We recommend
that an architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate this property."
Further evaluation by NCDOT staff and the Federal Highway Administration concluded that the
project would have no effect on the potential historic property. The SHPO has concurred in this
determination (see CE Appendix).
Subsequent to the CE the property owner of the Liggett & Myers warehouses has decided to develop
the property. The property owner has removed (or is removing) the warehouses from this site.
Photographs were taken of the demolition and submitted the SHPO for their files. Further
evaluation by the FHWA determined the property was no longer eligible for the National Register
and the SHPO has concurred it that determination.
6
I
r?
.B
r
• a
r
? r
f +
f
f r
fr
tl-- i
n
tic
c?M
29
Oak Ora
?Bdbof
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVL4ION OF HIOHWATS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 235
DURHAM COUNTY
B-2875
8/94 SCALE =1:27 500 FIG.I
0 (kilometers) I

3
E
r-
N
W
..-
a
J
3 NI1 M/b N831SV3 9NIlSIX3 V

,J J O
a a M

r cr
r
N
N
Q +- Z

en 0
_ E
N
U
L LJ
E L/) 3
Li
r
i
2 N li U
Z
z E i_^
O N
Nj X
W

U E
w
Lli tD
w
VI ) M
I
? z_
J
D Li
?.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E
E
0
N
W

Q
C

Y
J
a
w
tnE
o
N
dV] z ? II
O W

z?
U LtJ

X w
/
I1
v I N
w E
CD
Z 0

L 0
X
d03 L u `D N
z
C)

U
LLJ

V I

Of
Of
.----__-_ ____-__-
LLJ
V)
n
C)
n
Z
O
U
L J
r/- Q
00
N
I ?
m ?
CV
W
LL-

Jai
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 23, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 235 on Broad Street over Ellerbe Creek,
Durham County, B-2875, Federal Aid Project
BRZ-0505(5), State Project 8.2351201, ER 97-
7398
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of September 4, 1996, concerning the above project
We have reviewed the photographs of the demolition of the Liggett & Myers
Tobacco Warehouses, and concur with your determination that the warehouses are
no longer eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, there are
no historic structures within the project's area of potential effect, and we have no
comment regarding additional right-of-way required from the warehouse property.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely, n
Davi Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: `14 F. Vick
C. Bruton
Durham Historic Preservation Commission
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director

<) t7
ylG s/o"
R? wq),
MAI Bt?I
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 1?3?a
w SEW
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA q5H3
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
RECEIVED
August 17, 1995 AUG 2.,21995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
RRA?1^..H
Regulatory Branch
U..S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Durham County, Replacement of Bridge No. 235 over Ellerbee Creek on
Broad Street, Federal Aid Project BRZ-0505(5), State Project
8.2351201, T.I.P. No. B-2875.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the
above referenced project. Bridge No. 235 will be replaced in its existing
location and will be replaced with a triple barrel 3.4 meter (11 ft.) x 2.7
meter (9 ft.) reinforced concrete box culvert. During construction, traffic
will be detoured along existing roads. The proposed bridge replacement with
a culvert may impact approximately 0.01 hectare (0.30 ac) of open water area.
No wetland plant communities will be affected by this project.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as
a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore,
,we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit, but proposed to proceed
under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The
provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A(C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health an't Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
0
August 17, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141 Ext. 314.
Sincerely,
4 F k 'ck, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/rfm
cc: W/attachment
COE Raleigh-Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don-Morton, P.-E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. F. Rosser, P. E., Division 6 Engineer
A

