20081433 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20040220

Qt~SW OP ryF United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
`S
y Raleigh Fuld Office
Post Office Box 33726
gCH Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
FEB
0
m .fl
February 18, 2004 orvrrorr o
o2f r HrcH~~,~r c,
Vt"t oQttk e,"e
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 hqp://ric-
es.fws.gov/es/count)t.htnl . Additional information about the habitats in which each species is
often found can also be found at http://endangered.fws.g_ov . 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
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers;

5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;

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 yqu have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.

Sincerely,

4~L -

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

1 w, a. r~ -
r7 v ,y r

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

Richard B. Hanvlton, 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 B4592.

Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:

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 2 February 27, 2004

5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.

6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.

8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Hal
Bain should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,1997)" should
be followed.

10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.

12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities'to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.

14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.

16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.

If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used;

Bridge Memo 3 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.

Bridge Memo 4 February 27, 2004

4. B-4216, Orange County, Bridge No. 66 over Strouds Creek on SR 1002. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Due to the close proximity of the Eno River we
request conducting a survey for the following state endangered and federal species of
concern mussels: Yellow lampmussel and Atlantic pigtoe. Also, a significant fishery for
sunfish exists at this site, therefore we request an in-water work moratorium for sunfish
from April 1 to June 30. Standard recommendations apply.
5. B-4300, Wake County, Bridge No. 29 over Clarks Creek on SR 1007. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines
for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15
to June 15. Standard recommendations apply.

6. B-4301, Wake County, Bridge No. 229 over Poplar Creek on SR 1007. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines
for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15
to June 15. Standard recommendations apply.
7. B-4302, Wake County, Bridge No. 336 over Terrible Creek on SR 1301. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.

8. B-4303, Wake County, Bridge No. 102 over Lower Bartons Creek on SR 1844. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.

9. B-4304, Wake County, Bridge No. 143 over Beaver Dam Creek on SR 2217. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
10. B-4592, Orange County, Bridge No. 64 over the Eno River on SR 1561. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. We request conducting a survey for the following
state endangered and federal species of concern mussels: Yellow lampmussel and
Atlantic pigtoe. Also, a significant fishery for sunfish exists at this site, therefore we
request an in-water work moratorium for sunfish from April 1 to June 30. Standard
recommendations apply.

NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shallowed during initial bridge installation.
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe. or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.

Cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

Y „c STNg o

WrM

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`` t ,(11( Ix%

SUBJECT: Request for commerAs 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.st2te.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
DL'C'rnD d't'rl1N 515 N. Blount St Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone] 9715-4801

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 # BR-Z-1944(l) 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)
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:

I_A"2" )D --14 Representative(~F DOT Date-

L)
FHWA, for e Division A ministrator, or other Federal Agency Date

Representative, HPO Date

0
State Historic Preservation Officer Dat

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

;AA
NCDENR

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 3
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. Raleigh. Nonh Carolina 27699-1615
- ^ilJ: (.,r~r-r, .ar. •t»t; nr'n•t rL'C ^.~r

Bridge Replacement Proiect 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 Bar-tons Creek
B-4303: ~ t Ji 1

Wake County Impacts to rare mussel
Replace Bride No. 143 on SR 2217 over
Beaver Dam Creek
B-4304i~~V~
Warren County Impacts to rare sedge
Replace Bridge No. 4 on US 401 over Shocco
Creek
B-4307;i3,c.~iJ,. L

rage 1 or 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.
B-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. B-4302
Both are way outside of my jurisdiction, and you'll be dealing with Knightdale and Fuquay-Varina respectively.
B-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 Milbumie 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.lambL8ct.raleigh.nc.us
Manager, Transportation Services Division hftp://www.raleigh-nc.org
City of Raleigh Public Works Department [phone]
P.O. Box 590, Raleigh, NC 27602 fax[phone]

4/8/2004

14 Eb

WAKE COT TN TY _ TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM 1551 Roca QUARRY ROAD
• T C> RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27610
tA~~ Q PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
March 3, 2004 ~frA~tEfVT,41.

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 Bridge#29: 46 daily school bus crossings which will severely impact school
bus routing.

B- 4301 to replace Bridge#229: 46 daily school bus crossings which will severely impact school
bus routing.

B-4302 to replace Bridge 4336: 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

Cotqments Bridge Keptacemeni rro)ecLs

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 Pr

informational
1t c?u 1, ave quest-lolls ()t cof mu,"tats
i ) t. a.tCjlTl 1:115 ilmvslt Lte.c of: LtAs
~s 7za cct: you ina caU, wnte, at e-mail
cnie of :tic contacts pru idea below.

