19960720 Ver 1_Complete File_19960729

w

96072®
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
July 26, 1996
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
P.O. Box 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
? STnA°
401 ISSUED
ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR-
SECRETARY
c
SUBJECT: Granville County, Replacement of Bridge No. 4 over Ledge Creek on
US 15, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-15(2), State Project
No. 8.137050 1, TIP No. B-2563.
Attached for your information are copies of the categorical exclusion action
classification form and the natural resources technical report for the subject project. The
project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a programmatic
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting 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 Water Quality, for their review.

If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Phillip Todd at [phone], Ext. 314.
Sin --re ,
H. Fr nklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/colt
Attachments
cc: w/ attachments
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DWQ
Mr. John Smith, P. E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, Jr., P. E., Division 5 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, Project Planning Engineer
s
y,
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
A.
B
TIP Project No. B-2563
State Project No. 8.1370501
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-15(2)
Project Description :
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 4 on US 15 over Ledge
Creek in Granville County. The new structure will be a 45-meter (148-foot)
long bridge placed at the same location as the existing bridge. The design
speed for the project will be approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
The new bridge will be 9.6 meters (32 feet) wide including two 3.6-meter (12-
foot) lanes and 1.2-meter (4-foot) offsets. The deck will have a 0.3 %
gradient to facilitate deck drainage. The present bridge and approaches have
a design speed of 50 km/h (30 mph) in an area posted for 55 mph travel. This
results from a crest vertical curve 15 meters (50 feet) east of the bridge. The
curvature limits sight distance and therefore design speed. To improve the
design speed to 100 km/h (60 mph) the elevation of the new bridge will be
raised slightly and the crest vertical curve flattened.
Approach work will extend approximately 274 meters (900 feet) to the east
and 260 meters (850 feet) to the west of the bridge. Each approach will
include two 3.6- meter (12-foot) lanes and 1.2-meter (4-foot) paved
shoulders. To the outside of the paved shoulders will bean additional 2.1-
meter (7-foot) grassed shoulder with guardrail. The grassed shoulder will
taper to 1.2 meters (4 feet) where guardrail is not required.
Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction (see Figure 1). Local
traffic will follow SR 1109 and SR 1110. SR 1110 (Joe Peed Rd.) has
recently been paved and the bridge along that route is scheduled for
replacement under T.I.P. project B-3336 prior to the beginning of
construction for this project. This route will be suitable for single vehicles
only; no heavy vehicles. Heavier vehicular traffic will be detoured along I-85
and NC 56 for the duration of construction.
Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 4 has a sufficiency rating of 5.5 out of 100 and is approaching the
end of its useful life. The structure is a two lane bridge with 9.2 meters
(30.2 feet) of bridge roadway width which is less than required by current
standards. For these reasons, Bridge No. 4 needs to be replaced.

r.
1
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
Type II Improvements
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
J. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
2

?,.3 ; Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UNIT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
9P
+1
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
implemented and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." An
Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 will likely be applicable to this
project.
Prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 4 23 a North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification must be obtained.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 825,000
Right of Way $ 33,000
Total $ 858,000
Estimated Traffic: Current - 5200 VPD; Year 2020 - 9600 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
Travelway - two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes
Shoulders - 3.3-meters (11 feet) wide including 1.2-meter (4-foot) paved
shoulder and 2.1-meter (7-foot) grassed shoulder to accomodate for
guardrail. The grassed shoulder will taper to 1.2 meters (4 feet)
where guardrail is not required.
Design Speed: 100 km/h (60 mph)
Functional Classification: Rural Major Collector
4

Division Office Comments:
The bridge could be replaced on the same alignment as the old bridge. US 15 could be
closed utilizing NC 56 and I-85 as the detour route.
Design Exceptions: NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists only of Type I improvements, the following
checklist does not need to be Completed.
ECOLOGICAL
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
YES NO
X
n
X
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than X U
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?-
i ? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? U X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding n
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters u X
(HQW)?
5
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business?

