19990876 Ver 1_Complete File_19990803

& a. . w•
State. of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Divisio,p of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
ILF!WAA
1
•
T
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
August 27, 1999
Durham County
DWQ Project # 990876
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Bill Gilmore
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, for the purpose of'replacing bridge #91 over SR
1809, as you described in your application dated August 3, 1999. After reviewing your application, we have decided that
this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3107. This Certification allows you to use National
Permit Number 23 when the Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local
permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal
Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the
accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of
this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for
this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC
2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. This
approval shall expire when the corresponding Nationwide Permit expires or as otherwise provided in the General
Certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 276 1 1-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Sincerely,
C?
U
Kerr T. Stevens
990876.Itr
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd, Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
http://h2o.enr.state. nc. us/wedandc.htmI
STATE or NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 2761 ?-5201 DAVID McCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
26 July 1999 . .
Mr. John Hennessy
Division of Water Ouality/Wetlands
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. NC 27699-16--
ATTENTION: John Hennessy
Division of Water Quality/Wetland.
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Durham County, Replacement of Bridge No. 91 on SR 1809 over Lick
Creek. TIP No. B-2964, State Project No. 8.2351701. Federal-Aid No.BRZ-1809(2;.
This is a request for a Neuse Buffer Permit. Thank you very much for making this
process easier on such short notice. Please find attached the permit packaged originally
sent the Army Corp of Engineers.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Wendee M. Britt at [phone],
extension 334.
cc: Hal Bain, Natural Systems Supervisor
?+i
a-141. _ ,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPOPTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
April 26, 1999
U. S. Army Corps of Engineer-
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Icon,
Suite 12^
Raleigh. N,7 2?... _.
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmevr
NCDOT Coordmatn-
Dear Sir:
E. NoRRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Durham County, Replacement of Bridge No. 91 on SR 1809 over Lic
Creek. TIP No. B-2964, State Project No. 8.23 1 ederal Aid Proiect
No. BRZ-1809(2).
Please find attached the Categorical Exclusion and Construction Consultation for the
referenced project. The recommendation for replacement of Bridge No. 91 over Lick
Creek has changed since the Categorical Exclusion was approved. The original proposal
was to replace Bridge No. 91 on existing location with a single barrel reinforced concrete
box culvert. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) now proposes
to replace Bridge No. 91 on existing location with a new bridge. The new bridge will be a
cored slab structure approximately 114ft long with two spans of 57ft. The new approach
roadway will be a 7.2 meter (24 foot) travelway with shoulder widths of at least 2.4
meters (8 feet). Traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads during construction.
A temporary work pad will also be required for this project. Temporary impacts to the
surface waters from the temporary causeway total 0.013 acre. The temporary causeway
will be constructed of clean rock and will be removed from the streambed to the greatest

\ ?V
v

?'l?MP r •*
2
extent practical without extensive disturbance of the existing streambed after constructi
Some residual may remain. Construction plans detailing the proposed causeway are
depicted in the attached drawings.
No wetlands will be impacted by the proposed construction. The project is being
processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in
accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with
33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued 13 December 1996, by the Corps of Engineers. .
The NCDOT is also requesting a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary
Construction Access and Dewatering) authorizing the construction of the causeway. The
provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in
the construction of the project
By copv of this letter. the DOT also asks that the appropriate General 401 Water Qua-;
Certification be issued by the Division of Water Quality for this construction activity. L
you nave any questions, please contact Mr. Lindsev Riddick at [phone]. extension
sincere:..
William D. Giimore, P. E., Mana-
Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Whit Webb, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P. E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, P. E., Division 5 Engineer
41
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDFj,,PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 33
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DMSION OF COASTAL MANAGmExT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COLLETED FORM TO THE
APPROPRIATE FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PF.INT-
1. OWNERS NAME:: NCDC
2. MAILING ADDRESC: P O Box
CITY: Raleiar.
SUBDIVISION NP217
STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611 "
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FRGr.
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER: William D. Gilmore, P. E.
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Durham NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Durham
1
0 'e... A
I
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
so
Bridge No. 91 over the Lick Creek on SR 1809
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER:
RIVER BASIN: Neuse
Lick Creek
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7L. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COAS'--.!-
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X1
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE '/ I'-
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGN..-'-
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USA
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X1 IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER
OF PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY C
401 CERTIFICATION)
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0.0

2

10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0.0 EXCAVATION:
FLOODING: OTHER:
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.00
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): . NIT- FT
WIDTH AFTER: N/A FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Temporary placement of stone in channel
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N/A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY):
Construction of a new bridge over the Lick Cree
Road construction equipment
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: To improve safety of the traveling
public by replacing a sub-standard bridge
3
r
•
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE
CARRIED OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE
WETLAND IMPACTS): N/A
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USL
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AI:
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO []
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [ ]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4

18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18,
21, 26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? rural
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL:
N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
' G• `?u.t.^' s? ? ' ? ?T I mow "L? `l ?f `7

OWNER' S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5

lo?ut? H? '6?
,lie'
11
iALAMA N

V
?
- r
Scale of Miles
m
i
30
C t0 3" 40 48
Stale of Kilometer

Nat
h
lanhon• ?
wovr, ., . • eauxlacn ^. -, , a ,.,yet awn aowo.?mateh : ... eye.