Durham County
Broad Street
Bridge No. 235 over Ellerbee Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-0505(5)
State Project No. 8.23 51201
T.I.P. No. B-2875
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DA H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
DATE Ni las L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator,FHWA
1'
Durham County
Broad Street
Bridge No. 235 over Ellerbee Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-0505(5)
State Project No. 8.2351201
T.I.P. No. B-2875
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April, 1995
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
Lisa Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
GAR9
SEAL `
15810
.. Ci I T? ..
S. H11 ZL %,'
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
O.A. "'K 4 zwee4? -
Bissett, P.E.
Consultant Engineering Unit
Byr Brady, P.E.
Pro ct Manager
i
Durham County
Broad Street
Bridge No. 235 over Ellerbee Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-0505(5)
State Project No. 8.2351201
T.I.P. No. B-2875
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. No special or unique environmental commitments are necessary.
The Liggett and Myers tobacco warehouses (Neal Stewart property) located on Broad Street
southwest of the existing bridge are considered potentially eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. The commitment has been made to the State Historic Preservation Officer that
no right-of-way for the bridge replacement project will be required from this property.
1
I
A
Durham County
Broad Street
Bridge No. 235 over Ellerbee Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-0505(5)
State Project No. 8.2351201
T.I.P. No. B-2875
Bridge No. 235 is included as a Municipal Bridge Replacement Project in the 1995-2001
Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.). The project is scheduled for right-of-way
acquisition to begin in federal fiscal year (FFY) 1996 and construction in FFY 1997. The project
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project
is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 235 will be replaced in its existing location as shown in Figure 2. It will be replaced
with a triple barrel 3.4 meter (11 ft) x 2.7 meter (9 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert.
The roadway grade will be the same as the existing bridge grade at this location.
The new roadway will provide a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) usable
shoulders including 0.6 meter (2 ft) paved for approximately 50 meters (165 ft) each side of the
culvert.
The length of the culvert will be extended on the downstream (east) side to provide a 3.05 meter
(10 ft) clear area for a pedestrian/bike path behind the guardrail. A 1.37 meter (4.5 ft) chain link
fence will be provided on the downstream side in the immediate area of the culvert to protect
potential pedestrianibike traffic.
During construction, traffic will be detoured along existing roads as shown on Figure 1.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $ 410,000 including $130,000 for right-of-way
and $280,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1995-2001
Transportation Improvement Program, is $265,000 including $65,000 for right-of-way and
$200,000 for construction.
2
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Broad Street is classified as an urban local route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan classifies Broad Street
as a minor thoroughfare.
Broad Street in the vicinity of Bridge No. 235 consists of a 6.4 meter (21 ft) pavement with
variable width shoulders. The roadway approaches slope down toward the bridge on both sides.
The horizontal alignment is tangent at the bridge with a 440 meter radius (4 degree) curve
approximately 40 meters (130 ft) south of the bridge. The existing bridge and immediate
roadway approaches are raised about 3.5 meters (11.5 ft) above the creek bed. The land use in
the vicinity of the bridge is mixed residential/commercial.
The projected traffic volume is 6100 Vehicles Per Day (VPD) for 1997 and 15,500 VPD for the
design year 2017. The volumes include 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-fired
vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 56 kilometers per hour (35 miles per hour).
The present bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1960. The superstructure consists of timber
decking and handrails on steel I-beams. The substructure consists of concrete abutments. The
bridge has posted weight limits of 14,545.5 kilograms (16 tons) for single vehicles and 20,909.1
kilograms (23 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
The overall length of the bridge is 9.8 meters (32 ft) and the clear roadway width is 7.5 meters
(24.3 ft).
Bridge No. 235 has a sufficiency rating of 15.9, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Utilities in the vicinity of the bridge include aerial power and telephone lines on the east side of
Broad Street. High voltage power lines supported by steel towers cross Broad Street
approximately 24 meters (80 ft) south of the bridge. A sanitary sewer line crosses Broad Street
approximately 35 meters (115 ft) north of the bridge. Underground gas and water lines are also
located on the east side of Broad Street. The project may involve relocating some utilities, but
the severity of utility conflicts is considered to be low.
There were no accidents reported in the immediate vicinity of the bridge during the period
January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1993.
Fourteen school buses cross the studied bridge per day. Durham City/County school officials do
not object to closing the existing crossing during construction since a suitable detour is available.
School officials would like to be notified in advance of the road closure.
Broad Street in the vicinity of the Ellerbee Creek crossing is included as a proposed bicycle route
on Durham's Bicycle Route Master Plan Map (1988). The recommended roadway cross section
includes 0.6 meter (2 ft) paved shoulders that will be compatible with existing and future bicycle
3
use.
Ellerbee Creek in the vicinity of the project is included on Durham's Trails and Greenways
Master Plan Map (1988, revised 1992). A greenway is proposed along Ellerbee Creek that will
include a pedestriail and bike path. The City of Durham is currently obtaining right-of-way for
the greenway and construction is expected to begin in 1995. No right-of-way has been acquired
in the immediate area of the Broad Street crossing. The plans propose to cross Broad Street at-
grade.
At the request of City of Durham officials, two options to provide an underpass for the
pedestrian/bike path crossing of Broad Street were investigated. The first option would raise the
grade of Broad Street approximately 1 meter (3.3 ft) and replace the existing bridge with a five
barrel, 3.4 meter (11 ft) x 3.4 meter (11 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert. One barrel of the
culvert could be used for the pedestrian/bike crossing during periods of low water levels. The
estimated cost is $547,000 including $197,000 for right-of-way.
The second option would raise the grade of Broad Street approximately 1.5 meters (5 ft) and
replace the bridge with a new bridge, 11.2 meters (36 ft) x 37 meters (121 ft). A low water level
pedestrian/bike path could be provided under the new structure. The estimated cost is $760,000
including $260,000 for right-of-way.
The benefits of each option are limited since use of the pedestrian/bike underpass would be
restricted to periods of low water levels. These benefits are not considered sufficient to justify
the additional project costs.
In lieu of a pedestrianibike underpass, City officials requested consideration be given to extending
the length of the proposed culvert on the downstream (east) side to provide a 3.05 meter (10 ft)
clear area behind the proposed guard rail to accommodate the pedestrian/bike path. A 1.22 meter
(4 ft) chain link fence on both sides of Broad Street in the immediate vicinity of the culvert was
also requested for additional protection of pedestrian traffic. The additional cost is estimated to
be $30,000.
The City's proposed pedestrian/bike trail along Ellerbee Creek will be located on the south side
of the Creek, east of Broad Street, and on the north side of the Creek, west of Broad Street. The
proposed greenway pedestrian/bike traffic will cross Broad Street approximately 50 meters (165
ft) north of the proposed culvert. The proposed culvert extension would facilitate the proposed
pedestrian/bike traffic crossing of Ellerbee Creek without having to use the travel lanes of Broad
Street. The potential safety benefits provided by the proposed culvert extension are considered
sufficient justification for the minor additional project costs. The proposed culvert extension is
compatible with the City's proposed pedestrian/bike plans and has been included in the project
recommendations.
P