P
X
71 X
YES NO
i x

7X
X
U
F-1 X
YES NO
H X
7 X
6
l
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property? X
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local r-,
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? j X
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan --,
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic n
volumes? U X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ?
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? U X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X u
CULTURAL RESOURCES
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
YES NO
7 X
7
V
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources r-
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl X
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent I I
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for u x
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Not applicable.
8
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No
Project Description :
B-2563
8. 1370501
BRSTP-15(2)
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 4 on US 15 over Ledge
Creek in Granville County. The new structure will be a 45-meter (148-foot)
long bridge placed at the same location as the existing bridge. Approach
work will extend approximately 274 meters (900 feet) to the east and 260
meters (850 feet) to the west of the bridge. The new design speed will be 100
km/h (60 mph). Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction (see
Figure 1).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
Approved:
r
S-Z-96*'
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environnm]ental Branch
it I
Date Proje t Pl ng Unit Head
Date Pro ct Planning Engineer
9
N
MAR 2 4 1994
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources Y_, D1v1S1r,,q
C . H!G V
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor Division of es aY r?tory
Betty Ray McCain. Secretary William S. ' ireeTS_.,. /
March 23, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 4 on US 15 over Ledge Creek,
Granville County, B-2563, ER 94-8288
Dear Mr. Graf:
On March 3, 1994, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting and for
our use afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of only one structure
over fifty years of age in the area of potential effect--Bridge No. 4 over Ledge
Creek. We believe the bridge is not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places since it has little historical or architectural significance. We
recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
If the preferred alternate of bridge replacement at the existing location with road
closure is selected, no archaeological investigation will be recommended. If
replacement on new location or on-site detours are selected, an archaeological
survey should be undertaken. Since the project area is federally owned property
under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers, it is possible that a Federal
Archaeological Resources Protection Act permit will be required by the corps for
any archaeological investigations.
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 Stroet - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
March 23, 1994, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

t
rL
?tiJ lxXfiOvv??
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 10, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replacement of Bridge 4 over Ledge Creek on US
15, Granville County, Federal BRSTP-15(2), State
8.1370501, TIP B-2563; ER 95-8090
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of December 20, 1994, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by John Mintz of North Carolina Department of Transportation
concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur with your determination that no National Register listed or eligible
archaeological sites will be affected by the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
d1'?
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Si erely,
David Brook
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
J. Mintz
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601.2807 ???

Replacement of Bridge No. 4 on US 15
Over Ledge Creek (Big Lodge Creek)
in Granville County
TIP No. B-2563
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-15(2)
State Project No. 8.1370501
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2563
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
LANE SAULS, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
AUGUST 5. 199-4?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ..................................... .1
1.1 Project Description ...........................1
1.2 Purpose .......................................1
1.3 Study Area ...................................._
1.4 Methodology ................................... _
2.0 Physical Resources .................................3
2.1 Water Resources .............................. .
2.1.1 Best Usage Classification............. 3
2.1.2 Water Quality ........................4
2.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....... 4
2 2 Soils and Topography....... ...••••••••••••••4
3.0 Biotic Resources ....................................5
3.1 Terrestrial Communities .......................5
3.1.1 Plant Communities ....................5
3.1.2 Faunal Communities ...................6
.S
3.2 Aquatic Communities .........................•
3.3 Summary of Anticipated impacts ................8
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics ........................ 9
4.1 Waters of the United States; ..................9
4.1.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....... 9
4.1.2 Anticipated Permit Requirements ...... 9
4.1.3 Mitigation ...........................10
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ....................10
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species .......... 10
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and
State Listed Species............ . 12
5.0 References ..........................................13
Appendix A: Additional comments
5 w
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of a Categorical Exclusion
(CE). This report inventories the natural resources
occurring within the proposed project area, identifies
environmental concerns, and makes recommendations on
alternatives for minimizing environmental degradation.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project
existing structure (Bridg,
(See Figure 1). Built in
bridge is deteriorating.
being considered within a
ft).
calls for replacement of the
No. 4) on US 15 over Ledge Creek
1925 and reconstructed in 19-49, the
Currently, four alternatives are
proposed right-of-way of 24 m (80
(1) replace existing bridge with a new bridge structure
at its existing location. Traffic would be detoured along
existing secondary roads during construction.
(lA) replace existing bridge with a new bridge structure
at its existing location to accommodate a 90 kph (60 mph)
design speed. Traffic would be detoured along existing
secondary roads during construction.
(2) replace existing bridge with a new bridge structure
at its existing location. Traffic would be maintained with
an onsite detour just south of the existing structure during
construction.
(2A) replace existing bridge with a new bridge structure
at its existing location to accommodate 90 kph (60 mph)
design speed. Traffic would be maintained with an onsite
detour just south of the existing structure during
construction.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attemps
to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the
anticipated impacts to these resources. Recommendations are
made for measures which will minimize resource impacts.
These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the
context of existing preliminary design concepts. If design
parameters and criteria change, additional field
investigation may be needed.
• BWloct'' Tor
r ' StOV all/
t oat Nill - ---? WJlran
5
1 GRANV ALE,
L, L Beres 9 1 hs '
q? +U=ford
Q 0
. Pro.derc? 4*# 13
1
C-0 Stem
awee " Toil_
Nester
WOW
? l
6 ! r. •??? t' l? S Creedmoor
th:rde? {o
T-j
.00
' o w a A .2
ld"
'/ice - •, :: ..• •+ ? l •, /{ ? ?
?dl
10
chi . - ..??? O ; ' ?• ?! ! a:: 10
lo,
3?_i c •? ! ! f •? ?a? \ O ?07? F
°
}" cv \ i? ` NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
?cJ' \p':4? 4 O! 9r TRANSPORTATION
?+ M `• ::: ^? DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
! !t`"' 6 8 \k,• z PLANNING AND FNvIRON;IIFNTAL
BRANCH
GRANVILLE COUNTY
o \? Q _ REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 4
t .. ' ON US 15 OVER BIG LODGE CREEK
B - 2563
0 km 1.6 m
0 miles 1 miles 2