I
`?I t 1
J C) Ul J
lD if) ul ? `T

0
, a
I
I °-
I I Y
m o
I
(y I I
o
I

I I I oo o
I

`G
L, oLn
I
I w N
?i I I
II

O T
U-'
I Q
I
I l.J
c? ? I Lf,
u - >
j I F- W
Z Vl J
m w J I w w

o I I
I W I ?-
i
?
r I \L _

I
l I O
f 41

I

J, u. I
W I

O W
CT) ?D /

CD
W
<

_
vil m
<
Lt
Vim) (-D ?
p I p U.

p
cc pp I W
>
m + I Q, a

o
z - ?I J
0 J' 3
J CC) i U t-
= _ V
c,J I
I N
I x
W
I WI
I

a I. I
I

? I
0
L
I

p I

W I
V)

a
O
tz
d
0
0
ti
0
11
o;u
?
u
co
w a,
V) o
CD 1- +
+
s t Qi? ID
"- w
d

w

E `-
0
u'i
U(
1

Q
d
_ CL
CI] Vl Y
V) Q O Q n

Q CL c ?
I J CL
I

'
CL
c' Q
nl d
N
J (L O
Ln
W w
i
C l ?-
-D I
OI

0

?n
w I
O
I Z

? R
? .fir
?
? rte' UJ
® 5 r ? ,? z
w z z ?
z ?' o o w

Q!
cs•,
O
z
? c:,
U
U?
O
E- Q C U @ U
w Q o -a -- r9

F?

U_ O
F?
w O
? T+
O ?
II II

1
P

s L)
r
+
LLJ
m V)
Cr
W
ti
O Z
C.7
Z
U) W
LLJ
Q LL
1 N V)
o
w
F-
o
u
?J
Z w o

C
ai ui
m ' I'
V) cc

o F -? I i
I ? _ I II
I
LC C REP'
QD
2Q
a_
a
cr
n C-
C)
? rn
m
a
J
O V
0
Q-
5
I / ? I

I
y o
-•
L j a ?.
(If
LLJ

W
a
I I ??? °
I
?
r,

-
U-)
I_ w
C
E .
Gz7
-
IIw V) ? o z U w :? 9
II
I = °
uj o N
I I ?
l ? w c o
c U 0 W W W

? ?
o W
?
I II ? o z I

? LO
I
I i ? r1

Cl.
c

-I ? a a
I m
z a
o w a
I ? F

I bi

'x/ I U a
W Z
a
r p ?I m
? Q ?, - x ti w
O Y ?
I?
20
W O
I m I W N _ ? ?'
I
?°- ° ? I I °° I I I le g \
= v -
ti] x I I N I I Ir _
U W I I I I Li
m?? o I ? I ml ? ?I ? ?'3 E"-
I I ?I I I? M "? o
? ? I I I I ?
? I I I '? I I? - F
r, I
I I tl
w
a
LL
0
U-1
U
W
n
w
I I
i
i
n
w
w!
F
G.
°
Wm
U
Fa
ON
7-
w
oz

