19951167 Ver 1_Complete File_19951101

!9'
'2 suR?
ler
I IT-
1 ?IC51
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOIOL-
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARmTr JP-
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
October 20, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Wake County, Replacement of Bridge No. 99 over Mine Creek on
SR 1820 (Lead Mine Road). TIP No. B-2176, State Project No.
8.2402001, Federal Aid Project No. BRM-5825(1).
Attached for your inf atign is a copy of the project planning report for the subject
project. The pr 'ect.is being processe by the Federal Highway Administration as a
programmatic ` ategorical Exclusio ' in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, wed of anti c'pat questing an individual permit but propose to proceed
under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued
November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. 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 Water Quality 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 and Natural Resources, Division
of Environmental Management, for their review.
1167
I

I
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Gordon
Cashin at [phone], Extension 315.
Sincerel)nklin H. F Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, PE, Division 5 Engineer
Mr. Bill Goodwin, PE, Project Planning Engineer
Wake County,
Bridge No. 99 on SR 1820
Over Mine Creek
Federal Aid Project BRM - 5825(1)
State Project 8.2402001
TIP B-2176
REVISED
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC 4(f) EVALUATION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
9-Z/- 9S ` ? 1
Date 4,- ,^ H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date Nacho, L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

Wake County,
Bridge No. 99 on SR 1820
Over Mine Creek
Federal Aid Project BRM - 5825(1)
State Project 8.2402001
TIP B-2176
REVISED
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC 4(il) EVALUATION
September 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
?V • r
William T. Goodwin, Jr., P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
Wayne 'Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head

Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
`??•`?N CARO
•' FESS/0~••'9
SEAL
21077 :
%
T GOO?.o?
Wake County,
Bridge No. 99 on SR 1820
Over Mine Creek
Federal Aid Project BRM - 5825(1)
State Project 8.2402001
TIP B-2176
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 99 in Wake County. This bridge carries SR 1820 (Lead Mine Road) over Mine Creek in
north Raleigh (see Figures I and 2). NCDOT includes this bridge in the 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. NCDOT and the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classify this project as a federal Categorical Exclusion.
These agencies expect no substantial environmental impacts.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 99 at the existing location as shown in Alternate 4,
Figure 2. NCDOT recommends replacing the bridge with a double barrel 2.7-meter by 2.4-meter
(9 feet by 8 feet) reinforced concrete box culvert. The project will require approximately 410
meters (1350 feet) of new approach roadway. The new approaches will have a 10.8 meter (36
foot) travelway across the structure with 2.4 meters (8 feet) of shoulder on each side; 1.2 meters
(4 feet) of the shoulder will be paved. The new approaches will be at a slightly higher grade than
existing roadway. The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 80 km/h
(50 mph).
The estimated cost is $ 780,000 including $ 120,000 for right of way acquisition and
$ 660,000 for construction. The estimated cost included in the 1996-2002 TIP is $ 632,000
including $25,000 spent in prior years, $57,000 for right of way acquisition, and $550,000 for
construction.
This project was originally evaluated in a Categorical Exclusion signed on December 12,
1989. After completion and circulation of that environmental document, the project was put on
hold pending a decision by the City of Raleigh regarding the possible future widening of SR 1820.
In October 1994 the project was reactivated and a decision was reached to complete a new
Categorical Exclusion for the project.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not expect to need any design exceptions for this project.
III. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All applicable Best Management Practices will be installed and properly
maintained during project construction.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of Engineers Nationwide
permit # 23.
The proposed City of Raleigh Greenway along Mine Creek will be rerouted to follow
Lead Mine Road north to the intersection of Lead Mine and Mineshaft Roads. A traffic signal
with a pedestrian activation button will be installed at this intersection to allow trail users to safely
cross Lead Mine Road. The trail will again follow Lead Mine Road south to return to the existing
greenway easement.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NCDOT classifies SR 1820 (Lead Mine Road) as an urban minor arterial in the Statewide
Functional Classification System. Lead Mine Road is also designated as a major thoroughfare in
the Greater Raleigh Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan.
Near Bridge No. 99, SR 1820 is a 2 lane paved road 6.6 meters (22 feet) wide with 0.6
meter (2 foot) paved shoulders and approximately 2 meter (6 foot) grassed shoulders. Vertical
and horizontal alignment in the project area are both good. The deck of Bridge No. 99 is 2.7
meters (9 feet) above the streambed. Water is approximately 0.3 meters (1 foot) deep in the
project area.
NCDOT built Bridge No. 99 in 1966. The bridge has an asphalt overlay on a steel plank
floor with a steel floor beam system supported by timber piles and caps (see Figure 3). It is I 1
meters (36 feet) long with a 7.8 meter (26 foot) roadway width. It carries two lanes of traffic and
the posted load limits are 11.8 metric tons (13 tons) for single vehicles and 15.5 metric tons (17
tons) for Truck-tractor Semi-trailers (TTST).
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of Bridge No. 99 is
31.5 of a possible 100.0. The bridge has an estimated remaining life of 6 years.
The current traffic volume is 13,900 vehicles per day (vpd), projected to 21,200 vpd by
the design year (2020). Truck percentages are 2% TTST and 3% dual-tired vehicles. The speed
limit in the project area is 70 km/h (45 mph), with an advisory speed limit of 50 km/h (35 mph) in
the school zone for Montessori School of Raleigh.
Traffic Engineering Accident Records indicate one accident occurred in the vicinity of
Bridge No. 99 between October 1, 1992 and September 30, 1994.
The Transportation Director for Wake County Schools indicated there are 22 school bus
crossings daily ( I 1 buses crossing once in the morning and afternoon).
V. ALTERNATES
Four alternates for replacing Bridge No. 99 were studied. The alternates studied involve a
double barrel reinforced concrete box culvert as the replacement structure. Each barrel of the
culvert will be 2.7 meters (9 feet) by 2.4 meters (8 feet). This structure will accommodate a 10.8
meter (36 foot) travelway with 2.4 meters (8 feet) of shoulder on each side, 1.2 meters (4 feet) of
the shoulder will be paved. Shoulder width will be increased to 3.4 meters (1 1 feet) in areas where
guardrail is warranted. The typical section will include a 3.6 meter (12 foot) travel lane in each
direction and a 3.6 meter (12 foot) left turn lane northbound, for Montessori School of Raleigh.
The existing bridge will be replaced on the existing location in all alternates. Each alternate will
require approximately 410 meters (1350 feet) of approach roadway work.
The alternates studied are as follows (see Figure 2):
Alternate One - Traffic would be detoured along an on-site detour carried over Mine Creek by
extending the proposed box culvert to the east beyond the minimum length required. This
extension would remain in place to allow SR 1820 (Lead Mine Road) to be widened in the
future. This alternate does not include any provision for the proposed City of Raleigh
Greenway Trail along Mine Creek.
Alternate Two - Traffic would be detoured along an on-site detour carried over Mine Creek by
three corrugated metal pipes, 1800 mm ( 72 in.) in diameter installed just downstream
(east) of the existing bridge. This alternate does not include any provision for the
proposed City of Raleigh Greenway Trail along Mine Creek.
Alternate Three - Traffic would be detoured along an on-site detour carried over Mine Creek by
extending the proposed box culvert to the east beyond the minimum length required. This
extension will remain in place to allow SR 1820 (Lead Mine Road) to be widened in the
future. Included in this alternate is an additional single barrel reinforced concrete box
culvert to serve users of the proposed City of Raleigh Greenway Trail that will cross Lead
Mine Road at this location. To properly accommodate the greenway culvert the roadway
grade will have to be raised an additional 1 meter (3 feet).
Alternate Four (Recommended) - Traffic is to be detoured along an on-site detour carried over
Mine Creek by extending the proposed box culvert to the east beyond the minimum length
required. This extension will remain in place to allow SR 1820 (Lead Mine Road) to be
widened in the future. Included in this alternate is the rerouting of the proposed City of
Raleigh Greenway Trail that will cross Lead Mine Road at this location. The trail will
follow Lead Mine Road north to the intersection of Lead Mine and Mineshaft Roads. A
4
traffic signal with a pedestrian activation button will be installed at this intersection to
allow trail users to safely cross Lead Mine Road. The trail will again follow Lead Mine
Road south to return to the existing greenway easement.
Alternates involving widening and/or detours to the west were eliminated due to the
proximity of a dam for a small pond just upstream of the Lead Mine Road crossing. A detour
upstream of the existing crossing could cause water to backup upstream of the temporary
crossing during a major flood event. This could saturate the downstream side of the dam which
could lead to failure of the dam. Also the topography west of SR 1820 would required substantial
amounts of fill material to construct an on-site detour in that direction.
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical. The existing bridge would continue
deteriorating until it was unusable. This would require closing the road, or continued intensive
maintenance. The "do-nothing" alternate also fails to address a developing traffic safety problem
at the entrance to Montessori School of Raleigh. During morning rush-hour northbound traffic
attempting to turn into the school causes traffic to backup across the existing structure. To add a
left turn lane northbound on Lead Mine Road, Bridge No. 99 will have to be widened or replaced.
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
Traffic will be maintained on an on-site detour structure during construction of the
proposed culvert. Due to the traffic volume involved, the Division Engineer has recommended
against detouring traffic on existing roads during the construction period.
A road user analysis (based on 13,900 vpd and an average of 2.2 miles of indirect travel)
indicates the cost of additional travel would be approximately $1,250,000 during the 4-month
