20071017 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 276363726
July 20, 2004
Phil Harris, III
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Mr. Harris:
This letter is in response to your letter of July 12, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 158 on SR 1402 over Nancy Rhodes Creek in Durham
County (TIP No. B-3169) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered smooth
coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). In addition, NCDOT has
determined that the project will have no effect on the federally threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus). These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the information you submitted, a survey was conducted at the project site on June 15, 2004
for smooth coneflower and Michaux's sumac. No specimens of either species were observed. Based on
the information provided and other information available, the Service concurs with your determination
that the proposed bridge replacement may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the smooth
coneflower and Michaux's sumac. In addition, due to lack of habitat, the Service concurs with your
determination that the project will have no effect on the bald eagle. We believe that the requirements of
section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that
may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions regarding our
response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 859,4 ext. 32).
Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
4.
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
JUL 1 6 2004
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ?
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT18§ER QUALITY SECTION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOvERNOR
July 12, 2004
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Rd., Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Request for Jurisdictional Determination for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 158 on SR 1402 over the Nancy Rhodes Cr I rham
County, Division 5, State Project No. 8.2353701; T.I.P. No B-3169.
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
NCDOT Office of Natural Environment has completed the delineation of "Waters of the, United States,"
including streams for the above referenced bridge replacement project for the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT). Two intermittent streams (UT2 & UT3) and Nancy Rhodes Creek", a
perennial stream, were found. No wetlands were identified at this site. The Office of Natural Environment
would like to request a jurisdictional determination of the stream delineations. A site verification was
scheduled for January 29, 2004, where you concluded the two unnamed tributaries were intermittent with
no mitigation necessary. The tentative letting date is October 17, 2006. See attached supporting
documents:
1) Project vicinity maps.
2) Project Executive Summary.
3) USACE stream quality assessment worksheets and DWQ stream classification forms.
If you have any questions, please contact Cheryl Knepp at [phone].
Sincerely,
kc/ Phillip S. Harris, III, PE.
Manager, Office of Natural Environment
Cc: B 169 project file
s. Beth Barnes, Division of Water Quality
'Sine the completion of the Executive Summary, it has been discovered that UTI is named Nancy Rhodes Creek.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER PLB SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH, NC 27604
/? KO" cq9
/?P NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
f
-
i DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &

\ ?;`OF TAPNS? ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
DURHAM COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 158 ON SR 1402
OVER A CREEK
B-3169
Figure 1