r
4
III. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 235; replacement at the existing location
with road closure and the "do-nothing" alternate. The "do-nothing" alternate would eventually
result in the closure of the bridge. This is not a desirable alternative due to the traffic service
provided by Broad- Street. Rehabilitation of the existing structure was also investigated by the
Bridge Maintenance Unit but found to be not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
Replacement at the current location was considered the most feasible alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the recommended replacement, based on current prices, are as follow:
Structure Removal $5,600
Box Culvert $120,000
Roadway Approaches $72,400
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $43,000
Engineering and Contingencies $39,000
Right-of-Way/Utilities $130.000
TOTAL $410,000
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 235 will be replaced at its existing location with a reinforced concrete box culvert
consisting of three barrels, 3.4 meters (11 ft) x 2.7 meters (9 ft), approximately 18.5 meters (60
ft) in length. The roadway grade will be the same as the existing bridge grade and will require
about 50 meters (165 ft) of new approaches on each side. The new crossing will accommodate
a 7.2 meter (24 ft) roadway and 2.4 meter (8 ft) usable shoulders with 0.6 meter (2 ft) paved and
provide a design speed of 60 kilometers per hour (37 miles per hour).
Approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of additional travel will be required for the average vehicle
affected by the road closure. A Road-User Analysis, based on a 3 month construction period,
indicates the cost of additional travel would be approximately $167,000. The estimated cost to
provide a temporary detour is $200,000, resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 0.8 which indicates
the maintenance of traffic is not justified.
The Division Engineer and Durham City officials concur with the recommended improvements.
VI. NATURAL RESOURCES
Methodology
The site was visited on August 11, 1994. Prior to initiation of field work, background
information was collected, including: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles, Soil
Conservation Service soils mapping (USDA), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping, N.C.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) water quality data, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) listings of endangered species. N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) files
were reviewed on August 11, 1994 for documented sightings of state or federal protected species
and identified priority area.
General Setting
Bridge No. 235 is located in an urbanized area near the downtown fringes of the City of Durham.
Land use in the immediate vicinity of the project is characterized by a collection of residential
and commercial activities. A maintained power line right-of-way extends in an east-west
direction across the Ellerbee Creek floodplain immediately south of the bridge/creek crossing.
Floodplain fringes along the creek have generally been left undeveloped, consisting primarily of
disturbed, successional vegetation and remnant woodland pockets.
USGS topographic mapping indicates that elevations in the project area average 107 to 110
meters (350 to 360 ft) above mean sea level (MSL) along high ground slopes, extending down
to 100 meters (330 ft) above MSL along creek margins. Ellerbee Creek embankments are well
defined within an elevated floodplain. It is possible the creek may have been previously dredged
or channelized as a flood control measure, or to enable surrounding development to occur.
Soils
Upland soils in the project area belong to the White Store series (WsE, WsC, WsB). These soils
are moderately well drained with slow permeability and medium available water capacity. White
Store soils are typical of landscapes with rounded divides and steep side slopes. Soils in the
southwest quadrant immediately bordering the Ellerbee Creek floodplain are comprised of Iredell
loams (IrB). These upland soils also exhibit slow permeability and a low organic matter content.
However, available water capacity is high due to positioning on broad flats above floodplain
reaches.
The Ellerbee Creek floodplain is characterized by Pinkston fine sandy loam (PfE) east of Broad
Street and Chewacla (Ch) soils west of the road. Pinkston soils are typical of gently sloping
uplands. This series exhibits rapid permeability and low natural fertility. In the project area,
Pinkston soils are. situated on a raised floodplain terrace well above the creek and flooding
6
•
potential is expected to be limited. Chewacla soils occur along lower floodplain reaches west
of Broad Street. Inclusions of the Wehadkee series are often common. Seasonal flooding can
be expected. Chewacla soils are the only soils in the project area which could be considered
hydric. Although some evidence of sheet flow runoff from adjacent uplands was noted in this