construction period. The estimated cost of providing an on-site detour is approximately $218,000.
This results in a 5.7 benefit-cost ratio, which clearly indicates that the overall costs of temporary
road closure are far greater than the cost of providing an on-site detour.
VII. COST ESTIMATE
Table 1
Alternate One Alternate Two Alternate Three Alternate Four
Recommended
Structure $114,000 $ 83,000 $ 164,000 $ 114,000
Roadway Approaches 280,000 302,000 391,000 325,000'
Structure Removal 51000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Misc. and Mob. 30% 121,000 117,000 170,000 131,000'
En g. and Contingencies 80,000 93,000 120,000 85,000
Construction Total 600,000 600,000 850,000 660,000
Right of Way Total 120,000 120,000 135,000 120,000
Construction Total 720,000 720,000 985,000 780,000
'Includes cost of traffic signal.
Vill. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 99 at the existing location, as shown in Alternate 4,
Figure 2. Traffic will be maintained by an on-site detour structure during construction.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 99 with a double barrel reinforced concrete box culvert.
Each barrel of the culvert will be 2.7 meters (9 feet) by 2.4 meters (8 feet).
The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 80 km/h (50 mph).
The project will require approximately 410 meters (1350 feet) of new approach roadway. The
new roadway approaches will have a 10.8 meter (36 foot) travelway across the structure with 2.4
meters (8 feet) of shoulder on each side. 1.2 meters (4 feet) of the shoulder will be paved.
Shoulder width will be increased to 3.4 meters (11 feet) in areas where guardrail is warranted.
The typical section will include a 3.6 meter (12 foot) travel lane in each direction and a 3.6 meter
(12 foot) left turn lane northbound, for Montessori School of Raleigh. The new roadway
approaches will be at approximately the same grade as the existing roadway.
Included in this alternate is the rerouting of the proposed City of Raleigh Greenway Trail
that will cross Lead Mine Road at this location. The trail will follow Lead Mine Road north to the
intersection of Lead Mine and Mineshaft Roads. A traffic signal with a pedestrian activation
button will be installed at this intersection to allow trail users to safely cross Lead Mine Road.
The trail will again follow Lead Mine Road south to return to the existing greenway easement
location.
Also included in this alternate is realignment of the driveway for Montessori School of
Raleigh. The driveway will be moved north to intersect Lead Mine Road opposite Mineshaft
Road. This will aid in signalization of the intersection, improve the driveway grade, and contribute
to the safety of motorists turning into the school. (See Figure 2.)
NCDOT recommends Alternate 4 because it is the most reasonable and cost effective
method of replacing the existing deficient structure, and addressing the impacts to the proposed
City of Raleigh Greenway Trail.
Construction of Alternate 4 will not increase the 100-year flood elevation by more than 30
centimeters ( 12 inches). Construction of alternate 4 will not place significant amounts of fill in the
flood plain area. Due to the small size of Mine Creek, it is not designated as a flood hazard area at
this location and is not included in the detailed flood study.
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be medium for this project. There are water lines along
the west side of SR 1820 and along the north side of Mine Shaft Road. There is overhead three
phase electrical service along the east side of SR 1820 with telephone and cable television lines
attached. There are also underground telephone cables and a natural gas pipeline along the east
side of SR 1820.
G
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. General Environmental Effects
The project is considered to be a "categorical exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the
human or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
Wake County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate limits of the I00-year floodplain are shown in Figure 4. The proposed structure is
not expected to adversely affect existing floodplain conditions. The studied crossing of Mine
Creek is within a designated flood hazard zone. The planned replacement with a crossing design
of similar conveyance to the existing structure will be consistent with the intent and requirements
of zoning regulations.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will
be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or service is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
A proposed City of Raleigh Greenway trail is to follow Mine Creek through the project
area. In an effort to reduce impacts to this public recreation resource, the trail will be rerouted as
described in Section VIII of this report. No other publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance are found in the vicinity of
the project. See Appendix B for a complete Section 4(f) evaluation of this impacted recreational
resource.
B. Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has indicated that there are no known
architectural or archaeological sites in the project area and no unknown sites are likely to be
found. Therefore, SHPO has recommended no architectural or archaeological surveys be
conducted in connection with this project.
C. Natural Systems
Research was conducted prior to the site visit. Information sources used in the pre-field
investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps
(Raleigh West and Bayleaf), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and a NCDOT aerial
7
photomap of project area (1:1200). Water resource information was obtained from publications of
the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the
North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental Sensitivity Base
Map of Wake County, 1992). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state
protected species in the study area was gathered from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of
protected and candidate species and the N. C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare
species and unique habitats.
A site visit was made on April 7, 1995 by an NCDOT biologist to inventory natural
resources. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife
identification involved using one or more of the following observation techniques: active
searching and capture, visual observation (binoculars), and identification of characteristic signs of
wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Organisms captured during these searches were
identified and then released. Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing
delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineering Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
1. Physical Resources
Water and soil resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below. The
availability of water and soils directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
a. Water Resources
The project is located in the Neuse River Basin. Mine Creek originates in
northwest Wake County and flows southeastward into Crabtree Creek within the
city limits of Raleigh. Crabtree Creek then proceeds eastward to converge with the
Neuse River east of Raleigh.
Mine Creek exhibits a substrate of cobble, pebble, sand and silt. Channel
width and depth average approximately 3.0 meters (9.8 feet) and 15.2 centimeters
(6 inches) respectively. Flow rates vary between fast and slow depending upon the
substrate and channel width at any given location. Benthic algae is present
throughout the stream.
1. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Mine Creek is designated
as "Class C NSW". This classification denotes waters suitable for
secondary uses such as aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. NSW denotes nutrient
sensitive waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or
WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0
miles) of the study area for the project.
2. Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality
monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water quality. The
program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass are reflections of water quality. No BMAN
information is available for Mine Creek at or near the proposed project.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. The
NPDES does not list any discharges into Mine Creek at or near the
proposed project.
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed project will impact water resources as a result of
bridge dismantling and culvert construction. Construction activities will
alter and interrupt stream flows, as well as water levels at the project site.
These activities compact the soils in and around the project site, which
increases sedimentation and erosion within the water resource. As a result,
siltation increases, thus altering water flow and aquatic communities
downstream of the project.
Permanent impacts expected with a temporary detour as well as
construction on new location include increased channelization, scouring of
the streambed, soil compaction and vegetation removal, thus allowing