Jursdictional Streams within Project Study Area
Bricdge No. 158 on SR 1402
B-3169
Durham County
N 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 Miles
Figure 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
B-3169
DURHAM COUNTY
Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 158 on SR 1402 over an Unnamed Tributary to the Eno
River, Durham County, North Carolina; TIP No. B-3169, WBS element 32906.1.1.
INTRODUCTION
The proposed project, crossing an unnamed tributary (UT) to the Eno River (Figure 1), calls for
the replacement of Bridge No. 158 on SR 1402 in Durham County. The project area is 32 acres.
The existing three-span bridge over the UT to the Eno River, constructed in 1960 by the Bridge
Maintenance Unit, has an overall length of 75 feet and is approximately 23 feet above the creek
bed. Proposed improvements will include the replacement of the existing bridge with an 86-foot
bridge at the same approximate location and elevation as the existing structure. This alternative
would most likely require a spill-through abutment on both sides. To facilitate drainage, it is
recommended that a minimum 0.3 percent roadway gradient be used over the new structure. An
off-site detour is recommended for this alternative. If an on-site detour is chosen, a 71-foot bridge
located downstream (north) of the existing bridge is recommended.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Water Resources
Water resources within the study area are located in the Neuse River Drainage Basin, Subbasin
03-04-01, and Hydrologic Unit 03020201. There are three jurisdictional streams within the
project area. UT 1 is a UT to the Eno River and flows north below SR 1402. UT 2 is on the east
side of UT 1 flowing west and located behind a pump station. UT 3 has an easterly flow and is
located on the western side of UT 1. UT 2 and UT 3 are both first order intermittent streams. UT
1 is a perennial second order stream.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ),
formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which reflects water quality conditions
and potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries receive the same classification as the streams
to which they flow. The classification for the Eno River [DEM Index No. 27-2-(10), 4/01/94] is
WS-IV B NSW. No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Biotic Resources
Three terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area: Maintained/Early
Successional, Floodplain Hardwood Forest and Mixed Hardwood Forest. Table 1 shows
estimated area of coverage of these communities.
1/3
Table 1. Estimated area of coverage of terrestrial communities.
Percentage of Project Study
Comrnunit-s' Acres Area
Maintained/Early Successional 1 ac 3%
Floodplain Hardwood Forest 6 ac 18%
Mixed Hardwood Forest 25 ac 79%
Total 32 ac 100%
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Surface Waters and Wetlands
There are three jurisdictional streams within the project area. UT 1 is a perennial second order
stream and is considered a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and would require mitigation. UT 2 and UT 3 are both first order intermittent streams.
During a January 29, 2004 field verification The Army Corps of Engineers representative Mr.
Eric Alsmeyer required no mitigation for UT 2 and UT 3. The field investigation revealed no
wetlands within the project study area.
Permits
If impacts occur to UT 1 to the Eno River, a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and Section 401 certification will be required from the state prior to
construction. It is anticipated that a Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23 [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)]
will be required. Nationwide Permit No. 23 is for projects expected to have minimal impact. In
the event that NAT No. 23 does not apply, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated
approach improvements are expected to qualify under a Regional General Bridge Permit
designated for NCDOT bridges (Permit No. 031) issued by the Wilmington USACE District
(USACOE-WD 1998). Notification to the Wilmington USACE office is required if this general
permit is to be utilized. Nationwide Permit No. 33 may be required if temporary construction
including cofferdams, access, and dewatering are required for this project. The USACE will
determine final permit requirements.
As the project is located in the Neuse River Basin, Riparian Area Rules for Nutrient Sensitive
Waters apply. The rules state that roads, bridges, stormwater management facilities, ponds and
utilities may be allowed where no practical alternative exists. They also state that these structures
shall be located, designed, constructed and maintained to have minimal disturbance, to provide
maximum erosion protection, to have the least adverse effects on aquatic life and habitat and to
protect water quality to the maximum extent practical through the use of best management
practices. Buffer certification will be needed if impacts occur.
Mitigation
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of-
• More than 0.1 acre will require compensatory mitigation,
• At least 150 linear feet of streams will require compensatory mitigation.
No mitigation requirement is anticipated. However, final permit/mitigation decisions rest with
the USACE.
2/3
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003 the
USFWS lists three federally protected species for Durham County. The following is a brief
explanation of the biological conclusions for these species.
Table 2. Federallv-Protected Species for Durham
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Threatened (proposed for delisting)
Echinacea laevi ata Smooth Coneflower Endangered