2
1.3 Study Area
The study area is located within a rural setting in the
outer city limits of western Creedmoor in Granville County.
It encompasses the existing bridge, areas 30.5 m (100 ft)
upstream and downstream, as well as possible approaches for a
temporary on-site detour to the south of the existing bridge.
Bridge No. 4 is located along a northeast/southwest
axis. The study area is composed mainly of upland and
bottomland hardwoods. Upland hardwoods and residential homes
comprise the northwest quadrant and bottomland hardwoods
exist to the northeast. The southern quadrants are composed
of upland hardwoods along the higher areas and bottomland
hardwoods within the creek channel and adjacent floodplain.
1.4 Methodology
A site visit was made July 25, 1994 to determine natural
resource conditions and to confirm published information
available concerning the site. Information sources used in
this pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S.
Geological Survey- (USGS) quadrangle map (Creedmoor, N.C.)?
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map, NCDOT aerial
photograph of project area (1:1200) and Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) soil maps of Granville County. Water resource
information was obtained from publications of the Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR. 1993)
and from the NC Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis (Environmental Sensitivity Base Nap of Granville
County). 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.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologist Lane Sauls on July 25, 1994.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using a variety of observation techniques: active searching
and capture, visual observations (binoculars), identifying
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 Engineers Wetland Delineation
:Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 19S7).
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Water and soil resources, which occur in the suds area,
are discussed below. The availability- of water and soils
directly' influence composition and distribuzior of flora ane.
3
fauna in any biotic community.
Granville County lies in the Piedmont Physio,raphic
Providence. The topography of Granville County is
characterized by rolling hills and many small streams forming
a dendritic watershed pattern.
2.1 Water Resources
Project B-2563 is located along the Ledge Creek sub-
basin within the Neuse River Basin. Ledge Creek originates
in northern Granville County and flows into Lake Rogers,
Creedmoor's water supply. From Lake Rogers, Ledge Creek
meanders southward through rural Granville and Wake Counties,
ultimately emptying into the vicinity of Falls Lake. Falls
Lake serves as a primary water supply for Raleigh.
At the B-2563 project site, Ledge Creek had relatively
little flow, due to sparse precipitation in late June and
early July. The water appeared to be very stained and muddy
with large amounts of silt deposited along the steam banks.
Refer to Table 1 for a complete listing of stream
characteristics.
TABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF LEDGE CREEK AT THE
B-2563 PROJECT SITE
LOCATIONS Upstream Bridge Downstream
SUBSTRATE silt/mud silt/mud silt/mud
CURRE*".T none none none
STREAM GRAD. flat flat flat
CHANNEL 6 m 15-18 m 6-8 m
WIDTH (20 ft) (50-60 ft) (20-25 ft)
BANK HEIGHT lm (4 ft) lm (4 ft) lm (4 ft)
WATER 0-1 m 1-2 m 1-2 m
DEPTH (1-4 ft) (3-6 ft) (3-6 ft)
WATER COLOR brown brown brown
AQUATIC VEG. none none none
NOTES: Measurements were taken 50 m (160 ft) upstream and
downstream from the proposed crossing.
2.1.1 Best Usage Classification
Streams have. been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Ledge
Creek has been designated as "WS-IV NSW". This classi-
fication extends from the dam at the Creedmoor Water Supply
Reservoir to a point 0.22 km (0.1 mi) upstream of Wake County
SR 1901. "WS-IV" designates waters protected as water
supplies which are generally in moderately to highly
developed watersheds; point source discharges of treated
wastewater are permitted; local programs to control nonpoint
4
source and stormwater
suitable for all Class
Sensitive Waters which
inputs.
discharge of pollution are required:
C uses. "NSW" designates Nutrient
require limitations on nutrient
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I
or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1 mile) of the study area for the project.
2.1.2 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and 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 Ledge Creek at
this time. Creeks that flow into the Neuse River above and
below the point where Ledge Creek enters have been surveyed.
They rate from poor to good.
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 identifies
one discharger into Ledge Creek, the Town of Creedmoor Water
Treatment Plant (Permit: 0007625). Its location is
approximately 1.1 km (0.5 mi) upstream of the project site.
2.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same location
with a road closure during construction is almost always
preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and