lateral flows to enhance sedimentation if control measures are not used
properly.
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water resources
in the study area; NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection
of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of the project.
b. Soils and Topography
The Cecil Association dominates the study area. This soil association is
described as gently sloping to steep, deep, well drained soils that have a subsoil of
firm red clay; derived mostly from gneiss and schist. Chewacla soils are found
throughout the project area. They are described as nearly level, somewhat poorly
drained soils that are found on floodplains of most streams in the county. These
soils have formed in alluvial deposits of fine loamy material. In most areas
Chewacla soils exhibit inclusions of Wehadkee soils, a hydric soil.
Wake county lies in the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The geology of
the project site exhibits metamorphic rocks including gneiss, schist and amphibolite
of the Inner Piedmont, Milton belt and Raleigh belt. The topography consists of
steep side slopes leading to narrow valleys containing drainage patterns of a
dendritic subtype.
2 Biotic Resources
This section describes the existing vegetation and associated wildlife communities
that occur on the project site. It also discusses potential impacts affecting these
communities as a result of the proposed actions.
Faunal species observed during the site visit are noted with an asterisk (*).
a. Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area:
Bottomland hardwood forest and maintained communities. Many faunal species
are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of the two terrestrial
communities discussed.
1. Bottomland Hardwood Forest
The bottomland hardwood forest is found along floodplain ridges,
terraces and active levees adjacent to a river channel. The hydrology
reflects intermittent flooding only during extremely wet periods.
Bottomland hardwood forests are believed to form a stable climax forest,
having an unevenly aged canopy composed primarily of hardwood trees.
The canopy and understory are dominated mainly by green ash,
river birch, sycamore, sweetgum and tulip poplar. Other species include
flowering dogwood, ironwood, red maple, sourwood and American holly.
Shrubs and vines such as blueberry, Japanese honeysuckle, greenbrier, wild
to
grape and poison-ivy are prevalent throughout this community. Common
herbaceous vegetation include Christmas Fern, southern lady fern, panic
grass, wild onion, Indian strawberry and fescue.
Wildlife associated with the bottomland hardwood forest include
species found in ecosystems that are temporarily flooded during periods of
heavy precipitation and runoff. A few of the species that may be found in
this community include spotted salamander, marbled salamander, two-lined
salamander, spring salamander and spring peeper which forage on small
arthropods, insects and worms. The gray squirrel *, raccoon *, white-tailed
deer *, Carolina chickadee *, wood thrush and swamp sparrow also may be
observed in this community. Dominant predators here include the barred
owl and red-tailed hawk, which prey on small rodents, birds, reptiles and
amphibians.
2. Maintained Communities
Maintained communities include those communities that are
disturbed periodically by man. Such examples of maintained communities
are housing subdivisions, road shoulders, powerline and gas right-of-ways,
etc. The maintained communities in the project area are dominated by
saplings, vines, and small herbs that are regularly controlled by mowing.
They occur along the ecotones between existing pavement and forested or
open areas.
Common species occurring in the maintained communities in and
around the project are Japanese honeysuckle, greenbrier, thoughtwort,
aster, fescue, barnyard grass, blackberry, beggar's ticks, multiflora rose,
goldenrod, dandelion, chickweed and henbit.
This landscape setting provides habitat for the existence of faunal
species related to open settings. Species such as the northern cardinal *,
mourning dove, tufted titmouse American goldfinch *, roufous-sided
towhee *, ruby-crowned kinglet * and song sparrow are found throughout
this community. The eastern cottontail and woodchuck may also find
foraging opportunities and shelter in this community. Major predators
include the red-tailed hawk, which requires open areas for foraging
purposes.
b. Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, piedmont perennial stream, will be impacted
by the proposed project. Physical and chemical characteristics of the water body
dictate faunal composition of the aquatic communist and vice versa.
Species likely found within this small piedmont perennial stream are
bigmouth chub, rosyside dace, bluehead chub, fantail darter, common carp and
creek chub. These fish provide forage opportunities for redbreasted sunfish,
bluegill and largemouth bass. Other species may include eastern newt, great blue
heron, bullfrog and green frog which forage on insects, crayfish, invertebrates and
sometimes small vertebrates.
Table 2
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described (habitat reduction, faunal displacement, etc.). Any
construction-related activities in or near these resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the
natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to aquatic and terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Project construction will
result in clearing and degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities resulting from
project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the entire proposed
right-of-way width of 30.0 meters (98.4 feet).
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Terrestrial Community I Impacts
Bottomland Hardwood <0.1 (<O.1)
Maintained Communities 0.1 (0.2)
Total 0.1 (0.2)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Permanent impacts to terrestrial communities will occur in the form of
habitat reduction. Since the project area is already fragmented, relatively little
impact will occur to species that live along the edges of open areas. However,
ground dwelling and slow moving organisms will decrease in numbers, mobile
species will be permanently displaced, and increased predation may occur as a
result of habitat reduction.
Permanent and temporary impacts to aquatic communities will occur from
increased sedimentation, increased light penetration and loss of habitat.
Sedimentation covers benthic organisms inhibiting their abilities to feed and obtain
oxygen. Less mobile organisms such as many of the filter feeders may also be
covered by this sedimentation, preventing their feeding. Increased sediment loads
and suspended particulates can lead to the smothering of fish eggs, reduction on
12
depth of light penetration in the water column, reduction of dissolved oxygen and
alterations in water temperature. Increased light penetration from removal of
stream side vegetation may also increase water temperatures. Warmer water
contains less oxygen, thus reducing aquatic life that depends on high oxygen
concentrations.
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the
study area; NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the
construction stage of the project.
3. Special Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analyses pertinent to
two sensitive issues - Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
a. Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Topics
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States" as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part
328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place
fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
1. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. One wetland, classified
as PFOIb (palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous and saturated), is
located adjacent to Mine Creek. This wetland occurs along the south side
of the creek and on both sides of the existing bridge structure. Less than
0.1 hectares (<O. I acres) of this wetland area will be impacted by project
construction. Soil colors in this area range between 10 YR 4/2 and 5/1
(dark grayish brown to gray). Vegetation found in this wetland includes
soft rush, swamp rose, ironwood, green ash and swamp dogwood.
Hydrologic indicators such as oxidized rhizospheres, shallow root systems
and bright mottles occur throughout the area.
13
2. Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to waters of the United States come under the jurisdiction
of the COE. A nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23 will authorize
impacts to natural resources concerned with the proposed project. This
permit authorizes:
(1) activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or
financed in whole, or in part, by another federal agency or
department, and,
(2) that agency or department has determined pursuant to the council
on environmental quality regulation that the activity, work or
discharge 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 human environment.
(3) the office of the chief of engineers has been furnished notice of the
agency's or department's application for the categorical exclusion