Durham County
SR 1809
Bridge No. 91 over Lick Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1809(2)
State Project No. 8.2351701
T.I.P. No. B-2964
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIOi
ANT'
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI(_
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
2z &
DATE
Nicholas L. raf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
(Z 112 ty
DATE
J
Durham County
SR 1809
Bridge No. 91 over Lick Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1809(2)
State Project No. 8.2351701
T.I.P. No. B-2964
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November, 1996
Documentation Prenared By Ko & ASsociat,,...
Lisa Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
c ?• ?_ n r
0
4
a
4 p
4
0 0°
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
•
L. Gail rimes, P. ., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Philip S. Harris, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
ti
Durham County
SR 1809
Bridge No. 91 over Lick Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1809(2)
State Project No. 8.2351701
T.I.P. No. B-2964
Bridge No. 91 is included in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. Si 7MMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize
environmental imnac.
2. Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds in Sedimentation Pollution Control Guidetmes
(Title 15A NCAC 413. 0024) will be evaiuated because the crossine is within 1.0 Kilomete-
(1.0 mil of and drains to Falls Lakc.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 91 will be replaced in its existing location with a culvert. During construction traffic will ,
be detoured on SR 1902 and NC 9
The estimated cost for the proposed improvement is $332,000 . The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $270,000 including
$20,000 for right-of-way and $250,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1809 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The
proposed project is located in a rural area of southeastern Durham County approximately 304 meters
(1000 ft) south of the intersection of NC 98 and SR 1809 (Figure 1). The area in and around the
study corridor is primarily forested.
Near the bridge, SR 1809 has a 6.7 meter (22 ft) unpaved roadway width with no shoulders. The
roadway approaches slope downward from south to north. The horizontal alignment is tangent on
the bridge with a 120 meter radius (14.5 degree) curve approximately 160 meters (525 ft) from the
bridge to the north. The south approach is tangent. The roadway is situated approximately 3.4 meters
(11 ft) above the creek bed.
The traffic volumes were 100 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1995 and projected to be 400 vpd for the
design year 2020. The volumes include I% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired (DT)
vehicles. The speed limit is not posted and assumed to be 72 kilometers per hour (45 mph).
The existing bridge was built in 1961 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of four timber joist
spans. Bridge deck construction is a creosote timber floor deck with an asphalt wearing surface. The
substructure consists of creosote timber pile end bents and interior bents with timber caps.
The overall length of the bridge is 21.0 meters (69 ft). Clear roadway width is 5.8 meters (19.2 ft).
The posted weight limit is 7257.6 kilograms (8 tons) for single vehicles and 13,608.0 kilograms (15
tons) for tractor trailer trucks. SR 1809 is unpaved.
Bridge No. 91 has a sufficiency rating of 39. 1, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Two accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from April 1, 1992 to
March 31, 1995.
On overhead electric line crosses ttte stream west of the bridge and a telephone line crosses the strear._
east of the bridge. There are no utilities attachea to the brid.-
Scnool buses cross this bridge a total of tour times daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
No alternatives were considered for replacement of the bridge in its existing location. Utilizing the
existing roadway provides the best alignment and the lowest cost. A relocated alignment would resuit
in excessive cost and undesirable horizontal alignment. The approaches will be paved for 30 meters
(100 ft) from each end of the culvert. Temporary, on-site detours were considered west (Temporary
Detour 1) and east (Temporary Detour 2) of the existing bridge. Based on a benefit-cost ratio of
0.07:1, an on-site detour is not reasonable (see Section VII.). During construction traffic will be
detoured on SR 1902 and NC 98, a distance of 5.8 kilometers (3.6 mi) (see Figure 1).
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternative was also considered but would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1809.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of
the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
2
V. EST TED COST
The estimated costs of the alternative studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
Alternate A Alternate A
with on-site with off site
detour detour
(Recommended)
Structure Removal $8,190.00 $8,190.00
Structure $101,400.00 $101.400.00 '
Roadway Approaches ` $93.540.00 $93,540.00
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $61,870.00 $61,870.00
Engineerin¢ and Contingencic $35.000.00 $35,000.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easement / Util. 1 $32.000.00 $32.000.00
SUBTOTAL $332,000.00 $332,000.0; '
Temporary On-Site Detour $174,500.00 NA
TOTAL $506,500.00 $332,000.00
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 91 will be replaced on its existing location with a triple barrel 3.0 meter x 2.7 meter (10
ft x 9 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert. The approaches will be improved for 30 meters (100 ft) on
each end of the culvert. Traffic will be detoured on SR 1902 and NC 98 during construction, a
distance of approximately 5.8 kilometers (3.6 mi) (see Section VII.).
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
VII. TRAFFIC DETOUR
The Division Engineer concurs that traffic can be detoured on existing roads during the construction
period. A four month road closure period is anticipated. The off-site detour roadway and bridges
are adequate to accommodate affected traffic during the construction period.
A road user analysis was performed for detouring traffic on existing roads based on 100 vpd and an
average of 5.8 kilometers (3.6 mi) of indirectional travel utilizing SR 1902 and NC 98 (See Figure
1). The cost of additional travel would be approximately $13,000 during the four month construction
period. The estimated cost of providing an on-site detour is $174,500, resulting in a benefit-cost ratio
of 0.07:1. This ratio does not indicate justification to maintain traffic on-site during the construction
period.
VIII. NA MAI RESO 7R
CES
Methods
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including the applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle mapping
(Bayleaf and Southeast Durham, N.C.), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland
Inventory mapping (NWI), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) (formerly Soil
Conservation Service) soils information (USDA 1976), and 1994 aerial photography (scale: 1:1200)
famished by NCDOT.
The principal investigator for natural resources was Kevin Markham with Environmental Services,
Inc. Mr. Markham received his B.S. and M.S: degrees in Marine Biology from the University of
North Carolina, Wilmington. He has eight years of experience in coastal ecosystems evaluation,
wildlife surveys, wetland delineations, mitigation planning, and threatened and endangered specis.
issues.
The site was visited on March 27, 199(,. Communities likely to be impacted by propose,"
improvements were walked and visually surveyed for important features. Surveys were conducts,
within a study corriaor approximately 91.4 meters (300 ft) in width, symmetrical to the existing
alignment. However, impact calculations are based on the approximate right-of-way, and temporar,
construction easements. Special concerns evaluated include potential habitat for protectea specie.
wetlands, and water quality protection in Lick Creep
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three
parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas are characterized
according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitat used by
terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were
determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation
(Martof et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Menhinick 1991; Hamel 1992). Recreational fishing
potential was determined by utilizing Fish (1968). Water quality information for area streams and
tributaries was derived from available sources (DEM 1991, DEM 1993). Quantitative sampling was
not undertaken to support existing data.
A USFWS listing of federal protected species with ranges which extend into Durham County was
obtained prior to initiation of field studies. In addition, NHP records documenting presence of federal
or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
4
Physiography and Soils
Durham County is situated in the Piedmont physiographic iprovince. Topography is characterized by
rolling hills with some steep slopes parallel to the major streams. Elevations in the study corridor
vicinity range from approximately 91 meters (300 ft) just north of the study corridor at the
intersection of SR 1809 and NC 98, to approximately 79 meters (260 ft) along the creek bottom
(USGS Bayleaf/Southeast Durham, NC quadrangles). The study corridor is in the Triassic Basin
geological region and is underlaid by arkosic sandstone (DNRCD 1985).
Soils in the study corridor are Altavista silt loam (Aquic Hapludults), Chewacla/Wehadkee soils
(Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts/Typic Fluvaquents), and Pinkston fine sandy loam (Ruptic-Ultic
Dystrochrepts). Chewacla/Wehadkee are on the national list of hydric soils (USDA 1991). The
Altavista series is a moderately chained soil typically found on stream terraces. Permeability in this
series is moderate. Seasonal high water table is approximately 0.8 meters (2.5 ft) below the surface.
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils are somewhat poorly drained and are typically found on maior stream
and river floodplains. These soils are flooded freauently for brief periods. However, except for one
small rocket in the southwest comer of the study corridor, ttre Cnewacra series does not aemonstraL
hydric conditro.
WATER RESOURCE
Waters imnac
The study corridor is located within the Neuse River Drainage Basin (USGS hydrologic unit
03020201). Bridge No.91 crosses Lick Creek approximately 0.3 kilometer (0.2 mi) south of the
junction of NC 98 and SR 1809. The creek flows from west to east through the study corridor beforc
turning northeast and emptying into Falls Lake. Lick Creek has been assigned Stream Index Number
27-11-(0.5) by the N. C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (DEM 1993). A best
usage classification of WS-IV NSW has been assigned to the segment of Lick Creek (DEM 1993)
within the study corridor. The designation WS-IV denotes the stream is protected as a water supply
in a moderately to highly developed watershed, with strict requirements for point source discharges.
Local programs exist to control non-point source and stormwater discharges. Additional appropriate
uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with water on an incidental or
infrequent basis. The NSW designation indicates Nutrient Sensitive Waters. Within areas with this
designation, no increase in stream nutrient levels over background levels is generally permitted.
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, or WS-II waters occur within 1.6 kilometers (1
mi) of the study corridor. Lick Creek is within 1.6 kilometers ( 1 mi) of Falls Lake critical area. Falls
Lake is designated WS-IV and HQW. No permitted point source discharges occur on Lick creek
(DEM 1991). Lick Creek is not a North Carolina state designated Natural and Scenic River, nor is
it a nationally-listed Wild and Scenic River.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates . Species
richness and overall biomass are considered to be reflections of water quality. There is one BMAN
special study site, identified as DEM site 55, located approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) upstream
from the study corridor. This site received a bioclassification rating of Fair (DEM 1991).
Lick Creek is characterized as broad and shallow, averaging approximately 7.6 meters (25 ft) in
width and approximately 0.6 meters (1.0 ft) in depth. The stream meanders slightly within the study
corridor. The steep bank slopes are approximately 1.8 to 3.7 meters (6 to 12 ft) in height. Flow i,,
slow to moderate and the water exhibited no turbidity at the time of this survey. The stream bed i!
composed of gravel and sand. Approximately 9.1 meters (30 ft) west of the bridge. an unnamec
tributary empties into Lick (reel
Anticipated impacts to Water Resource
Short-term impacts on water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction-related activities. Adverse impacts will be minimized by implementing the NCDOT B-tq
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs), as applicable, during constructio-, •
No adverse "long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from proposed
improvements. The proposed culvert will allow for continuation of present flow rates thereby
protecting stream integrity.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Uniformity of the plant communities in the project vicinity result in two classifications: mesic
hardwood forest, dominating floodplain areas, and urban/disturbed land within power line right-of-
ways and along road sides. The plant communities are described below.
Mesic Hardwood Forest
This community characterizes the floodplain areas of Lick Creek. The canopy is dominated by
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), and
American beech (Fagus grandifolia). River birch (Betula nigra), American Sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), and Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) also occurs in the southwest section of the study
6
corridor. The midstory/shrub layer is composed of ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), dogwood
(Corpus florida), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and strawberry bush (Euonvmus
americanus). Herbs include field garlic (Allium sp.), and heartleaf (Hexastvlis virginica).
Urban/Disturbed Land
This community includes disturbed roadside margins and areas beneath power lines. Vegetation in
these areas is composed of a variety of species such as red maple, tulip poplar, devils' walking stick
(Aralia spinosa), cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and blackberries (Rubes spp.), as well as successional
grasses and herbs.
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated nasea on tae amount of each plant communitv
present within the proposed right-of-wav and temporary construction easements. A summary of Diu:.
community impacts wtucn may reswt rrom construction activities is presentea beio . .