Rhus michauxii Michaux Sumac Endangered
Biological Conclusion: Bald Eagle No Effect
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternative. In addition, a December 10,
2003 review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no occurrence
of federally protected species within one mile the project study area. It can be concluded that
project construction will have no effect on the bald eagle.
Biological Conclusion: Smooth Coneflower Unresolved
The disturbed roadside margins along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Initial
field surveys were conducted when the window for bloom was not open. The project area will be
reevaluated when the window for growth reopens in late May - October.
Biological Conclusion: Michaux Sumac Unresolved
The disturbed roadside margins along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Initial
field surveys were conducted when the window for bloom was not open. The project area will be
reevaluated when the window for growth reopens May - October.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the study area for this project, there are no wetlands and three jurisdictional streams. No
waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area. UT to Eno
River is not listed as a 303(d) stream nor does it drain to a 303(d) stream within one mile of the
project area. It is anticipated that a Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23 [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] will
be required. Nationwide Permit No. 33 and buffer certification may be required if temporary
construction including cofferdams, access, and dewatering are required for this project. A
Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" has been issued for the bald eagle and a finding of
"Unresolved" has been issued for the Michaux sumac and the smooth coneflower.
3/3
v•'I,-
A N%-J11 VT V .0095 Calm L.fal?islllCal LlVl/ r Us Ali
Project Name: §C,, :@ River Basin: ?y a : ``-
Cotmty ''zr t *'4 `•? Evaluator.
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream: (,KT ;r Latitude: Signature: //
Date: j USGS QUAD: Longitude: LoccauontD rections:
*PLEASE NOTE: Jjewatator and kiwowner agt ee that die jean a a aw"ade ditdt, *m we ojthis fo?m is-nerasary.
Also, ijin the best ptojessiasaijudgtweat Of Me esduamr, thefeature is a mon-made ditch andante tteodifted namniswraw-this
rating system should not be wed*
Primary Field Indicators: (ark0wjV=,berPeriAe)
1. Geomorpholory Ab nt Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0, 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texnae in Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? .0 1 3
MWTE, If Bed & Bank Cmrd By Ditehim And R lTffMT CinswuN Thm Scope- 0")
10) Is A 2`s Order Or Greater Channel (As indicated
On Togo Mao A,-NAVP In. Field) Present'.! Yes=3 ?i
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDIG9TOR POINTS:
11. Hvdrolo¢v Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A' Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2
PRIMAR Y HYDROLOG Y INDICA TOR POINTS
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR
Secondary Field indicators: /cin*owm..6erPtrl ne)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPIIOLOGYINDICA.TOR
11. Hydroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICA TOR
f! ?
TOTAL POINTS (Primary+ Syecondarv)=I- ' l* Greater Than Or Equal to i4 Paints The Stream is At Least Intermittent)
V
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 His. Since 0 - S 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? t NoTE.• IrDitrh lndicnted !n M9 Abm eskin,nLi1 s w And M5 Bel,-)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 5 1 13
o, ,. .,...o.. an v Musity,UnL Mostly FACW Mosby FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
r' NOTE: W bwl Absence qAB Plants In Sneambed 2 ? .75 ,5 0 0
As Nated Above Skin This Step lMM=SAV Pmwnrl
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:. 6%
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
r M3
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: AAG? ?T 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: 1 -xel It -7'k 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. County:_
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?((.: FEg-''NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential `% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
1? % Forested _% Cleared /.Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 1 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): ,? t \r i?` S ?? 3
24. Channel slope down center ,rfstrearp: `la ?O.t 21jo) Gentle (2 to 4%) -Z Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
Iwo 46
25. Channel sinuosity: L Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):' Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall. assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity; and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1 EC0 2EGTON PUI V I RV, TGE
'ff r
`err ? U ARACPERISTICS
-
' SCOitL .
i
1 ik
ai
Piedmont l
t untain
:Presence of flo?l ersistent pools in stream
'il
t
flo
=
x
i
s
n 0
)
(
am ano
rong
w
ma
po
nts
no
oW or-
s
e
`
Evidence o?pa5? human.altcratioii
"
0 :6:
0 0'
0 0°
(extensive ait raao0, no alteration ax points)
;
F 3 Ripanan?zone I 0-6 0 4,,. 0 5`
rr
oints)
(no`buffer 0 contiguous t ide bu fer ma
?
u x p
Evidence of nutrient orzhi al discharges
0
(extensive discna Qes- 0„no'd char,gesmax points)
7 id
t
hai
G
d '
.
. o rou
wa
?sc
be
er p 3 0 4s 0 4 f
?
(n s etc =?.maxpouits)
o d?scharaa '0 sa.?nas seeps;Wetlarid
°
-?u ? .- - Presence6fdlacenffloodplam
4'
0 4?' .
0 -.
ts}
xt
`l
d
la
,x
(
d
l
n 0
fl
nave .
oo
p
ln m
poin
no
oo
p
al
e
o
"
w
; Enfren hment / fl
odplain access.,