and concurs with the determination.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC #2745) is
also required for any activity which may result in a discharge and for which
a certification is required. Certifications are administered through the
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR).
b. Mitigation
Projects issued under Nationwide permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE.
However, final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
C. Rare and Protected Species
Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely impact a species classified
as federally-protected, be subject to review by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(US-FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state
laws.
14
1. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT)
are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 28, 1995 the
US-FWS lists the following federally-protected species for Wake County.
Table 3 Federally-Protected Species
for Wake County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedged mussel E
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle E
Picodes borealis
Rhus michauxii
red-cockaded woodpecker E
Michaux's sumac E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or
.a significant portion of its range).
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel)
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 3/14/90
E
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a distinguishable
shell noted by two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half.
The periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in color and the
nacre (inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North Carolina
are found in the Neuse and Tar River Basins. This mussel is sensitive to
agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants and requires a stable silt
free streambed with well oxygenated water to survive.
Mine Creek was surveyed for the presence of mussels on 9/5/95.
Survey methodology included visual and tactile searching by wading in the
stream. No unionids (mussels) were found.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Given the survey results, it is apparent that the dwarf wedged
mussel is not present in this segment of Mine Creek. It can be concluded
that construction of this project will have no impact on the dwarf wedged
mussel.
15
Hahaeelus leucocephahis (bald eagle) E
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/1 1/67
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and
short white tail. The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in
color. In flight bald eagles can be identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found close to water (within a half mile) with a clear
flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in the area, and having an
open view of the surrounding land.. Human disturbance can cause an eagle
to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding season for the bald
eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the major food source for
bald eagles. Other sources include coots, heron, and wounded ducks. Food
may be live or carrion.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
After extensive field reconnaissance, it was revealed that suitable
habitat consisting of open water is located less than 1.6 kilometers (1.0
mile) northwest of the project. However, with increased human disturbance
in and around the project vicinity and lack of suitable nesting trees at the
project site it can be concluded that the bald eagle will not be impacted as a
result of project construction.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is
entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the
nape of the male. The back of the RCW is black and white with horizontal
stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker are white with
streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the
black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine, for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand
must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous
with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest
exclusively in trees that are greater than 60 years old and are contiguous
with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is
up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with
suitable nesting sites.
16
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually
in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease.
Cavities are located in colonies from 3.6-30.3 meters (12-100 feet) above
the ground and average 9.1-15.7 meters (30-50 feet) high. They can be
identified by a large encrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree.
The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June, the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
After extensive field reconnaissance, it is determined that no
suitable habitat in the form of a forested stand containing at least 50% pine,
lacking a thick understory and contiguous with other pine stands exists for
the RCW. Therefore, no impacts will occur to the RCW as a result of
project construction.
Rhu.v michauxii (Michaux's sumac) E
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The
bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly
serrate. The flowers of Michaux's sumac are greenish to white in color.
Fruits, which develop from August to September on female plants, are a
red densely short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac
is dependent on some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its
habitat. It usually grows in association with basic soils and occurs on sand
or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows only in open habitat where it can
get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete well with other
species, such as Japanese honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of disturbed areas along the roadsides
exists for michaux's sumac. However, intensive field reconnaissance along
these disturbed areas revealed no evidence of Michaux's sumac. Therefore,
on impacts will occur to Michaux's sumac as a result of project
construction.
17
2. Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are ten federal candidate species listed for Wake County.
Federal candidate species are not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Surveys for these species were not conducted
during the site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review of
the database of the N. C. Natural Heritage Program Rare Species and
Unique Habitats reveals no records of any state protected species occurring
at or near the project site.
D. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
The project is located in Wake County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham nonattainment
area for ozone (O;) and carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated this area as a "moderate"
nonattainment area for O', and CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, this area was
redesignated as "maintenance" for O3 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 Wake County. The Capital Area 1995 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) has been
determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The MPO approval date for the TIP is October 25,
1994. The USDOT approval date of the TIP is February 24, 1995. The current conformity
determination is consistent with the final conformity rules found in 40 CFR Part 51. There have
been no significant changes in the project design concept or scope, as used in the conformity
analysis.
The impact on air quality will be insignificant. If the project disposes of vegetation 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 of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and the National
Environmental Policy Act. The project requires no additional reports.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will have no
significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction.
E. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and
important farmland soils, as designated by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Land which
has been developed or is committed to urban development by the local governing body is exempt
from the requirements of the Act. The proposed bridge replacement project is located in an urban
area with residential development surrounding the project site. Therefore, no further consideration
of impacts to farmland is required by the Act.
18
X. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the above discussion, NCDOT and FHWA conclude that the project will cause
no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the project may be processed as a Categorical
Exclusion.
WTG/plr
Figures
/ /// I Jy _ Neasr' R
\ [ ten, I
-w
q 'x
?.??? .? ?? ?????`". ? ??s.ru 1 ?,n_' ?Mdioro^s i 1?rua i?u•
Raleigh _
r? ry
? _ _? 1 7 Rocs n.
Apex ?y s
Garn r
e
_ 6
ImoA SMinys
'
?Hersu LoFr
? ~ W,Ilow S
?1?OUilf Y• n ? W'n/?
I\
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1(j. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
WAKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 99 ON SR 1820
OVER MINE CREEK
B-2176
FIG. 1