Table 1. Estimatea giant community impact.,
PLANT COMMUNI'I ' ESTIMATED IMPACI
in hectares nacres in parentheses)
Alternative A Temp. Detour 1 Temp. Detour 2
Mesic hardwood forest 0.13 (0.31) 0.17 (0.42) 0.20 (0.49)
Urban/Disturbed Land 0.40(l.00) 0.02 (0.06) 0.00 (0.00)
TOTAL: 0.53 (1.31) 0.19 (0.48) 0.20 (0.49)
Impacts to plant communities as a result of Alternative A are restricted to narrow strips immediately
adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments. Approximately 0.13 hectare (0.31
ac) of natural plant community will be impacted.
The off-site detour alternative is not expected to result in impacts to plant communities due to the
utilization of existing roads. Temporary on-site detour alternatives exhibit minor variations in the
distribution of potential impacts to plant communities. Temporary Detour 2 will impact slightly more
of the natural forested plant communities than Temporary Detour 1. Impacts to plant communities
as a result of either detour alternative are temporary.
Construction of the proposed alternative is not expected to result in substantial adverse impacts to
the plant communities within the study corridor. No additional habitat segmentation is expected.
Wildlife
The study corridor is currently characterized by natural forest vegetation with disturbed land located
in power line right-of-way and roadside margins Forested floodplains bordering Lick Creek have all
the necessary components (food, water, and protective covering) for wildlife species adapted to non-
fragmented forest habitat.
Mammalian species expected in the study corridor include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),
raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), and Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Avian species are typical of mesic and bottomland torest
communities. Noted species include Carolina wren (Thrvothorus ludovicianus), blue jay (Cyanocitt.
cristata), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), red-bellied woodpecker (Meianerves caroling..
downy woodpecker (Picoides villosus). American crow (Corpus brachyrnvnchos), Caroima
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), American robin (Turaus mieratorius), song sparrow (Melospiz
melodia), and eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis). Reptr?es and amphibians expected within the studv
corridor include American toad (Bufo amencanus), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carohna), black rat snake (Elanhe obsoieta). eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus),
and five-imed skink (Eumeces fasciana).
Lick Creek typically has slow to moderate stream velocity. The creek is of limited recreational fishing
importance, primarily for sunfishes (Lepomis spp.) (Fish 1968). Nongame species that may be
expected include redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), and
rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides). Amphibians such as spotted salamander (Ambystoma
maculatum), red-spotted newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), chorus frogs (Pseudacris spp.), and
toads (Bufo spp.) are expected to use pools for breeding during spring wet periods.
Due to the limited extent of infringement of natural communities, the proposed culvert will not result
in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal populations. Maintenance
of regular flow and stream integrity will minimize potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitats
by the proposed bridge replacement. In addition, permanent and temporary impacts to downstream
habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimised by implementation of the
NCDOT Rest Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Surface waters within the embankments of Lick Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 404 as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Creek waters are classified as
palustrine open water systems (POW).
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at
or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). Based on this
three parameter approach, jurisdictional wetlands are restricted to a small area in the southeast section
of the study corridor. This community exhibits characteristics of palustrine forested, broad-leaved
deciduous, temporarily flooded wetlands (PFOI A). The following table summarizes wetland impact::
which will result from in-place bridge replacement and tmnorary detours
Table 2. Estimated Wetlana impuc.
WETLAND TYPE ESTIMATED IM-PAC-1
in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A temp. Detour 1 Tema. Letc- .
PFO1 A: 0.00 (0.00 0.03 (0.07) 0.00 (0.00)
Minor impacts to palustrine open water (POW) are expected as a result of bridge replacement by a
reinforced concrete box culvert. The POW impacts are 0.02 hectare (0.05 ac) for Alternative A, 0.01
hectare (0.02 ac) for Temporary Detour 1, and 0.01 hectare (0.02 ac) for Temporary Detour 2. No
wetlands will be impacted by in-kind replacement of the existing structure.
Permits
impacts to surface waters are anticipated from project construction. In accordance with provisions
of Section 404 of the CWA, a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of dredge or
fill material into "Waters of the United States."
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of
the United States from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another federal agency or department
where:
(1) that agency or department has determined pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually
9
nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment; and,
(2) 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 that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) prior to the issuance of a Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the
CWA requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States.
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of project impacts.
Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Tnreatened (T), proposed endangered, and
proposed threatened are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (J
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal protected species are listed for Durnam County (August
23, 1996 USFWS list.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) - F
Michaux's sumac (Rhus Michauxii) - E
Bald eagle (Hahaeetus leucocephalus) -T
Smooth coneflower - This species grows in calcareous, basic, or circumneutral soils on road sides,
clear cuts, and power line right-of-ways where there is abundant light and little herbaceous
competition. Fire-maintained woodlands also appear to provide potential habitat for the coneflower.
NBP records indicate that this species has not been documented within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of
the study corridor. Disturbed areas in the project study corridor are regularly maintained, providing
little or no opportunity for growing of this species. No specimens were noted during field surveys.
This project is not expected to affect smooth coneflower because shading of road sides by adjacent
forest trees and routine mowing reduce the suitability of road sides within the study corridor for this
species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Michaux's sumac - Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous shrub, which
tends to grow in disturbed areas where competition is reduced by periodic fire or other disturbances,
and may grow along roadside margins or utility right-of-ways. In the Piedmont, Michaux's sumac
appears to prefer clay soil derived from mafic rocks or sandy soil derived from granite (Weakley
10
1993). NHP records indicate that this species has not been documented within 1.6 kilometers (1.0
mile) of the study corridor. Stable, relatively undisturbed habitat is not present within the study
corridor for N ichaux's sumac.
This project is not expected to affect NVlichaux's sumac because shading of road sides by adjacent
forest trees and routine mowing reduce the suitability of road sides within the study corridor for this
species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Bald Eagle - The bald eagle is found primarily in association with large lakes and coastal bays and
sounds where food is plentiful. Nest sites are built close to feeding grounds in large trees
(predominately pine or cypress), either living or dead. Eagles are opportunistic hunters ' and
scavengers, feeding on a wide variety of aquatic-dependent organisms including fish, snakes. small
mammals and large water birds. There is no suitable habitat for this species within the study comd: r
NHP records indicate that this species has not teen documented within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mi) or the
study corridor
1ms protect is not expected to affect bala eagles due to the lack of ioragmg ana nesting opportunities
in Lick Creek within the study corridor. Construction activities may temporarily displace any bale
eagles foraging in the vicinity: however, no documentea nesting activity will be disrupted.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFE!"
Federal species of concern - The August 23, 1996 USFWS list also incluaes a category of species
designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection for the species listed. NHP files do not document any FSC within the study corridor. The
following are listed as FSC for Durham County:
Common Name
Atlantic pigtoe
Green floater
Yellow lampmussel
Panhandle peeblesnail
Septimas's clubtail dragonfly
A liverwort
Butternut
Sweet pinesap
Tall larkspur
State Protected Species
Scientific Name Potential Habitat
Fusconaia masoni Y
Lasmigona subviridis Y
Lampsilis cariosa Y
Somotogyrus virginicus N
Gomphus septima Y
Plagiochila Columbiana N
Juglans cinerea N
Monotropsis odorata N
Delphinium exaltatum N
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), or Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species
Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12
et seq.).
NHP records indicate two state-listed Special Concern species, four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium
scutatum) and Douglass' bittercress (Cardamine douglassii), both of which have been documented
within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) downstream from the study corridor. The proposed project is not
expected to have adverse long-term impacts on these species. Impacts to these species will be
avoided/minimized to the greatest extent possible and notification to the NHP will be given prior to
construction.
IX. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that for federalir,
funded, licensed, or permitted projects, having an etrect on properties listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment.
In a concurrence form dated May 9, 1996 the Federal Highway Aaministration, NCDOT, and the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred that were are no propertiic",
including Bridge No.91, in the area of potential effect (APE) listed in or eligible for the National
Register (see Appendix for Concurrence Form).
In their April 22, 1996 letter, the SHPO stated that there are no known archaeological sites in the
proposed project area and it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible fo
the National Register of Historic Places will be affected. They recommended no archaeoiogical
investigation be conducted in connection with this project (see Appendix for SHPO letter). Therefore,
the NCDOT has not conducted nor will conduct any archaeological work in connection with this
project.
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially unsafe bridge.
Inconvenience to motorists will be negligible since traffic volumes are low and other connecting
roadways in the immediate vicinity are available.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
12
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No significant
change in existing land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The project is included within Falls Lake State Recreational Area, part of which is a registered natural
area and subject to Section 4(f). However, since the project consists of replacing a bridge in its
existing location with a culvert, Section 4(f) does not aDDly. There are no other publicly owned Dal!..
recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl retuges of national, state. or local significance in the
vicinity of the project.
Since the project will consist of replacing an existing bridge in its existme location with a culvert, the
harmland Protection Policv Act does not apply.
This project is an air quality "neutral' protect, so it is not required to be included in the region:
emissions analysis and a project level CO analvsis is not reouirea.
Noise levels could increase during demolition but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC;
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title
23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Durham County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The bridge is
located in an Approximate Study Area. The Flood Boundary and Floodway Map is included in the
Appendix. This map indicates the approximate limits of the 100-year and the 500-year floodplains as
well as the 100-year floodway. Since the proposed culvert will be an in-kind replacement, it is not
anticipated that this project will have a significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain and
floodway nor on the associated flood hazard to the adjacent properties and buildings.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.
13
REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USFWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Tech. Rpt.
Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS. 100 pp.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (DNRCD). 1985. Geologic Map
of North Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Ouality iu
North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water
Quality, 1983-1990. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Water Quality Section. RaleigL.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standar.
Assigneci to the Waters of the Neuse River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environmei;:
Health, and Natural Resources, kaieig.,.
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh. 312 pr.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservanc ,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 4Y/ pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and CR. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Schafale, M. P. and Weakley, A. S. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1976. Soil Survey information provided by the Durham
County SCS office, North Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 74 pp.
14
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. In cooperation
with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Soil Conservation Service.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working Draft of November
1993. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 575 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
15