a0_-rrequent.floa m
(deers
,.. lyentrench-
dg ,7nax-pomt5? 0

? 0.4<

, 0 _

'
Pi esence-of adlacentwetland5 ?- -?
0

='
6
l
0
-
d
e
land
)
d 4' ,.
s
maw p
ntS
-(no Wet
an
.ara
a
)ac
nt wet
s =
I
9 ,`:` °? ? Channel sinuositF ? r

(xtensive channel¢ation 0 na uralmcan* er :max points)
0 ?
0 4_
0 ,

`10 Semmentnput' '
. ?? I
. 0
0 4
0 4..?,.: w.
vz ??
di
ti
l
d
e or ua se
ment max points)
(Uxtenst?
epaslno ; 0
tt
?J
r &:Z i versltl of channel bed substrate 'a,,? rk, "U
fiA
'?
08 r !? q
V J;

-
(1ine.`.homogeno> .Os lar?=e, 'drvcrse sirs -.naXpoint) y{
ar?"?, ,;?t ; ; e
4?
1 , ?aL ?denee of channel recision h? ?widenutg ? ?< `
(dei:,P y incised D s able bei1 banks Ina points)
?? '1? f Presenceofmalorbank;fa?lurcti ':'
(severs;.erosloii- astori;'sstable banks -max points) ' ' 0
'< 0 5?' 0
"`
'
14 Rootsdepth:and density on banks
..
v 0
0 4f?
0 5
TM<C( ,
j: (no visible roots 0 dense root, throw' hoot .maxpoints)
. 1? Impact b? agz culture hvestoclc,.or timber production i 0 0 4 0
= -

id
r?poi
i
t
(
ul
t
ntial
-e
)
v
ence ma
n
?nac
s
s
no
s
a
s lF P,resenceofnffle-pool ripple-pool complexes., 0 ?' 0 5'
, 0 6 _'
err x (no nfliesJn pies o. nool? . O,ziv ll developed,---max pointsl .
, 0.

C17 ;- Aabitat coinplexity;
-
'I 0 b
0 6=
- 0 b
(little ,ar,no habitat C `requent, ;??aned habitats max points) I _

i
18 Canopy coverage over streambed '
0 .
0 0.
0 `5
.. , g ve6retatoii= 0; continuous canopy relax,-Points)
(6a.shadzn
w
'
X19 _Substrate erh6dddedn'es.
.. ?
¢NA*a t
04
r 0 4 ! S
(dceply. eMt-ddc- O,doose str,cturu .niax} t
.q..
P,resenceofstream?invertebrates(scepaga4}""
° (no b- ? nce -?0 or=on,musiierous types _ max points)
Presence ofamphibians;.?
(no evidence=!C
-numerous types =,mavpolnts)
camit;on
,
,
=resence nff?sh
0
4
D
4 r
0
(no e. nce = 0, comr^on, numeraas types -max points) -
- -
- -
? 1
23 'Evidence of tivildlife use
0
0-5
0-5
id
i
t
)
(
d
nce - C
a
d
t e
n
s
no evi
:
can
an
v
ence max po
e

TntaLPoints Poss?bli 100' ?:. 100 100

TOTAL`SCORE (also enter or itrstpave) ?2
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams

i va a? vv v L'Vaa easu as2115311sC7aLayu rye tlt
Project Name: .T River Butn County D t) G W # W Evahwm.
DWQ Project Ntmtbtr. Nearest Named Stream: i atitude Sigma:
Date: 04 USCS QUAD: Lmlgitttde: Locatiodnirectnns:
'PLEASE NOTE: if ewhworand zendwmeracnethatawjrarn a a aria wade dude, that the ofAwJmw a aatseetssary
.
ALsoa if in she best Prdf9=aa! jadgeaeentOf d- end-?. dhef-re ' aa-an-made ditch andassa modifiedantarnl moos- 4kis
raft sysoon tima/d notbe stmde•
Primary Field Indicators: xirkoem berPerLi,r)
1. Geomorpholo9v Absent We Moderate Strong
I) Is There A Riffle-Pool Seauence? 0 I 2 3
2) is The USDA Textme in Stteambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed& Bank Present? p 1 3
r TE: W&d a ea„r e?.ed er Dirrhine And wrrtiorrrs:a„ar;N 77rrn Swm o•t
10) Is A 2" Order Or Greeter Channel (As Indicated
_ On Tom Mao Aerd/Or In Field) Presenir? Yes=3 07
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POIN7S:__ __
IL Hvdrolo" Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is Theta A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Preset? tf0{ D 1 1 1 2 3
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR PO :,1_
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR
Secondary Field Indicators: (Cm*OaeNimberPerDw)
3) Does Topography Indies A
Nannal Drainsee Wav? 0 5 1 ?")
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 2 r
H. Hvdroloey Absent Weak Moderate Stron
rI (7 ) 1) Is This Years (Or Last's) LeaAttter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 firs. Since 0 S 1 1.5
Last Knmrn Rein? ew , ireNtm fmc acted !n e9 Ab"e Skip Ibis St. :Ad o gel t
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 S 1 1.5
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Second.,,)= {If Greater Than Or Equal to 10 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SA V Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
/•NOTE:1fTota/AbsemeQfAgPlantsIn Streambed 2 1 7$ S 0 0
,Is Noted Above SW Ais St VIVLESS S V PresenP .
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POIN7S:--A_
OFFICE USE ONLY: USACE AID# DWQ #
?? 1 1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1. Applicant's Name: '? at 2. Evaluator's Name: LNG r'
3. Date of Evaluation: I °t (e),df 4. Time of Evaluation:
5. Name of
6. River Basin: FYA-4--A-
7. Approximate Drainage Area: 8. Stream Order: 9. Length of Reach Evaluated: 10. County:
11. Location of reach under evaluation (include nearby roads and landmarks):
12. Site Coordinates (if known):
13. Proposed Channel Work (if
14. Recent Weather Conditions: 5kSN-N l e
15. Site conditions at time of visit: ,50OD-) ,p V C? &0 Fs
16. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters - Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
17. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 00 If yes, estimate the water surface ar a:
i S. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES U i9. Does channel appear on USDA Soil JUL Vey? Z H NO
20. Estimated Watershed Land Use: % Residentia . _% Commercial _% Industrial -% Agricultural
?% Forested -% Cleared /Logged -% Other
21. Bankfull Width: Z , (L 22. Bank Height (from bed to top of bank): 3
y 23. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) ,rFrc ntle (2 to 4%) • -Moderate (4 to, 10%) -Steep (>10%)
4. Channel SinuouitY -Straight Occasional Bends quent Meander Very Sinuous Braided Channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics.
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and. a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 5"3 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature -1"YYil??n Date 4
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to make a preliminary assessment of
stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 05/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Jts??
(t

C AR
C
L
T
I RANG G --
S
n
A
T
R
IC, .
S
Coastal'
Piedmont
Mountain C
Rh.
Presence of flow persistent pools in stream
0- 5
3 0-4
0
r (no 110yy or saturation = 0; stron(_? flow = max points)
Evidence of past human alteration
0
6
0
5
0
- (extensive alteration =0; no alteration max points) -, - -
Riparian zone

"
0-6
0-4
0 -
(
no buffer O; contiguous, wide buffer - max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chenucal'discharues
b
0-5
0-4
0
4
(extensive dischar.LIcs = 0; no disc,h Hues =coax points) -
Groundwater'disebarge
'
- 3
0 Ci-a
`-
? t) - •t
(
ino discharge 0, sprin-s, seeps, wetlands, etc. ° max points)
i
t Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 t) - _^ Z
(no f7oodplainl`= 0; extensive floodplain = max points)

Entrenchment /ilood
lain access _
7 p 0 5 0 ;4 U-_
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = rnas points) )

S Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
(no wetlands 0; lar,re adiacent wetlands nlax points)

9 Channel sinuosity
=`
0 - 5
U 4
I () - -1 ? 3
(extemive.channelization
0; natural meander = max points)

10 ' Sediment ;input
0-5
0-4
0-4
?;
(extensive' deposition= O; littte or no sediment -max points)