y 1 .,
North Approach
Looking South
,bap, Wi . '1
.a? IM?MIIh„..
7i
r
Ai,
?7? re r' ,r--
ery
,or
.'???.
,t
On Bridge
Looking North
E
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
WAKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 99 ON SR 1820
OVER MINE CREEK
B - 2176
FIGURE 3

1
NO.
;
1;1 0
IKI
IIv` ?? /
/ \
STUDY
Wm
? 0 0
W
J I•M
SHELLEY O[V
Road I
rrv to
west
Mine
J?
1
r?

c
a
STLIAi
COUR
1
V RT
O v?/
E
CIXON
WNPPOORWILL
rH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
NSPORTATION
iION OF HIGHWAYS
'KING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
NCH
WAKE COUNTY
IE NO. 99 ON SR 1820
VER MINE CREEK
B-2176
Figure 4
I
Appendix A
Correspondence
`\n sun,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 23, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 99 over Lead Mine Creek on SR
1820, Wake County, B-2176, ER 95-7889
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
F
AUG ? 5 1995
22 DIVISIG*1OF
FIIGHWAYS
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
December 7, 1994. However, we have reviewed the project and would like to
offer our preliminary comments.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
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.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
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
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,
44,tq d Z
/'
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
Appendix B
Section 4(f) Evaluation
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT
WITH PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND
WATERFOWL REFUGES
Federal Aid Number: BRM - 5825(1)
State Project Number: 8.2402001
Transportation Improvement Program Number: B-2176
Description: Wake County, Brie No 99 on SR 1820 over Mine Creek
Proposed City of Raleigh Greenway Trail along Mine Creek
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to improve the operational
characteristics, safety, and/or physical condition of existing X ?
highway facilities on essentially the same location?
i
?
l ? X
on
ocat
2. Is the project on new
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly owned public park,
recreation land, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge located X
adjacent to the existing highway?
4. Does the amount and location of the land to be used impair
the use of the remaining Section 4(f) land, in whole or in
V
A
part, for its intended purpose?
(see chart below)
Total size of Section 4(f) site
less than 10 acres
10 acres-100 acres
greater then 100 acres
Maximum to be acquired
Do the proximity impacts of the project (e.g. noise, air, and
water pollution, wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic values )
on the remaining Section 4(f) land impair the use of such
land for its intended purpose?
10 percent of site
1 acre
1 percent of site
? X
Yes No
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) land
agree, in writing, with the assessment of the impacts of the
proposed project on, and the proposed mitigation for, the V
11 ?
Section 4(f) lands?
7. Does the project use land from a site purchased or improved
with funds under the Land and Water Conservation Act
(Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act
(Dingell-Johnson Act), the Federal Aid in Wildlife Act
(Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar laws, or are the lands
otherwise encumbered with a Federal interest (e.g. former X
Federal surplus property)?
8. If the project involves lands described in Item 7 above, does
the appropriate Federal Agency object to the land conversion ? X
or transfer?
X
9. Does the project require preparation of an EIS?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE
FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
Yes No
The following alternatives were evaluated and found
not to be feasible and prudent:
X
1. Do-nothing
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
i
i
i
?
d
fi X
c
enc
es
ty
e
(a) correct capac
f
h
d
?
i
i
t
b X
azar
s
ng sa
e
y
) correct ex
st
or (
diti
d
?
d
i X
ons
orate
con
eter
or (c) correct
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or V
1?
impacts of extraordinary measure?
Yes No
2. Improvement of the highway without using the
adjacent public park, recreational land, or X
wildlife and waterfowl refuge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes in
standards, use of retaining walls, etc., or X

traffic management measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) above would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community impacts
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or unique engineering, transportation, maintenance,
or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental, or economic
impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are of
extraordinary magnitude
3. Build an improved facility on new location without
using the public park, recreational land, or wildlife
and waterfowl refuge. (This would be a localized X
"
"run around.
)
(a) An alternate on new location would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve the existing
problems
or (ii) substantial social, environmental, or economic
impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
The project includes all possible planning to minimize `T ?
harm. X
2. Measures to minimize harm include the following:
(circle, as appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands of
reasonably equivalent usefulness and
location and of at least comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted by the
project including sidewalks, paths, benches,
lights, trees, and other facilities.
C. Restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas.
dO Incorporation of design features and habitat
features, where necessary, to reduce or
minimize impacts to the Section 4(f) property.
Payment of the fair market value of the land
and improvements to the remaining Section 4(f)
site equal to the fair market value of the land
and improvements taken.
O Additional or alternative mitigation measures
as determined necessary based on consultation
with the officials having jurisdiction over the
park land, recreational area, or waterfowl refuge.
A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
The Greenway trail will be routed north along SR 1820 to the intersection of
SR 1820 and Mineshaft Road. A traffic signal, with a pedestrian activation button, will be
installed at this intersection to allow Greenway users to cross SR 1820 safely. The trail
will be routed back down SR 1820 to the existing Greenway trail location. The distance
from the existing Greenway easement to the intersection is approximately 50 meters (165
feet).
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide Section 4(f) evaluation.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) Land
b. LocaVState/Federal Agencies X
US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are involved
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation
approved on December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly
applicable to this project. There are no feasible or prudent alternatives which avoid use of
the Section 4(f) Land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are
assurances that the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
9j--21-91 y
Date >*sf Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date ?/? Divisi Administrator, FHWA
CITY OF RALEIGH
NORTH CAROLINA
INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
TO: 1 Jimmie Beckom
7

FROp' -, Jack C. Duncan, Director Parks and Recreation DATE: August 1, 1995
SU JE %'. Replacement of Bridge No. 99 on SR 1820 (Lead Mine Road) over Mine
Cre ld ake County, TIP project B-2176
MESSAGE:
The Raleigh Parks and Recreation Department staff has reviewed information concerning the
location of the greenway trail in conjunction with the replacement of the bridge on SR 1820 at
Lead Mine Creek. The response is directed to you in an effort to coordinate response and
interaction with NCDOT.
The Raleigh Parks and Recreation Department agrees that Alternate 3 as described in the letter
from Mr. H. Franklin Vick, dated July 17, 1995 is the most economical alternative. It is
understood that the full cost of constructing the Alternate 3 greenway trail connection will be
borne by the North Carolina State Department of Transportation as part of the bridge
replacement project. The Raleigh Parks and Recreation Department supports this alternative.
8/1/95 1