other natural resources. Temporary on-site detours usually
result in more severe impacts. However, impacts are expected
to be minimal during the construction stage whether or not
the on-site temporary detour is used. 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 should be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the
project. Provisions to preclude unnecessary contamination by
toxic substances during the construction interval should be
strickly enforced.
2.2 Soils and Topography
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils dominate the majority the
study area. These soils are on the floodplai^.s of streams
5
and provide good infiltration and slow surface runoff. The
hazard of flooding is severe, and the hazard of wetness is
very severe. Their surface layers range from brown to dark
grayish-brown sandy loam to silt loam 10 to 31 cm (4 to 12
in) thick. Beneath the surface layer, the color of the soil
material ranges from brown to dark grayish-brown, with
mottles of brown and gray, and the texture ranges from sandy
loam or silt loam to clay. The total thickness of the
profile ranges from 86 to 183 cm (34 to 72 in). These soils
are Inceptisols, which means they are relatively young and
not stable for long periods of time. Table 2 provides an
inventory of specific soil mapping units which occur in the
project area.
TABLE 2. COUNTY SOILS IN THE PROJECT AREA
Map Emit Specific Percent Hydric
Symbol Mapping Unit Slope Classification
C-1^ Chewacla soils 0-2 A
CrC Creedmoor sandy loam 6-10
E..3 Enon fine sandy loam 2-6 B
EnC Enon fine sandy loam 6-10
Wn Wehadkee silt loam 0-2
NOTES: "A" denotes hydric soils or soils having hydric soils
as a major component.
"B" denotes soils with inclusions of hydric soils or
which have wet spots.
3.0 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.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified
in the project study area: (1) bottomland hardwood; (2) up-
land hardwood and (3) roadside. Community boundaries are
frequently ill-defined; contiguous communities generally
merge without any transition zone between them. Many faunal
species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range
of terrestrial communities discussed.
3.1.1 Plant Communities
Bottomland hardwood. The bottomland harwood forest is
found on floodplain ridges and terraces other than active
levees adjacent to the river channel. The hydrology is
palustrne with intermittent flooding during wet periods.
6
Bottomland hardwood forests are believed to form a stable
climax forest, having a stable un-even aged canopy.
The canopy is dominated by various bottomland trees such
as green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black walnut (Juglans
nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), southern red oak (Quercus falcata),
water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos)I
American elm (Ulmus americana) and tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera). Understory trees include red maple (Acer
rubrum), box elder (Acer neoundo), silverleaf maple (Acer
saccharinum), river birch (Betula nigra), eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana) and black cherry (Prunus serotina).
Shrub and vine species observed are trumpet vine (Campsis
radicans), poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia), privet (Ligustrum sinense), Virginia
creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), wild grape (Vitis
rotundifolia), winged sumac (Rhus copallina) and Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)
Upland Hardwood. Lapland hardwood forests are scattered
throughout the Piedmont. These forests are un-even aged,
with old trees scattered throughout. Because the overall
moisture level is not easy to determine, upland hardwood
forests are most easily distinguished by the canopy
composition.
The upper canopy of the upland hardwood forest in the
study area contains species adapted to drier conditions.
Species observed are pignut hickory (Cars'a °Iabra), mockernut
hickory (Carya tomentosa), white ash (Fraxinus americana),
white oak (Quercus aIba), southern red oak (Quercus falcata),
northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and some species also found
in the bottomland forest including willow oak, tulip poplar
and American elm. The understory vegetation includes paw paw
(Asimina triloba), dogwood (Cornus florida), black cherry and
red maple. Shrub and vine layer species associated with
this mixed community include many of the same observed in the
bottomland hardwood forest. Trumpet vine, poison-ivy,
greenbrier, privet, virginia creeper, wild grape, winged
sumac and Japanese honeysuckle were all observed.
Roadside. The roadside community is dominated by small
herbs that are regularly controlled by mowing, including
species such as fescue (Festuca spp.), panic grass (Panicum
$pp.) and pokeweed (Phytolacca americana). In addition,
woody species including poison-ivy, red maple. sycamore,
trumpet creeper, and dogwood occur.
3.1.2 Faunal Communities
The existance of many different species of birds.
mammals. reptiles and amphibians reflect the quality and
diversity of an area. The different community tapes