area, soil profiles suggest that inundation is not long term (no evidence of nodules, gleying, or
other secondary hydric soil characteristics).
Ve etg ation
Land use practices have largely dictated vegetational patterns in the project area. Most
communities bordering the bridge consist of successional, herbaceous species including trumpet
creeper (Campsis radicans), Japanese clover (Lespedeza sp.), honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
poison ivy (Rhus radicans), black berry (Rubus spp.), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), grape
(Vitis rotundifolia), and Indian hemp (Apocynum cannabinum). A maintained lawn associated
with a commercial establishment (Walkers Draperies Company) dominates the southwest project
quadrant.
Woodland cover is restricted to narrow, linear fringes or segmented pockets north of the bridge.
A stand of pines (primarily Pinus taeda) occur on a residential lot which extends to the creek in
the northeast quadrant; however, road frontage (the area most likely to be affected by proposed
improvements) is characterized by a maintained lawn. Forest cover consisting of young pine and
mixed hardwoods (average age less than 20 years) follows the creek approximately 18 meters (60
ft) north of lower floodplain reaches. This system is comprised of loblolly pine, sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green
ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and scattered box elder (Acer
negundo). Shrub and ground cover development is limited to poison ivy, false nettle (Boehmeria
cylindrica), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
Creek embankments and riparian fringes support a variety of saplings and shrubs such as
sweetgum, sycamore, poplar, elm, ash, red mulberry (Morus rubra), red bud (Cercis canadensis),
black willow (Salix nigra), and privet (Ligustrum sinense).
Bridge replacement and associated approach improvements will occur in existing location.
Therefore, impacts to plant communities will be restricted to narrow margins bordering the
existing corridor. Approximately 0.2 hectare (0.5 ac) of disturbed, successional vegetation will
be affected by the project (including riparian fringe areas); an additional 0.04 hectare (0.10 ac)
of mixed forest cover may be taken along the expanded corridor in the northwest project
quadrant.
Water Resources
Ellerbee Creek is a small tributary within the Neuse River Basin flowing in an easterly direction
through the project area. The creek averages 3 to 5 meters (10 to 15 ft) in width at normal water
levels. Average depth appears to be less than 30 centimeters (1 ft). Flow is slow to moderate
7
C
over a rocky and silt laden bottom.
The creek has a C NSW best usage classification indicating suitability for aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture (DEM 1993). The creek is
classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) requiring limitations on nutrient inputs.
The N.C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM) does not have any water quality or
benthic sampling stations in the immediate project area. However a Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Ambient Network (BMAN) station located downstream at SR 1636 reports poor water quality
conditions (DEM 1989). The major discharger into Ellerbee Creek is the Durham-Northside
Waste Water Treatment Plant located downstream from the project area (10 million gallons per
day).
No benthic sampling or fisheries information was collected for Ellerbee Creek. However, the
system is considered to be of very limited fishery significance because of pollution in the upper
reaches of the creek (Fish 1968).
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters
occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the project area.
The proposed project is not expected to result in any additional significant adverse impacts to
water quality within Ellerbee Creek. Short-term construction related impacts (sedimentation,
erosion, storm water runoff, etc.) will be minimized through the use of NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as applicable. Long-term impacts are
not expected to increase since no major alignment shifts are proposed, nor will the capacity of
Broad Street be increased.
Wetlands
Wetlands are defined by the presence of three criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
evidence of seasonal hydrology (DOA 1987). Based on the three parameter approach, there are
no jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. In addition, NWI mapping also shows no wetlands
in the immediate vicinity of the project. All floodplain areas were evaluated for wetland presence
during recent field surveys. Likely candidate sites included floodplain areas in the northwest
project quadrant. However, vegetation is facultative in nature, and soils fail to show evidence
of seasonal inundation.
Surface waters within the creek channel are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. Proposed bridge replacement with a culvert may impact
approximately 0.01 hectare (0.03 ac) of open water area.
A