I <o
f?lJ? l.f 11c
Itr?'
)URHAM
101. IOO,J7L
ru
Sy? .
7
MATCH
731 )
J ,Y
1
?L
o .l CY?/ K-
RIV
L:ItiE
Y
r
lM 3 Q
- -- - - - - f°imlolht
i7
ILII
'^
?-
Ys* 05,
::'. ? (ThY
tlli
F 1111 ?t?p ? ? urharo . i
? IS ?YP°h /
T
i lSli C^M.F t? ©
?n 1J
OvLr COU1 "
w
.R t?ti IOµmc.I
r
ror. 2,,e7 IIRI
r •
Awidd
J?
1
!01 i. t t • ?, / -;. it
83 1014
f
M
i
t? fA ., ... w i 3
FA /
. O _ Srr. J v ??°1U7.1 l /? V 76• p
33 70
° ? .:.t ?•..1 ./ IJy?_7 1 1101 , ?I ? /
Y
F a? _ r70. lW 7.S -I3G J • TO. tVAKf
I 7 ,1
?Y (, (AU• Y ?J j., ... 1
14C 98 fA L1 SA L!1
,ppt I 1
r I J< 'O? ':. Jv .RRS.
b 8? I •.? uJ t ` e
Ifik d O
I I \ J.-• .,_l-.-'.',; rau- .7 ' .?Ifgr ICI
RESEARCH
rm Iul Im
33
'_.I PARK 4 10 10 • ?"
\-
?ry IS' 33'
SRS!
0 © \
AI 1i7 ? 7 Lf77
p 1 0 0 mll?r ?!.,?
0 1 O .0 J.0 k- J
Source: County Road Maps, 4 4 2
NCDOT, 1990
0
,..o3J
Studied Detour Route Site Location Map Figure: 1
Bridge # 91
Aft SR 1809 Over Project:
Lick Creek
Durham County, NC Date: AUG 1996
B-2964
II,
JF 40
?,;, - I A - - - -,; A?
try .f ..
'ft.