\,IC 'OOT.Proposes P-, eplacernent
{ 5,18 N-La d `7(a yJ s
ofl3t dg-e No. 102 on
1.4.-A6A, N IC 2 7699 154
.`R- 18.14 (Alit. Vemorz ","6
OILH-Ch Pl,O,,xc1) over t<°Ltcil~),(Cx),clr>t.~ t11C°.s7c.i s
L,o ewer Bartons Creek
VV11t e CO Lrn ty, 1'VC
TIP No. B-4.303 Pain ~~'illl u~is
N'Tu.Lt.-ey .L,Ll,,iaiec.rs (o»srileaia-ts
y 1 _alC i ;la, N(-''227636-3 1 % 7
- 919 1),58 19011,
t,~c~illi~~t~.~s(trltnulk~°yia~.c.ct~r~
a
H

u ly
ti
i-1 c3
d V
February 2006 ~ G
11 C~-
wh

s r xt b P, '~V U 1
1t ev

14
p 1p

a P3"CJje{.,L t"°. veli)pmC:ni, P:I"oC;t:. s ,
Ousing consul. aeon, riat(ic -will. be maintained
The North i .arolijl:k I)CI trinlem of"I ralkspor- by an oft tilte d(.rot7r ahproxItnately five rrides Step 1
tation (NCI D01) Is, prolof ,,,I 1o- t(? T -)l,iC:e
l l In length The `he dc tour traffic tviil be routed
Bridge N; 02 over Lr~c, er F'~artorns 'C et-k along SR .1834 (Norwood. Road) and Sly .1005 Data Collection
i
and the cor n ks>arc 1 Lneud f)ipe cu[vcrt (Six Forks Road). Step 2
app>oXiY1-11.1 tcly 600 t(~.et south ok the bridge
on SR 1,844 (Nli. Vernon Church h_o.td) In Alternative A is the preferred altetnafive Alterna6ve Deg=elopmetit
Wake (Cor13tk1 11c. ne~v bl_tdye and cttlvcri 1-~)r,rro z~use It Lrunrlnl7c nccs to residential
Step 3
Mill provide sl(c.r 1itc~tc (.tbclent traffic 1 1eriiLs it;oods and stiitns,is more
operations, econonzical, and has a shorter construction Environmental ilnalysis at 1c1 Citizens
trine than other alternatives considered. Information Workshop
Ste 4
Selection of Preferred Alternative
PllhliC Intl 01Ve1"]1e'rlt is all il'17portarlt part of the
ptani-ling process. The NCDOT encourages Step 1 We are here.
9 p

~ ctnzen v?ti olvc:ment on trnnsportatton projects, -
Citizens Inloi-tn~~ttional Newsletter
9 t anyj will consider vour suggestions and address any
c-ok1+ erns that you r-nay have. Please send your
Step 6
rms„ s, colnrnents to onr, oCd1e contact t, listed in this

newsletter 1'OIIY Ol)t111o11S are 11-11p:>YtaI1T, l0 USl Complete L]1~'.1:[Ot]111ental DOCIaCYIf ill.
A C'36Workshop amts I1 you hat f transportation questions on other
i 7,c:.,t~~ I11f(7rrnarsc)nal w
c projects, call our Customer Service Center toll free
.;C1T1Strl1( t_lf.7y~i
held for this project On _ August J, 2.004 ar
at '1-871-DOT-4YOU, or visit the NCDOT
Pleasant Un%on I=1c.me11tar)' School. The iehsite ar
! purpose o!l the workshop teas to Liltrodh)ce Prelinlinmy Cost Estiirlate
citizens to
the Project, provide ill fcfrn3atiol-) 031 ,
proposed
i alternat v es, and solicit coninlefirs. x],528,500
"Three, alternatives were presented: A, .C3, and
~
C. The preferred altC3-rlalive lras now hf'et] Schedule
selected.
IRight-o.f-way in fiscal year 2007
t t a~ tar "'i al<~t:e t~w' Construction in fiscal year 2008
1 The preferred !~ltct Hari=, e. A re,l7l tcf~s PEidge
No. 102 u-i1h a ne%v hridt)( aj7proa~niarca}~ 125
-
fCCI- u~ lcnr)ila nttd )t r)ilc~s the co>rur)atec{ .
r3 1 r•
n-tetal 1akl3e. ctilveri xirl) a doul:fle b.3rrr l t3-('oot - _
by 6-foot: rtirtfot~c(°~ l)ox cu(hert.