8

Permits
Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23 has been issued by the COE for federal agency projects which
are assumed to have minimal impacts. Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines, it is likely that this
project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (23). This
permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated,
funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency that is "categorically excluded"
from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However,
final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required from DEM before issuance of a nationwide
or general permit.
Mitigation
Projects authorized under the nationwide permit program usually do not require compensatory
mitigation based on the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Dppartment of the Army (Page and Wilcher 1991). However, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented, as applicable, to
minimize adverse impacts.
Protected Species
The following listed species have ranges which extend into Durham County (FWS listing, March
1994):
Name Federal State Habitat
Status Status Yes No
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) E E X
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni)* C2 T X
Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) C2 T X
Green floater (Lasmigona subviridis) C2 E X
Septima's clubtail dragonfly (Gomphus septima)* C2 SR X
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) E E-SC X
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)* E E-SC X
Tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum) C2 E-SC X
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) C2 C X
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) C2 SR X
9
Liverwort (Plagiochila columbiana)* C2 C
E = Endangered
SC = Special Concern
C,C2 = Candidate
SR = Significantly Rare
* = No specimens sighted from this country in the last 20 years
X
The NCHNP has no recorded sightings of federal or state listed species or priority areas occurring
within 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the project area. A number of state priority areas have been
identified in the vicinity of the Eno River situated north of the project area. However, these
communities will not be affected by project development.
The bald eagle is a large bird with a distinctive white head against a dark brown body at
maturity. Primary habitat consists of late successional, riparian ecosystems along the coast or in
close proximity to other large water bodies. Eagles prefer to nest in large pine or cypress trees
generally located in isolated communities. Bald eagles are known to occur in the Falls Lake area
which is several miles southeast of this project. There is no habitat for eagles in the project
vicinity. No impacts to eagles are expected to occur as a result of proposed improvements.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT.
Michaux's sumac is generally identified from other members of this genus by the densely
pubescent stems. The plant typically occurs on basic soils in clearings and openings where
competition for light or space is not critical. Habitat for this species may exist in disturbed areas
along the project corridor. However, all such areas were systematically surveyed during the
August field investigation; no sightings were noted. The proposed project is not expected to
affect populations of this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT.
Smooth coneflower is identified by large pink to purple flowers which occur during the May to
July blooming period. However, relic flower heads and stems may exist into the fall months.
Typical habitat includes meadows or woodlands on basic or circumneutral soils (Radford et al
1968). Habitat for this species may exist in disturbed areas along the project corridor. Likely
habitat areas were systematically walked and surveyed within 6 meters (200 ft) each side of the
existing alignment and bridge. No evidence of smooth coneflower or other members of this
genus was noted.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT.
No state listed or federal candidate species were identified during field investigations. There are
no known records of occurrence on file with NCHNP. Therefore, the project is not expected to
impact any of these species.
10