their adjacent ecotones support a diverse asse^.:'::age of
fauna.
Many birds were observed duri*:_ the project visit but
identifications were not easy=y made due to poor light
conditions. However, species like the northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), blue jay (C,vanocitta cristata),
belted ki::jfisher (Megaceryle alcyongreen heron (Butorides
virescens), mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura) and ruby-
throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) were all
observed within the project vicinity. Other birds species
known to frequent these communities include the Carolina
chickadee (Pares carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Pares
bicolor) , white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis),
common grackle (Quiscalus quiscala), robin (Turdus
American crow (Corpus brachyrhynchos), northern
rrrigra tori us) ,
mockingbird (Mimus polyglotros), broom thrasher (Taxostoma
rufum), thrush (Hylocichla spp.), warbler (Vermivora spp.),
and the rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus)
dominate the edges and open areas.
Common mammal inhabitants of the adjacent forests and
creek are the beaver (Castor canadensis), white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus cirginianus), gray squirrel (Sciurus
cal-olinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis
virziniana), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), eastern cottontail
(Svivilagus floridanus), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus),
white-footed mouse (Peromuscus leucopus) and red and gray
foxes (Vulpes vulpes and Urocyon cinereoargenteus).
Large concentrations of amphibians are expected to
inhabit the bottomland hardwood community. Most of these
amr 'Lbians live in springs, seepages and streams throughout
hardwood forests. A few species thought to inhabit this area
are marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), two-lined
salamander (Eur_vicea bislineata_), slimy salamander (Plethodon
glutinosus), American toad (Bufo americanus), northern
cricket frog (Acris creptitans), spring peeper (Hyla
crucifer), upland chorus frog (Pseudecris trise.riata),
bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) and pickerel frog (Rana
sphenocephala).
Reptiles observed in the bottomland forest were painted
turtle (Chryseinvs pitta) and yellowbelly slider (Chrvsemys
scripta), while the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis) was seen in the upland forest. Reptiles thought to
inhabit the project and surrounding nbox gtuareas are rtle (Terrapeneng turtle
(Chel j,dra serpentine), eastern
caroling) , black racer (Cnorthern
snake (Nerodia sipedon), eastern
getulus) and copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix.,
S
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type. the piedmont small perennial
stream, will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical
and chemical characteristics of the water body dictate faunal
composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly
influence aquatic communities and vice versa.
No invertebrates were observed in the streambed, and no
fish or fresh water mussel shell evidence were encountered.
The water was quite stained and muddy which made observations
difficult. However, Ledge Creek probably supports good to
fair populations of biota based on the surrounding
conditions.
Fish species likely to be observed.within this aquatic
community include bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), black
crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), sunfish (Lepomis spp.),
;olden shiner (Arotemigonus crysolencas) and American eel
(Anguilla rostrata).
3.3 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 3
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 24 m (80 ft). Usually, project construction does
not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
TABLE 3. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Community Alt. 1 and lA Alt. 2 and 2A
bottomland hdwd 0.2 (0.5) 0.2 (0.6)
upland hdwd 0.2 (0.5) 0.3
1
<0 (0.7)
(U
'
)
roadside <0.1
5
0 (0.2)
2)
(1 .
0.6 .
_
(1.5)
Total Impacts . .