11 Size & diversity of channel bed`;snbstrate
; :
NA*

0-4
0-5
(fine, homogenous=-O; large, diverse sizes -max points) Z

12 Evidence of cl,nncl incision or widening
?

0-5

0-4
U-?
(deeply: incised = O, stable bed k, banks - may points)
_
13.; Presence ofanajor bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
(severe erosion - 0, no erosion, stable banks = tnax points)

14 Root depth and density on banks
0 3'
0-4
0-?
(no visible roots =0; dense roots throughout max points)

is Impact by agriculture or?livestock production
0
5
0
4
0-5
(substantial=impact=0; no-evidence =max°points) - -
16 presence of;riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0
0-5
0-6
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0: well-developed maxpumts)
17 Habitat complexity- vs 'ti`•FF OV,- 0 6 0=6 0 6
t-* (little or flo habitat = O; fre Uent, varied habitats = max points)
Can
t
b
d
is opy coverage over s
ream
e 0_5 0 -
(no shadin,-, vegetation =>0; continuous canopy = nlax points)
?

?.
19 Substrate embeddeduess

°
- ??*
0 4
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure
max)
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
u=a
o-s
a -
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4_
v? w
0-4
O (no evidence = O; common, nu nerous tvpes =-max points) ?}r •, '

O
22 Presence offish
0-4
0-4
0--4
?. (no evidence = 0; coiitmon, numerous types = max points)
1 Evidence of wildlife use
0 6
0 - ?
0 ?
(no evidence = 0; abundant e.vidence=miax points)
Total Points Possible 11 ..100 100

r
. .
T( ,SCOT ,{also` eiiler 6:n?ftrsf p i J
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
0 kt.
dµ SEA 7z,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GovERNoR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 8, 1996
? V/"-
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Durham County, SR 1420,
Replacement of Bridge No. 158 over Creek, TIP Project
B-3169
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the subject project (See
attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review procedure
is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and
thereby enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this project is scheduled
for September 12, 1996 at 11:00 A. M. in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference
Room (Room 434). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us
prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Bill Goodwin, Project Planning
Engmee"t 733-7844, Ext. 23
WTG/plr t
WSJ 27-z-
Attachment
D &/P fw'
r/ 0)
,-WOV ve /?-
?r?
.0 -
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
8/7/96
TIP PROJECT: B-3169 DIVISION: Five
F. A. PROJECT:
STATE PROJECT:
COUNTY: Durham
ROUTE: 1420
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No. 158 on SR 1420 over creek
PROJECT PURPOSE: replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Northwest Durham
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Urban local
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................................................ $ 275,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................................................ $ 28,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ............................................................................ $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ................................................................................. $ 303,000
TRAFFIC: CURRENT N/A VPD; DESIGN YEAR N/A VPD
TTST % DUAL %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: Roadway travel width = 24 ft.
unpaved, virtually no shoulder on either side
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 22.9 METERS WIDTH 5.8 METERS
75 FEET 19.1 FEET
COMMENTS:
Saha a La
r 501 ?s \
157 16 SCmre.
i_- +)
51 DOW 10
2 98
aak'Grovl?' -'
J 1 8
5 147 -Iboa . 00000
o
I. 1 s l _ "P ?. 00000
i
f owes Gro a •

1400
? 1403 • 35
?
? 1402
02 14(
0D
- ?v> A
1403 -----
/ 1402
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
, I
1 '
---------------- ,
/ '
I N !
--1 I
J ? !
1404
0°F NORT11 ?4yO' North Carolina Department of
Transportation r-A
Division of Highways
O P
9 OF7RXI" Planning & Environmental Branch
Durham County
Replace Bridge No. 158 on SR 1420
Over Creek
B-3169
Figure One
N