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement with a culvert 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 land use plans or zoning regulations. No significant
change in existing land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project. The project is compatible with
the City of Durham's future greenway plans along Ellerbee Creek.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires
that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
The general project area was reviewed in the field by the consultant. All properties in the
general project area were photographed. The Historic Architectural Resources Section of
NCDOT reviewed the photographs with the office of the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO). The SHPO provided the following comments: "In terms of historic architectural
resources the Liggett & Myers tobacco warehouses located just east of Broad Street near the
existing bridge are over fifty years old and are considered potentially eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. We recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate
this property."
Further evaluation by NCDOT staff and the Federal Highway Administration concluded that the
project would have no effect on the potential historic property. The SHPO has concurred in this
determination (see Appendix).
11
C
The SHPO determined there are no known archeological sites in the area and it is unlikely that
any archaeological resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will
be affected by the project construction. Therefore, no archaeological investigations were
recommended in connection with this project. A copy of the SHPO letter is included in the
Appendix.
Since the bridge will be replaced at its existing location (with a culvert) the Farmland Protection
Policy Act does not apply.
The project is located in Durham County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham nonattainment area
for ozone (03) and carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as "moderate" nonattainment areas for 03 and CO.
However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as "maintenance" for
03 on June 17, 1994. 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 Durham County. The Durham-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro 1995 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) has been determined to
conform to the intent of the SIP. The MPO approval date for the TIP is November 9, 1994. The
USDOT approval date of the TIP is April 4, 1995. The proposed bridge replacement project does
not add additional travel lanes and is exempt from a conformity analysis.
The project involves the replacement of the existing bridge in its existing location with a culvert.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes and no additional through travel lanes
are planned. There are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project. Due to the
aforementioned factors, the project's impact on noise and air quality will be insignificant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
The City of Durham is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The existing
Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) Study of Ellerbee Creek is currently under
revision. Preliminary investigations indicate the additional encroachments in the floodplain
resulting from replacement of the existing structure will not adversely affect the adjacent
properties nor increase the previous flood levels. A detailed flood study will be completed for
the new structure during the design phase.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in the recommended
alignment would result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will
be taken to minimize any possible harm.

12
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Solid Waste Management revealed no underground storage tanks or
hazardous waste sites in the immediate project area.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project.
13

REFERENCES
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg, Miss.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1987. Rpt. 89-08, DEHNR, Raleigh, N.C.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Neuse River Basin, DEHNR, Raleigh, N.C.
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina, N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh, N.C.
Radford, A.E., Ahles, H.E., Bell, C.R. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas, UNC
Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 197-. Soil Survey of Durham County. SCS.
14

E. ?'- F..-rtve °Y
_ UDC"9Ln
•
II
Sao
BRIDGE NO. 235
IF- A
S Cf
SlreborSt. ?€
8
R--t-d v?
stem
A* *#
I
I
i?
'P
ak
50
L-
1,660
7o m
N C
I

0
N
. u} S}BtlluRl -

ti ± ? ?m.??r Er_gt?,w0 Ave.