NOTES: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
-? V ? P-Y-
9
More severe impacts to terrestrial and aquatic
communities will occur during and as a result of construction
temporary detours. These activities will disrupt the
bottomland, upland and piedmont small perennial stream
communities, including the removal of vegetation and
compaction of soil. Fauna will be affected most by losses of
habitat.
From a biological perspective, the road closure during
construction (Alts. 1 and 1A) are the best alternatives.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analysis pertinent to two important issues--waters of
the United States and rare and protected species.
4.1 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 (CRF) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 323.3, 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.
13 44 ) .
4.1.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No alterations to the Ledge creek channel will occur as
a result of this project if alternatives 1 and lA are
employed. Alternatives 2 and 2A specify an onsite detour,
which will require a temporary culvert. The culvert will
have degrading effects on the stream channel but these
effects will be temporary.
Bottomland wetlands lie adjacent to the creek channel.
Temporary, on-site detour alternatives will result in filling ,
approximately 0.2 ha (0.6 ac) of wetlands, respectively.
4.1.2 Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to waters of the United States come under
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)23 will authorize impacts
described above. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed in whole, or in part, by another federal agency- or
department where that agency or department has determined
10
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 environment.
4.1.3 Mitigation
Project B-2563 impacts wetland areas associated with
Ledge Creek. However, if a Nationwide Permit =23 is
obtained, no mitigation will be required, in accordance to
the Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Final permit/mitigation
decisions will be made by the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are
in, the process of decline either due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
ammended) requires that any action, likely to adversely a
species classified as federally-protected, be subject to
review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species
may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 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
ammended. As of July 8, 1994, the FWS lists the following
federally-protected species for Granville County (Table 4).
A brief description of each species' characteristics and
habitat follows.
TABLE 4. FEDERAL LISTED SPECIES FOR GRANVILLE COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Classification
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedge mussel E
Ech nacea laevigata smooth coneflower E
Ptilimnium nodosum harperella E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
11
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 3/14/90
Distribution in N.C.: Franklin, Granville, Halifax,
Johnston, Nash, Vance, Wake, Warren, Wilson.
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 tributaries of the Neuse River Basin
and the Tar River system. This mussel is sensitive to
agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants and
requires a stable silt free streambed with well oxygenated
water to survive.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Ledge Creek contains large amounts of deposited silt
which does not provide suitable habitat for the dwarf wedge
mussel. No impacts to this species will occur as a result of
project construction.
Echinacea laevi,,ata (smooth coneflower) E
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: December 9, 1991 PE
Flowers Present: June - early July
Distribution in N.C.: Durham, Granville, Orange,
Rockingham.
Smooth coneflower is a perennial herb that grows from
simple or branched rhizomes. This herb has a smooth stem and
few leaves. The basal leaves are the largest, and these
leaves are smooth to slightly rough, tapered to the base and
elliptical to broadly lanceolate. Mid-stem leaves have short
or no petioles and are smaller than the basal leaves.
Flowers are light pink to purplish in color and solitary.
The petal-like rays usually droop. Fruits are gray-brown,
oblong-prismatic and four-angled.
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is found in areas of
meadows, open woodlands, glades, cedar barrens, roadsides,
power line rights-of-way, clearcuts, and dry limestone
bluffs. Plants usually grow in soil derived from calcareous
parent material. North Carolina populations are found in
soils derived from Diabase, a circumneutral igneous rock.
Optimal sites are in areas with abundant sunlight and little
competition from other herbaceous plants.
12
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Project B-2563 site does not provide suitable
habitat consisting of soils derived from Diabase, a
circumneutral igneous rock. No impacts to this species are
expected as a result of project construction.
Ptilimnium nodosum (harperella) E
Plant Family: Apiaceae
Federally Listed: September 2£, 1985
Flowers Present: late July - August
Distribution in N.C.: Chatham, Granville, Lee.
Harperella is an annual herb in the carrot family, with
fibrous roots and erect to spreading stems. The stems are
green and often have a purplish tinge at the base and they
may branch above mid-stem. The leaves are hollow,
cylindrical, and septate, with broadly clasping bases.
Flowers are umbels, each umbel subtended by an involucre of
small lanceolate bracts.
North Carolina currently has two known populations of
harperella, one in Granville and one in Chatham County.
This plant can be found in two types of habitat, rocky or
gravel shoals and the margins of clear, swift-flowing stream
sections, and the edges of intermittent pineland ponds or
low, wet savannah meadows in the coastal plain. It is always
found in saturated substrates and tolerates periodic.
moderate flooding. There is a preference for sunny areas and
this species is abundant where it is sheltered from stream
erosion, usually on the downstream side of large rocks or
amidst thick clones of water willow.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat is present in the study area. A plant
by plant survey was conducted. No individuals were found.
4.2.2 Candidate and State Protected Species
There are nine federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Granville County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject of any of its provisions, including Section ",
until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or.
Endangered. C2 species are defined as organisms which are
vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data
currently exists to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed Threatened.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Heritage
Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species 1993 are
afforded state protection under th State Endangered Species
:pct and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
13
Act of 1979.
Table 5 lists federal candidate species, the species'
state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence
of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This.
species list is provided for information purposes as the
status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
TABLE 5. FEDERAL CANDIDATE/N.C. PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR GRANVILLE COUNTY
Scientific
Name
Eliiptio lanceolata
Fusconaia masoni
Lampsilis cariosa
Lasmi4ona subvirdis
Aster depauperatus
Delphinium
exaltatum
Lotus purshianus
var. helleri
Marshallia
grandflora*
Nestronia umbellula
Common Name NC Suitable
Status Habitat
Yellow lance (mussel) T N
Atlantic pigtoe (mussel) T N
Yellow lampmussel T N
Green floater (mussel) E N
Serpentine aster E N
Tall larkspur E-SC N
Heller's trefoil
- Y
Large-flowered Barbara's - Y
buttons
Nestronia - Y
NOTES: "*" Population not documented in Granville County in
the past twenty years.
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 revealed no records of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project
study area.
5.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, "Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Martof, Palmer, Bailey, Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1980. The Audubon Society
Field Guide to North American Trees Eastern Region.
Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Society
Field Guide to north American Wildflowers Eastern
Region. Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
14
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Society
Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians.
Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993 Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to Waters of the Neuse River Basin.
Raleigh Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertabrate
Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality, 1983-
1990.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 1991. The
Fresh Water Fishes of North Carolina. The Delmar
Company, Charlotte, NC.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The Univ. N.C.
Press.
Robbins, C.S. B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to
Field Identification Birds of North America. Golden
Press. New York.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classifications of
the Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. NC Nat. Heritage Program, Div. of Parks
and Rec., NC Dept. of Envir., Health and Nat. Resources.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1984.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. 198S.
Soil Survey of Granville County, North Carolina. N.C.
Agriculture Experiment Station.
Webster, Parnell, Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virgina and Maryland. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
1-2 -ctA
TO:
ft
&
G REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
+
,
c
A( kna fism
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
`\
'7 !04 i \? \LAA NM(` I L
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS: _
{??7 inn M
?
D ??
ol