r( AA
?y
\
O

t
? 1
I

Rrl.• E"I

O O N

J < O
N
J
C

e o W J
m
o U } v
< >
'a
Y
U

O
7 O U o O
'
??,x7
<
< Z J ?
U ;
• LL
r U)
? CV
CD W
•'!
kgo5? O <oo
i
I- 'L x z
T+
rif
rr
0or : <<

? 1- Es co
pl
0
o:
a l: r.
? E
?
(n
J t
=J o Yj

!I ?1• i r?A { yP? ;.,?F
'? 5 J r a •? 17dS,•7,•.y?~ Ilrp ???` :?er'"+l •,?j."' .?.) t ` j i ??I ,fC? ?• py 1 A /'^
??tlr' + jJ?? h., ?'r}jk3 LLi??:? • 4 ? ` ? ?„' r?r .???} ?
ar •r* •? ? l?• '?, ? s t ` -+d ,?"+ 1,?1.` ?, ?'?( r? '?J? r I? ? .tJ '`p? ?+??t kr'4?3'r' .i? s,. yw
y = r ? / ;? R if i ,? fti • f 1? I'"r;la •? (' ,'A 1 r+"
•, I ! i?' 7.?.,? , ?a'• r i I ?' ? ;? ,vt1 , ti?, ?p, ? ta1y? '?, .'?. ;?,:-+? •? '
?. 'a, (^'? ? Aye r. ? r ?, ,{ ( ,ew' iE .?•' t-'-.4 . .. ? .Y' Af ?•'? .yer/. ,1? ?'?. ?',S' l,? ',??.
z •?? yiy Yi
ah x ,:r ; R rl l Ik • r I l _ ?ly" IF
,,?y 3 t a f e. l,i? a t:. !•? :; , y fir' x r ??: ;j? " .??+1„
_ ?Z. ??I^. ; ???? ?'?-0'; ? •,'uyj' 1 • + I d" ? 1?;?•fj ? `?, t 44°'•y 4• ? +M .{ ?•?? , a ?•;ljhy,+ ?L ;?, 1'?
.'l v `i RV r? :'i ,Y 1"" ".{pia /j, !?•,r „}'I •N Si1? D'r 111 M
.F, P? ,?,?y` rP?r?..- ??L R' < I1w?yy , ; ~ ``i.#??•c < ph7?lj • r' 't' •? ? ,^' #,
?,?4'•. '+ f ? ??Af ?. ? ,1.? ', "'rte ?' 3'? f. 1??"" _ ?. ?,S +p'. '?E
. or
it ,? :'7•' '?(??,' ;1 r :il t(? j?,? •.?`!' ?• ,1. - ? •','•?... ?' Y .71:11: ? • •?.
11
y??'y,''' r i ?_' 'I?'• 'ZN? - .k .? •I ?yJ/jt', 'vRL;,[, ,'•, R Il '•"!t•.,' 1
Z 3p +,, 1 i tip ?i'y r a a' i' • `:, - " ? } i1 % r i' s
' `?' ''fi'r Se! i+- i e^ ?;b '?..?<.. ?, , ?, .•?t . p 71
'OVA
•?a?I? ,r. ?^-i" •"'f' '1?"'r. y4i r ':c: .1?, t. "` ?? 2 M, :1;'_ ? ?.#1' ? ' _l'r ' i! a??`1'I?