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENviRoNMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
DURHAM COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 158 ON SR 1402
OVER A CREEK
B-3169
Figure 1
\,N ATF Michael F. Easley, Governor
`o?O 9QG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
co 7 Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
j Division of Water Quality
SQ ?
February 8, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Williams, NCDOT Project Development Engineer
FROM: Nicole Thomson, NC Division of Water Quality, Transportation Permitting Uni !
SUBJECT: Scoping Review of NCDOT's proposed bridge replacement projects: B-4523, B-4524, B-
4525, B-4526, and B-3169
In reply to your correspondence dated April 29, 2004 (received May 6, 2004) in which you requested
comments for the referenced projects, the NC Division of Water Quality has the following comments:
L Proiect-Specific Comments
B-4523 Bridge No. 164 over Fox Creek, Granville Co.
Fox Creek are class WS-IV; NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with sedimentation and
erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective , ,
sedimentation and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of sediment runoff to Fox
Creek. Storm water should be transported through vegetated conveyance to the greatest extent
practicable. Because Fox Creek are nutrient sensitive waters, any required engineered storm water
controls are required to be constructed wetlands, bio-retention areas, or grassed swales. Refer to 15A
NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(ii) and 2B .0258.
B=4524 Bridge No. 193 over Shelton Creek, Granville Co.
Shelton Creek are class WS-IV; NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with sedimentation
and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective
sedimentation and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of sediment runoff to Shelton
Creek. Storm water should be transported through vegetated conveyance to the greatest extent
practicable. Because Shelton Creek are nutrient sensitive waters, any required engineered storm water
controls are required to be constructed wetlands, bio-retention areas, or grassed swales. Refer to 15A
NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(ii) and 2B .0258.
iB=4525 Bridge No. 133 over Grassy Creek, Granville Co.
Grassy Creek are class C waters of the State. DWQ has no specific comments regarding this project.
n Creek are class C waters of the State. DWQ has no specific comments regarding this project.
Bridtre No. 158 over UT to the Eno River. Durham Co.
Eno River are class WS-IV; B; NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with sedimentation and
erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective
sedimentation and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of sediment runoff to Eno
River. Storm water should be transported through vegetated conveyance to the greatest extent
practicable. Because Eno River are nutrient sensitive waters, any required engineered storm water
controls are required to be constructed wetlands, bio-retention areas, or grassed swales. Refer to 15A
NCAC 2B.0216(3)(b)(ii) and 2B.0258.
None Carolina
Transportation Permitting Unit Nturulty .
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Pnuol r)-rhinifir/Affirmotivo Artinn P-1- or _ rno/ Porvrleri/i no% Pnet Cnnenmor Ponor

.•y
II General Comments Regarding Bridge Replacement Proiects
1. If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are used to replace
the bridge, then DWQ recommends the use of Nationwide Permit No. 14 rather than Nationwide
Permit 23.
2. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is preferred. Strict
adherence the Corps of Engineers guidelines for bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401
Water Quality Certification.
3. DWQ prefers 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.
4. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream; stormwater should be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour,,
holes' vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to NCDOT Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters
5. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in'or entering into the stream. Concrete is
mostly made up of lime (calcium carbonate) and when in a dry or wet state (not hardened) calcium
carbonate is very soluble in water and has a pH of approximately 12. In an unhardened state concrete
or cement will change the pH of fresh water to very basic and will cause fish and other
macroinvertebrate kills.
6. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
7. 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 re-vegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
8. A clear bank (rip rap-free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the steam underneath
the bridge.
9. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be
implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be maintained regularly,
especially following rainfall events.
10. Bare soil should be stabilized through vegetation or other means as quickly as feasible to prevent
sedimentation of water resources.
11. 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.
12. 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. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from
leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
III. General Comments if Replacinz the Bridge with a Culvert
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 end to restrict or divert flow to the base flow barrel(s). Sufficient water depth
should be provided in the base flow barrel 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, the 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 should 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. Tall fescue should not be used in
riparian areas. If the area that is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to
wetlands. If successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.

Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Nicole Thomson 919-715-3415.
pc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Chris N ilitscher, USEPA
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Gary Jordan, USFWS
File Copy