v
_
• }
pJt
°
/
?
y w Ave
®' • .wr. ,.. ,. P? Dsviinn wa.'
• • ®? club PM , - `
i IT1 y
N 3 E Aga- C '
s, °? •
mapi
• F
••
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
Y? ..1t1y .
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVWON OF HEQHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
!4
?!J OI ?. ••?•O BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 235
DURHAM COUNTY
B-2875
8/94 SCALE =1:27 500 FIG. I
0 (kilometers)
•
VIV,
In:
Y'q
71,
Z ?.
Ae-
:r ? •s
w ,
A .. ? iA f Cos\T" you: ?i
f r n
p
< A MOIITq
I ?:'z, 9 t• °• °•,°NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF y
1RANSP0RTATION
DIVLSION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
» •Or °?'•?T°? BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 235 ,
BROAD STREET OVER ELLERBEE CREEK i
DURHAM COUNTY
B-2875
8/94 SCALE 1:2400 FIG 2
0 40 80 '.:
r (meters)
r.
BRIDGE NO. 235
DURHAM COUNTY
B-2875
LOOKING NORTH
LOOKING SOUTH
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3

a
DURHAM COUNTY
i
ZONE X
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
zONE x
ZONE AE ZONE X
RAFT DRAFT ZONE X N

,\ C
/ cc` STgO ? n
?f SR

ZONE X I
ZONE AE
ZONE AE 1

kG ZONE AE ZONE XO
ER

I
AG n
EC-1.

! DRAFT 9 = i
B- 2875 1 ZCN
1 / BRIDGE NO. 235
r
, ? ZC
!
347 / ZONE X

1 1 4 ZONE X ZONE X
ZONE AE
FIGURE 4
SCALE 16000
C ., 7
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 3, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 235 on Broad Street over Ellerbe Creek,
Durham County, B-2875, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-
0505(5), State Project 8.2351201, ER 95-8487.
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of February 23, 1995, concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the Liggett & Myers Tobacco Warehouse Complex is eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for its association with the tobacco industry in
Durham, and Criterion C for its distinctive architectural character which represents yet
another era in Durham's tobacco industry. We believe the fence surrounding the thirty
warehouses and encompassing approximately seventy-seven acres is an appropriate
boundary for the property.
On February 23, 1995, members of our staff met with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation concerning the bridge project. Because additional right-of-way beyond the
fence line is not required and construction will stop before reaching the property, we believe
the proposed undertaking will not affect the National Register-eligible warehouse complex.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
r
David Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw
cc: " H. F. Vick
B. Church
V&-a-Q
Preservation Officer
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
1Z47C1
28"l?
Tip .#
1
Federal Aid # MS - 0170 (z;) County V uMAAM
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
P-"LAGE No. Z,?iq ON l?,R.oAD STRerZ' WF.tZ
EU-Fi?.l>EE GfGEE1G_ ? `?P?E AITA,GtkMENt'> -
On lr ? g-uA?Y 23I MW , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
- V North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's area of potential
effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the project's area
of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the project's area of
potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the project's area of
potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
Signed:
Z 2,
the ivision Administrator, or other Federal Agency

State Historic Preservation

(over)
Tip # b '?Zti Federal Aid #
County -7U"AM
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is National
Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
(.?GG?TT ? My?.s ro?ACCO i.11a?r?usF s - ??
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR or DE)
and describe effect.
-01
Initialed: NCDOT FHwA GQ SHPO (?
cG AT, w
J
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resour (1;? N "u 3 109-
?,d History
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor Divi?s,Y
Bet ty Ray McCain, Secretary ?IWA ctoo
RONNiE?A
December 29, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replacement of Bridge 235, Broad Street over
Ellerbe Creek, Durham County, Federal No.' BRZ-
0505(5), State No. 8.2351201, TIP B-2875, ER
95-8035
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of December 9, 1994, concerning the above project.
On December 1, 1994, Claudia Brown and Debbie Bevin of our staff met with
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff to review project area
photographs. Based upon our review of the photographs and the information
discussed at the meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this
project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, the Liggett & Myers tobacco
warehouses located just east of Broad Street near the existing bridge are over fifty
years old and are considered potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places. We recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate this
property.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ???
Nicholas L. Graf
December 29, 1994, 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.
-Sirw,erely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
y
DURHAM
1 8 6 9
CITYOFMEDICINE
DIVISIONS
Street Engineering 560-4326
Water E Sewer Engineering 560-4326
Storm Water Services 560-4326
Street Maintenance 560-4312
Water S Sewer maintenance 560-4344
Mr. L. Jack Ward, PE
KO & Associates, PC
Consulting Engineers
1011 Schaub Drive, Suite 202
Raleigh, N. C. 27606
Re:
Dear Mr. Ward:
City
of