??.?- raw
City Of Raleigh
,9Yorth Carolina
August 14, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
SUBJECT: Wake Co., Raleigh, - Replacement of Bridge over Lead Mine Creek at
Lead Mine Road (SR 1820) - NCTIP# B-2176
Pursuant to your July 17, 1995 letter (attached) requesting the City's support for Alternate 3 to
accommodate the Lead Mine Creek Greenway, this letter is to advise you that the City
administration concurs with your department's recommended at-grade, signalized crossing
treatment as the most cost-effective solution.
As your letter indicates, it is our understanding that this greenway accommodation will be fully
implemented as a part of this project's construction and that its full cost will be borne by NCDOT as
a part of this project's funding. A memorandum from the City's Parks and Recreation Director to
me is also attached acknowledging his department's support for this greenway accommodation
treatment.
If you have any questions or need further information , please feel free to call me or our staff. As
always, we continue to look forward to working cooperatively with your Department to improve
transportation in the Raleigh area.
Sincerely,
tmlie Beckom, P.E.
Transportation Director
attachments
cc: City Manager
City Parks and Recreation Director
WIVCES • 222 WEST HARGETT STREET • RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
(ehj( dMoNreenwayNdmine 1oc
V'SCF/
Z >
z 1'.9
yip S v C,
Recycled Paper
JUL 20 1995
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CITY TRANSPORTATION DEPT.
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
July 17, 1995
Mr. Jimmie Beckom, P. E.
Transportation Director - City of Raleigh
Post Office Box 590 "
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Dear Mr. Beckom:
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 99 on SR 1820 (Lead Mine Road) over
Mine Creek, Wake County, TIP project B-2176
In an effort to move the subject project forward, the following information is
provided for your consideration. One of the issues that needs to be resolved in order for
this project to be completed is the handling of a proposed greenway trail along Mine
Creek, crossing SR 1820 at the site of the bridge over Mine Creek.
This project will replace the existing bridge with a culvert at the existing location.
In order for the greenway trail to pass under SR 1820 a dry box will be needed in addition
to the double barrel culvert proposed. An alternative to providing this dry box would be to
route the greenway as follows:
1) Run the greenway north along SR 1820 to it's intersection with
Mine Shaft Road, a distance of about 200 feet.
2) Allow greenway users to cross SR 1820 at a traffic signal to be
located at this intersection by using a pedestrian activation button.
3) Continue the greenway back down SR 1820 to Mine Creek, and the
location of the existing greenway easement.
The above described alternate, referred to as Alternate 3 in this letter, would allow
greenway users to cross Lead Mine Road at a traffic signal which would be safer then
allowing users to cross the road at the site of the proposed greenway if no provision for
allowing users to pass under SR 1820 is included. Additionally, this alternative would be

considerably cheaper than including a dry box as part of the proposed bridge replacement
project. Please examine the following table of construction cost estimates for the listed
alternates.
Alternate One - Replace bridge with culvert. Use on-site detour with e ,tcnd.'d
culvert, no greenway provisions. [base cost]
Alternate Two - Replace bridge with culvert. Use on-site detour with extended
culvert, Pedestrian Dry-Box under mainline.
Alternate Three - Replace bridge with culvert. Use on-site detour with extended
culvert, Pedestrian activated signal and paved path to and from
greenway.
Alternate One Alternate Two Alternate Three
Structure $ 114,000 $ 119,000 $ 114,000
Greenwa structure 0 45,000 0
clearing, seeding,
erosion control, etc. 38,000 49,000 38,000
excavation 60,700 114,100 60,700
pavement 157,130 204,325 157,130
structure removal 4,730 4,730 4,730
path and signal 0 0 45,000
guardrail, traffic control,
etc. 24,050 24,050 24,050
misc. and mob. 30% 121,390 169,795 131,390
Eng. and Contingencies 80,000 120,000 85,000
Construction Total 600,000 850,000 660,000
Unfortunately, this situation can not be handled as other similar situations have
been handled in the past. Other greenways or pedestrian underpasses located at the sites
of culverts have been handled by raising the invert elevation of one of the barrels of the
proposed culvert and enlarging the opening of the other barrel or barrels. At this site the
proposed size is a double 9 ft. by 8 ft. culvert. Raising the invert elevation by the minimum
recommended 3 feet would result in a 5 foot high opening which is unacceptable for
pedestrian underpasses. Therefore, a separate structure of one 8 ft. by 8 ft. barrel was
considered for the pedestrian dry box in alternate two.
The Planning and Environmental Branch would like to recommend alternate three
as the most economical and safest alternate for allowing greenway users to cross Lead
Mine Road. In order to complete section 4(f) requirements for this project a letter of
support for the recommended alternate is required from the City Parks and Recreation
Director. Please review the above costs estimates and attached preliminary plans, and
provide your recommendations to this office and to the City Parks and Recreation
Director.
If you need more information or have any questions o?1 this project please contact
Bill Goodwin, of my staff at 733-3141 Ext. 238.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager,
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/bg
Attachment
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANOMITTAL SLIP DATE

?C..f )G', 1nwf?•, REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
-? - t RSF. O. OR ROOM, BLDG.
!
_ ACTION
? -NOTE AND FILE ? PSR ;OUR CONVERSATION
? _NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? FOR YOUR REQUEST
?-RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASK ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
?- PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? 91014ATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
r,
..)