a
YI
IM ? .. ?1
Y• ? i
V
i
BRIDGE NO. 91
DURHAM
COUNTY
B-2964
LOOKING NORTH
`i j

Brief Project Description WLAG,;,? i3RfDGE 49• X11 iN 41L I?bo? oveq- Ltrt- G EEiL
l??-lo?? c?uP X??
County PuV_P'&W1
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
On t+1M1 °? , tlgti , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FH%vA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping mecti::_
? Historic architectural resources photograph revicNv scssiorvconsuitatior.
Otlict
All parties present agrcca
? there arc no properties over fifty }'ears old within the project s area of uotcntial effects
? there arc no Droocrtics less than fifty years old which are considered to meet i.rrterie:
Consideration G within the projects area of potential cfrc-:
Signed:
G{ 4-
,? there arc no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Repres(
FHwr,
Federal Aid 9 I'W TIP n 61 - 'Y1 G4
there arc properties over fife years old (list attached) within the proicct's area of potential effcc:,..
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as arc considered not elieibi..
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
NCDOT
the Division A&ni?
, or other Federal Agcncy
I igg6'
late
Date
.) pI
Representative, HPO
e Historic Preservation OtT'rcer /
S
1,
T
ate
r 11'a sur•cy report is prepared, a final copy of this lonn and the z iclicd li,t %%ill be included.
STATE
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary kffrey J. Crow, Director
April 22, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highwayr,
Department of?Tlr\1ansoortaticr,
FROM: David Brook- -=-
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
I;
SUBJECT: Group XI bridge Replacement Proles
Bridge 91 on SR 1801 over Lick Creek, Uurnam Lour,,
B-2964, ER 96-851-
Thank you for vour letter of March 13, 199b, concerning the aoove proles,.
We are aware of no structures of historic or architectural importance within the general
area of the project. We recommend that an architectural historian on your staff iden-m y
and evaluate any structures over fitty years of age within the project area, and report th-
findings to us.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act 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.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2507 g??
State of North Carolina 4
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 0 ©
Division of Environmental Management , I /
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ®-11 ri
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 15, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Phil Harris
From: Eric Galamb"`"/
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group XI Bridge Reolacement Projects
The Water Qualitv Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests thL.
DOT consiaer the following generic environmental commitments for bride
reolaceme-:?.
DEM reauests that DOT strictly adhere to North Uarollna regulations entitled,
"Design Stanaards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) tnrcuch^t,
design and construction for this project in the area that drains to streams haw,.
WS (water supply), ORVV (cutstandina resource water), HQW (ngn qualit,
water), B (body contact), SA (shelltlsh water) or Tr (trout water) classiticatlc,-:?-
to protect existing use3.
D. DEM requests that bridges be replacea in existing location with road closur--. !f
an on-site detour or road realignment is necessarv, the approach fills should be
removed to pre-construction contour and revegetatea with native tree species at
320 stems per acre.
C. DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
D. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland
impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts may be required.
E. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
cc: Monica Swihart
Melba McGee
bridges.sco
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] "FAX [phone]
An Eaucl Ccccrtur ty Af`rmctive Achcn Em--lover 50% recycled/ 1 C% ccst-ccnsumer cceer
P?'"E"r Or rti United States Department of the Interior
o , ZT
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Offcc ! G E 1 v
' Post Office Box 33726 V
'QCH 3 11 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 March 27, 1996
7 MAR 2 b 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick GiVISIGti ?;;
Planning and Environmental Branch C HIGHWAYS
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201 ??0NVr,:,1
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
various counties, North Carolina (TIP Nos. 3-1204, 2514, 253:,
2818, 2861, 2862, 2873, 2964, 3011, 3035, 3085, 3274, 3392, 3410)
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of March 13, 1996 requesting inrormation from t.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for evaluating the potential
environmental impact- of the above-reverenced projects. This report provides
scopinq inrormatton and is provided in accordance witn provisions of the e.LSn and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 or the hnaangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves
as comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting
and/or certification processes for this project.
Preliminary planning ny the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
calls for the replacement of fourteen bridges in various Eastern North Carolin.-.
counties.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all
people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-
specific comments at this time. However, the following recommendations should
help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practlcaDie as outiinea in the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Bridge replacements should maintain natural water flows
and circulation regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage.
Habitat fragmentation should be minimized by using the existing disturbed
corridor instead of a new alignment. Impact areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should occur outside of anadromous fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at the time
of public notice issuance. Resource agency coordination should occur early in
the planning process to resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental
documentation for this project include the following (the level of detail should
be commensurate with the degree of environmental impacts):
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project including a
discussion of the project's independent utility;