/'%xigust 9,2004

North Carolina
Department of Transportation
4-:",PO P.11-1. io 6:30 p.m.

l''ieasa-m. (inion Elenicc tars School Cafeteria
11,100 Pleasant Unifm (Amrch Road
RAci<,li,
Replacement of Bridge No. 102
,and pipe culvert on S 1844 (int. U
Vernon. Church oral) over _Lower
Bartons Creep in Wake County
T.J.P. No. B-4303 cIlc~li 5.i >=~,1jcxc~~;
I h-) flail Se.r~ric f} (;entct-
NC .21 8
a-+ K'Aciph,
i
tc~llc~cl7y([L~dc)c.r,taic~.cu_.t3;

.zstcli~ii~ts
2, 1), B ox
lti clc gh, l i 276"6-'5127,
919-8-1) 8
p
~~v11 t~L1~f1Slt1~nlUll~crtilc.Cr)tu
N ~,7
L
4.4
cn p C? cl'

s A1te:uamh e B wdl replace the bridge and pipe
culvert on the existing alignment witlr a new
T'he i~!cFrth licra L)cp:anillc~nt of bridge and double barrel reinforce concrete box Step 1
Transporrtam,i~t 1+:Dt.) n is planning in replace Md erl. hiring corislx action, traffic will. be Data Collection
Bridge 'ITS:. 102 -ver 1 Amer I armus Creek on maintained "Oh a? on-site detour north of the
SR lti14 in t: bke Counry. The proposed pn jec_r eNhiringr bridge aid culvei. Step 2
includes dw rephiscnwrit of die pipe crilvert Alternative Development
apptovinatd!; 60C) legit east of T>ridgc 102. Alternative C will replace the bridge and pipe
The prc,f(- (_d b,id,,,, viol cuhert mplaceineni will culvert on. the e6s6ng alignment Nv7th a new Step ;
reinforce concrete box
provide it r, more ~lrict(~ni uaffc operai;e;ns. bridge and double band l3nviroruirrent:al ~nalqsis
'T'he NICI OT i.; c(uudunirig wndies 4 the c lven. During construction, traffic will be
Ip-r'o> Io e^d iIu>I(c -i u u-la.idri-ig wake id aml ln'olected inairitair d wilt an on site detour south of the
Step 4
i iinf~ ~ btid;g. e and culvert.
specie uiwet's. lb s midis aid in die c~,rs
devc1opim-111 of the aIternatiA,r. s and an Ciii7.ens Informational Workshop
envir:minierrtal d<x ninciit evalrtatinr; the prr~pclsed
projects irnl(acis. 1` Step 5
.iClll07.' realises that citizens and business Selecison of Preferred Alternative
otvrrers in the vicinit of the bridge are concerned
about the potemial impacts that r:his project may Step 6
have on their homes and businesses. NCDnComplete 1_?,nvironmental Document
personnel will be available to answer questions at
the informational workshop. Drop by any titue
' between 1:30 pm and 6:30 pin foi- an opportunity-
.111 in gat u°r more inforrintion, voice your concerns,
and ask dnestions. ~I.i l.rt 4 Wav Acqnisiiion in 2000
Begin Coiistructi,)n in 2007
v
r
Public lnv(,hemcot is an important part of the jf~j, 1J l
p1 riniriY process The NCDO7.F encourages l
The prr)jcr t i>; lo( iw(i on ;R 1844 (1\lr \Arrnon ut>zen involvement on transportation project =
Church R ,,d) ju r south 4 hall L,vl < n,?at the y. t1~a'
r
and will ((,rrsider "!(-)in- suggestions and address
liav1( rl ix)rr)1'Inln t;. l1w e are Wire ilterltaitves
n' O dlcc'rii~. 11 you have transportation x ~ y3 :'T y yam. s
under ccrzr tde•ratu~n I<1i tcl-~lacin,,.., th(:- h idl "c aand
du(si_ions on other projects, call our Customer
the pipe. 06 "1 ~,crcrice Center toll-free at 1-877-DOTAYOU, of-
Visit the NCT)O Twel,sil e at tix Nxw.ncdot.org
Alternative A \ ill tepltc( the bridge and pipe
cult-girt r,u tare eIj ring it gnment wish a ney~
Auttiart aids and services -,'611 be provided for
NAl(re nnn doulfi Ini-rd reinforce cou rete fro:; P
cuhett. ltiuna= (orrsul.lction. rratfie will are disabled }lersons who wish to attend this _y,.
maintained \vith an c,fl site detour :tpl,rasirnstt(°W vvorl~shop. t nntact ti[s. I"'I erlry as soon as
10 rnilc>; its leuPlil along SP { S3'I (1''iorc.vcxlel londble so that art-a gerneri can be made.
Road) arul SR, l(hl l nrhs, li(~acii.

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 Alsmever 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 hith 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
transn- tted 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 2 of 2