W FEB - 31994
WETLAND- GROUP
ATER UALITY SECTliN
?yb W m. r? A
4ati 1
V ? p
wrw
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
February 1, 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 Sheet for Bridge No. 4 on US 15 in
Granville County over Ledge Creek' B-2563
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 March 3, 1994 at.34eCrl. 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 John Williams, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JW/plr .- .d )13
Attachment /0 - 0. 8`)
?? ? ? IS I Z?
I
ra
xw ?-
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
4
DATE - 4- 4
REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT - 563
STATE PROJECT
F.A. PROJECT
DIVISION 5
COUNTY Granville
ROUTE
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 4 on US 15 over Big
Lodge Creek in Granville County, B-2563.
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) 1 (-)
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR VPD
TTST DT
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 28.7 METERS; WIDTH 10.2 METERS
94.0 FEET 33.4 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE LENGTH METERS; WIDTH METERS
FEET FEET
OR
CULVERT - X METERS
X FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH METERS
FEET FEET,
OR
PIPE - SIZE MILLIMETERS
INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
. CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION)........ $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST .......................................$
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 75,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 24,000
SUB TOTAL ....................................... $ 895,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ................................ $
TIP TOTAL COST ................................... $ 899,UUU

Y
GG
!
`1°1i
v N \?.0
,o !
.3 \ \a?
car"
o to
10
. \ o? !
T4.
\a !
f • ?
so FF 1.,
o ! Sad OA ?A
a ? \o \
au, ,
Y
P \
? •sr ? N ? ?' Llr?e -=- -
a
¦