2. An analysis of the alternatives to the proposed project that were
considered, including a no action alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the action
area of the proposed project which may be affected directly or
indirectly;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that
are to be impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or
draining. Wetland impact acreages should be differentiated by habitat
type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent,
that would be likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed
project. Also, an assessment should be included regarding the extent to
which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural
resources and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative
adverse effectZ;
o. Techniques which woula be employed to design and construct wetlar.
crossings, relocate stream cnannels, and restore, ennance or crew,
wetlands for compensatory mitigatici;.
7. Mitigation measures wnicn woula oe employees to avoia, minimize, recti_y,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with ti;,
project. These measures should include a aetaiied compensatcr-.
mitiqation plan for oftsettinq unavoidable wetland impact.
The attached page identifies the Federallv-listed endangerea, threatened,
candidate species that are xnown to occur in Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus,
Cumberland, Duplin, Durham, Greene, ?ender, Pitt, kooeson, Scotland, Wayne, and
Wilson counties. Habitat requirements for the Federally-listed species in the
project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site.
If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field
surveys for the species should be performed, and survey methodologies and results
included in the environmental documentation for this project. In addition to
this guidance, the following information should be included in the environmental
document regarding protected species (the level of detail should be ccmmensurate
with the degree of environmental impacts):
1. A specific description of the proposed action to be considered;
2. A description and accompanying map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
3. A description of the biolcgy and status of th e Listed species and of the
associated habitat that may be affected by the action, including the
results of an onsite inspection;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat:
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the crocosed action
and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of Federal,
State, and private activities in the project and cumulative effects
area;
c. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification;
d. Cumulative impacts of future State and private activities (not
requiring Federal agency involvement, that will be considered as
part of future Section 7 consultation);
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential effects;
6. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed
species or associated habitat including project proposals to
reduce/eliminate adverse effects;
7. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is
not likely to adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered
species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has
sufficient information on their biological status and threats to their survival
to propose them as endangered or threatenep under the Endangered Species AcL
(ESA). Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under the
Federal agencies are required to informally conzer with the service on act:cr:
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy
or modiry proposed critical habitat. Species of concern include those species
for which the Service does not nave enougn scientific information to support- a
listinc proposal or species which do not warrant listinc at the vresent t_,..
Species of Concern receive no statutory protection under tnc ISr., cut ccu-
oecome candidates in the ruture if additional scientific information becomes
avaiianle indicating they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing place
the species under the full protection of the ESA, and necessitates a new survr-
ii its status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prude-.-
for the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or tnc__
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted :or
information on species under State protectioi..
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us or the progress made in the planning process, includinc_-
your official determination of the impacts of tnis project.
Siacer_e y yo 's,
"--/q'. l Alsbn Lance
Ac4ing fie, Supe_visor
Attachments
cc: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
NMFS
FHWA
USACE
EPA
FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:3-26-96/919-356-4520 ext 19/wp:BMAR96.SCP

State of North Carolina »
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources , 4 0 o
Division of Parks & Recreation
1.V- r
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Dr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director
September 4, 1996
MEMORANDUNT
TO: Phil Harris
Department of Transportation
FROM: - Marshall Ellis M 6d-,
Planning and Natural Resources Sectio:!
SUBJECT: Section 4(f) Evaluation and Aooroval for bridge #91 on SR 18Uy over Lic_
Creek, Durham County. Reference Number B-2964.
The Division of Parks and Recreation has reviewed this project and does not have any objectic
to the plans outlined in the Section 4(f) evlauation. However, since this stream flows into Fall.
Lake State Recreation Area, we would like to offer the following comments:
1. The division's Natural Heritage Program database has no records of rare species or hign
quality natural communities at this site. However, we note that there are high quality examples
of bottomland forest and Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest along Lick Creek downstream
of this site.
2. There are several areas downstream along Lick Creek that have been designated as high
quality sites by the Natural Heritage Program and local conservation organizations. Much of
the vegetation in and around these natural areas is reasonably undisturbed.
Based on these points, the division requests that best management practices be carefully
administered to minimize erosion and siltation during the construction phase. Also, the division
requests that only native species be used to revegetate the site following construction.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Please contact the Division at 733-
4181 if you need additional information.
/me
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10`X, post-consumer paper
3
State of North Carolina '
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources / 4 ° o
Division of Parks & Recreation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ® ? ari I'll
-a
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Dr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director
August 12, 1996
Memorandum
TO: - Phil Harris. Project Engineer
r
FRON17 SteDhen Hall ?
SUBJECT: Draft Nationwide Section 4(f) Evaiuation -- Replacement of Bridge M. 91
over Lick Creek, SR 1809, Durham County
REFERENCE: TIP No. B-2964
The Corps property located on either side of the bridge has been identified by the Natura"
Heritage Program as a Priority Natural Heritage Area. The Division recommends that
disturbance to the adjoining forest be minimized as much as possible by replacing the bridge
along the existing alignment. In order to maintain Lick Creek as a wildlife travel corridor,
we further recommend that this crossing should be spanned by a new bridge, not by culverts.
An area beneath the bridge on both sides of the creek should be left as bare earth rather than
covered with rip-rap.
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 501 recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
May 15, 1996
: Page 4of4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects" in various Eastern
North Carolina counties
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
For additional information, please contact the following individuals:
Raleigh Field Office -
Jean Ivianueie at [phone], Extension 24, for Wilson Cou;
Eric Alsmeyer at [phone], Extension 23, for Durham County
Washington Field Oni?
Mike Beil at [phone], Extension 26, for Greene, Pitt. and Wayr:.
Counties
Wilmington Field CIfice -
Scott McLendon at [phone] for Brunswick, Cumberland, Columbus,
Rooeson, Scotland, Duplin, Pender, and Blades Counties
3. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROJECTS: POC - Dan Keir, Natural
Resources Management Section, at [phone]
The Natural Resources Management Section concurs in the Bridge No. 91
rc?o,clicln 3vcl LIck- CICCr\ III UtJIIIGIIt County. nVWCVCI, IIIIJ ICFIIdI.CIIICIII Illdy
involve Corps lands from the Falls Lake project: We request review of preliminary
plans and environmental reports so that we can grant the NCDOT an easement, right-
of-entry, or other real estate requirement if the work is outside of the Department's
existing right-of-way. Requests for lands use should be submitted to
Mr. Lloyd Williamson, Project Manager, at Falls Lake. The address is as follows:
Mr. Lloyd Williamson
Falls Lake Project Manager
11405 Falls of the Neuse Road
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587-9599
Tel: [phone]

? .. .:. ,
=-'m?.'?..? .
v