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
RECEIVED
JAN 1 Aft
t4C
ENVIRON NNTALLHCIENCES
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
January 13, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Bill Goodwin li(?
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 99 on
SR 1820 over Mine Creek, Wake County, Federal Aid Project
No. BRM-5825(1), State'Project No. 8.2402001, TIP
No. B-2176
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on December 7, 1994.
The following persons were in attendance:
David Unkefer FHWA
Eric Galamb Dept. of Env. Mgmt.
Buddy Gregg Division Five
Don Sellers Right of Way
Parks Icenhour Location and Surveys
Ray Moore Structure Design
Roy Girolami Structure Design
Darin Wilder Program Development
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Kevin Bisby Traffic Control
Dean Sarvis Roadway Design
Wayne Elliott Planning and Environmental
Bill Goodwin Planning and Environmental
Bridge Replacement Project B-2176 was originally studied in 1988-89. A
Categorical Exclusion, dated December 12, 1989 was competed and distributed
for review. After the planning was completed, the project was put on hold
until the Fall of 1994. The project will be re-evaluated to determine what
changes will be necessary in the recommendation of the previous document.
The following is a summary of comments made at the scoping meeting and
through correspondence prior to the meeting.
This project will be designed in Metric units.
Mr. Eric Galamb of DEM indicated that Mine Creek is classified as Class
C, Nutrient Sensitive. Implementation of standard erosion control measures
was suggested.
9
January 13, 1995
Page 2
Mr. Parks Icenhour indicated that there are overhead power lines along
the east side of SR 1820 with telephone and cable television lines attached.
There are underground telephone lines also on the east side of SR 1820 and an
underground water line along the west side of SR 1820. He also indicated
that in the opinion of the Location and Surveys Unit there are no suitable
off-site detour routes, due to the volume of traffic using SR 1820.
Ms. Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
indicated, by telephone prior to the meeting, that there are no known
architectural or archaeological sites in the project area and no unknown
sites are likely to be found. Therefore, SHPO is recommending that no
architectural or archaeological surveys be conducted.
Mr. Jerry Snead of the Hydraulics Unit indicated that a double 9x8
reinforced concrete box culvert will likely be used to replace the existing
bridge.
The City of Raleigh has requested an estimate of the cost associated
with including a dry box in the culvert. This box will accommodate a future
greenway trail proposed for the area. Including this box will likely result
in considerable project costs beyond the Bost of the larger culvert. The
roadway grade will have to be raised several feet to accommodate this
additional box above the normal water depth of the creek.
The Principal of Montessori School of Raleigh has contacted the Traffic
Engineering Branch to bring a potential traffic problem to the Departments
attention. This problem involves traffic backups created by vehicles
attempting to turn left into the school during rush-hour. In order to respond
to this problem by adding a left turn lane on Lead Mine Road, the bridge over
Mine Creek will have to be replaced with a wider structure. This project,
which has been in the Bridge Replacement Program for several years, will
address both the need for a wider structure and the routine replacement of a
deficient bridge.
The Division Engineers Office has indicated that an on-site detour would
be preferable due to the volume of traffic involved.
Two alternates will be evaluated for replacing bridge number 99 over
Mine Creek. These alternates are:
Alternate One - construct the western half of the proposed culvert
immediately west of the existing bridge and detour traffic onto the new
structure. Remove the existing structure and complete the construction of
the proposed culvert. Return traffic operation to the existing location,
using the additional culvert length to provide a left turn lane into
Montessori School and Mine Shaft Road. Leave any additional culvert length
in place, to be used should Mine Shaft Road be widened in the future.
Alternate Two - construct the eastern half of the proposed culvert
immediately east of the existing bridge and detour traffic onto the new
structure. Remove the existing structure and complete the construction of
the proposed culvert. Return traffic operation to the existing location,
January 13, 1995
Page 3
using the additional culvert length to provide a left turn lane into
Montessori School and Mine Shaft Road. Leave any additional culvert length
in place, to be used should Mine Shaft Road be widened in the future.
Construction cost estimates for both alternates will be provided to
concerned parties as soon as they are available.
At this time alternate one appears to be preferable due to the reduced
right of way impacts. The two houses at the corner of Lead Mine Road and Mine
Shaft Road will not be impacted by alternate one. A final recommended
alternate will be selected in the environmental document.
The current project schedule calls for right of way acquisition to begin
in October 1995 and construction to begin in September 1996.
WTG/plr
cc: Scoping Meeting Participants
Ift
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
TO:
FROM I
? NOTE AND FILE
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME
? RETURN WITH MORK DETAILS
? NOTE AND SEE ME ASOUT THIS
? PLEASE ANSWER
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION
DATE
1 1 ` "1 ' -11
REr. NO. OR ROOM. SLOG.
REF. NO. OR ROOM. SLOG.
U PER OUR CONVERSATION
? PER YOUR REQUEST
? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? rapt YOUR INFORMATION
? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
-SIGNATURE
? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT

v s SUT[
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JIL DIVISION OF HIGI IWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GUVERNO)R P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SrcR11AKY
November 2, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Wake County, Bridge No. 99
over 140 Mine Creek on SR 1820 (Lead Mine Road),
B-2176
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 December 7, 1994 at 10:00 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 Engineer, at 733-7842.
WTG/plr 036) Yo 21.
Attachment (? C
/l U I 1 J vU.. ???.rl " ?. /,? ??d'r'r: ?• z /
( ?9
-?3
2 h"D -i? S??i .hi?e`;,? ?c?
4e Jt S?'e ? ( I
i
IM ? ? ? YR? ?/1-lAJ t ? l d'1
r
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 10/31/94
TIP PROJECT: B-2176 DIVISION: Five
F. A. PROJECT: BRM-5825(1) COUNTY: Wake
STATE PROJECT: 8.2402001 ROUTE: SR 1820
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace Obsolete Bridge
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No. 99 on SR 1820 over Lead Mine Creek
in Wake County
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Urban Minor Arterial
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 450,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 57,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $ 259000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 532,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) , (%)
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 12,400 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 000 VPD OOZO
TTST 1 % DT 2
EXISTING TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: Two lane shoulder section with
22 foot pavement
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 11 Meters WIDTH 7.9 Meters
36 Feet 26 Feet
COMMENTS: Project was originally scoped in 1989 and delayed in 1990
due to unresolved issues.
PREPARED BY: Bill Goodwin DATE 10/31/94
NORTI-I CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
WAKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 99 ON SR 1820
OVER LEAD MINE CREEK
B - 2178
0 mile 1 FIG. 1

loop-