\l L"
? Sm;.th
tJ `
1 ?
?
# ,
1 I ,
r Virgilina G
8 air lop ro/
r r
3
Stoval ?I
Jt Oak Hill ill.;
I 96 10 ?
l GRAIV? LE 3
?
l Berea 9 158
?
I +Oxf
I Prowdenc r t I ,?,
r??g1t 9 13 t ,•
Hester
.,
Wilton,
?utn 7 ? r ,
1 " lb Creedmoor rar
?Hort`sid:,,,, 101 -
.3r
.2
.9 :., .1 8
2 Fs4S •8 a-
ti ry _•
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
GRANVILLE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 4
ON US 15 OVER BIG LODGE CREEK
B - 2563
0 km 1.6 km 3.2
? I I
0 miles 1 miles 2.
^ ? ? /:,i • Y` ? -,`? ?. / Il 11 ? ' e I .? r r- .? u? -
^.,•?. ?,? moo. , ? y. .? .? y-_. r--- ??\/ ? \?, ql / 1, // _ ..-,, ? ? f
n;6
USES {3u Wrangle
Creedmoor
*F104 r \? ?/ 1 I ` ( •h?l " •?r? - od ••• _) ` JIB.-
\ ?\ i \ / \?I?? _i • \? 374 o II •'? J6 i
50
ji,
/''f?O 1?1j? ` I ? rJll ? ?.? ?? ? ?? ?? ;? :??C""T?/ ?r i ?,e-_ ?n- ?% --
?? Jl, \ \\ \'I r-'°r !`?) 300 i r_// ?.--,\ '/ ???•? i '?IiYC?o ( `\?p /-i _c
? I i b \\'?. %' r`i rte' i °??• - /? Li J I
Fes! I I /?' `?
3so
~l
?; ? ;') ? ?',\ ? ?• _ ,? `:'; ,,1/% ? f? o;? ???-'?-, ?? ,moo ?, „..?. ?- • j
iF ? f?' \ J /??? r ?'? r
J i i 1 ' . -"Wi"g ?? , {t? ??.. . ? ? p ?. ., `- ? -?
P T?'
t \ ^l / _
.?/ r'?° ?• '.v 1 ??? ???`-F/'' ^ -"??, ?-°-^j I??\?\\
Imo- L `?--? ?i' ?-,_" _ O*-" ?. -? _ ?:'?,^`•j i" ?!^',??? 1 'yF o ? ?? JI ,. .':?
i V,
??.• '?? ,r 31.5 - /,? // j r?^ C
-Y Ce
1718 J / , \
1712 1 '-
?;/ ? ? ., i J ? Via/ / ?\ i ? ? 1' / ° i / ?QT ? ? ti-J 111 ?1 II,?-.
ck r r r L
r i
N i"
71
;?_ i^?,-, J?;. ;, .--Cerra ? J j ? : _??r ?? ;.1 ,_ ?? >>•? s '\
CC)
`• ? ??\\ ? /'/ / ??. /?? /? ?/ ^.1901 o.:5<i1, ?. \?,\?f -... ?, -??
`?J ijr ?- ??i JAI ? ?\?-?.? ? \:? l _? 'I ..-???" ??T
ABM _ _ °
R > 1
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
T REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
?. C?.IL G?tqis DE Hmz-(efin
FROM:__ REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
C _JOHN Wl" t/*4" 2 C
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 4, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
i ll?J L'a 0 l/ IS
n ley. ? {I -
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Change of time for Review of Scoping Sheet for Bridge
No. 4 on US 15 in Granville County over Ledge Creek,
B-2563
The scoping meeting for this project was scheduled for March 3, 1994
at 3:00 P. M. in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room
(Room 434). Due to a scheduling conflict, the time has been moved from
3:00 P. M. to 1:30 P. M. on the same day in the same room. Please make
note of this in your files.
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 John Williams, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-3141.
JW/plr
Attachment
rw?
jr
SCOP I NG MEETING OUTLINE
B-2563, Granville County
This is the scoping meeting for the replacement of Bridge No.
4 on US 15 over Big Lodoe Creek (Ledge Creek) in Granville
County.
State work order number: S.1370501
Federal aid number: BRSTP-15(2)
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
- Accord in- to Br id--.e Main_enance Records, the existing
bridve was built in 1'=?25 (reconst. 1949)
It is a 33.5 meter (94 foot) long. 10.1 meter (33.
foot) tide concrete and steel bridge with a 23.1
sufficiencv fatinc,
Currently- the bridge is not posted
The b.-ida carries 2 lanes of .,raffic and has 9.3
meters (3,0'1.2 feet) of clear deck width.
The bridge is approximately 6.7 meters (212 feet)
a )o.-e the stream
15 's Class',ficd rural Ma-or Collector and ha.s a
Po zec. speet 1 i m i 1 ?o C 55 ?p l (90 k )h} T(r?af f is co1U is
a r 0 VP? no 5211)0 P U n ' r)-•'•r , and `'L:i) l:' VP %
projected for 2017.
i _iC nii6"y 7eeii ' iCCi tS W1til n the past ar`+
One occure(i due to hitting standing water at one end of
the bride. The other occured due to the driver
falling asleep and running off the road.
- There are no special bicycle concerns
There are 10 school bus crossings daily-. David
Faucette. Transportation'Director for Granville Courity
said there would be no problems with road closure.
- The Division Eng,ineer's staff has indicated a
preference for detouring traffic along NC 56 and i-S5
with no opposition to local traffic using shorter
roues.
The replacement structure should be 38 meters (125-feet.) long
and 9.1 meters (30 feet) wide.
WHAT SHOULD THE DESIGN SPEED BE
WHAT ALTERNATIVES SHOULD BE EXPLORED ?
.Request a COST ESTIMATE from Roadway Design along with an
approximate TYPICAL SECTION annd.a ROUGH SKETCH.