of Durham
Replacement of Bridge No. 235
Broad Street over Ellerbee Creek
Durham County B-2875
I'm writing in response to your letter of January 10, 1995 in regard to
the proposed method of replacement of the Broad Street Bridge at Ellerbee Creek.
The City of Durham concurs with the recommendations of your letter with the
following additional comments.
Recommendation Number 1: (Alternate A)
Replace the bridge at its existing location with a triple barrel
reinforced concrete culvert. Each barrel to be a minimum of 3.7m (12ft) wide by
3.4m (8f t) high. Roadway grade will remain close to the present profile. Total
estimated cost of $380,000.00. [The City concurs.]
Comments: The City requests that a 4 ft. chain link fence be installed on
both the upstream and downstream sides of the roadway at the crossing to protect
potential pedestrian traffic.
In lieu of a proposed pedestrian underpass, the City requests that
consideration be given to extending the length of the proposed structure td
provide a clear pedestrian/bike path between the roadway guard rail and the
chain link fence described above. A desirable 10 ft. and minimum 8 ft. clear
pathway is requested on the east (downstream) side of the bridge, if practicable
and if the extra cost can be shared with the Federal Government.
Recommendation Number 2:
Broad Street will be closed during construction and traffic detoured off-
site. Proposed detour is Stadium' Drive to Duke Street to Murray Avenue to Broad
Street. [The City concurs.]
Comments: Contractor to provide two weeks notice to the Durham Department
of Transportation (Ed Sirgany, 560-4366) prior to actual closing of Broad Street.
Contractor to provide all traffic control devices for street closure. City of
Durham will provide detour signing along proposed route.
Please contact Robert Conroy (560-4326) if any further clarification is
required. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
c:
Byron Brady, PE; Vonda Frantz
C. H. Casey, PE; Herb Turner
Ed Sirgany, PE, Kenneth E. Wright, PE
C???cx-tea ?----
Robert E. Conroy
Assistant City Engineer
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Department Engineering
(9191560.4326 FAX [phone] City Hall Plaza Durham. NC 27701
Durham
. City
County
Planning
Department
MEMORANDUM
October 31, 1994
Jack Ward, P.E.
KO and Associates
4911 Waters Edge, Suite 201
Raleigh, NC 27606
Dear Mr. Ward:
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, NC 27701
[phone]
Fax [phone]
I am writing concerning the Broad Street bridge (#235) replacement project (B-2875) over Ellerbee Creek
in Durham. I appreciate your efforts to consider ways to include a pedestrian and bicycle underpass as
part of this project. I wanted to emphasize the importance of the underpass as a transportation feature.
The underpass is needed as part of the City-funded North-South Trail that is currently being implemented.
The North-South Trail will provide a mostly off-street route for bicycles and pedestrians to travel from
the Eno River south to Garrett Road Park across from Jordan High School, approximately 17 miles. The
route includes many transportation destinations--schools, parks, shopping, downtown Durham.
While it will be necessary to have many at-grade trail crossings, the trail will serve more effectively the
more uninterrupted it is with street crossings. As proposed development occurs south of Ellerbee Creek,
Broad Street will become much more heavily travelled and difficult for bicycles and pedestrians to cross
at-grade. Therefore, I urge you to prepare a design that includes a low-water underpass. While it may
cost more, it will also have more transportation value since it will then serve multi-modal purposes,
facilitating both highway traffic on the bridge and pedestrian and bicycle traffic under the bridge.
I appreciate your efforts in this regard, and the opportunity to discuss this project with you.
S'n rely, ?. a
1
Vonda Frantz
Environmental Coordinator
cc: Robert Conroy, City Engineering
C.H. Casey, P.E., NCDOT Design Services
Mark Ahrendsen, Durham Transportation Department
Wayne Cash, Durham Open Space and Trails Commission Chair
Ken Coulter, Coulter/Young-Jewell. North-South Trail Design Consultants
Paul Norby, Planning Director