20141132 All Versions_Meeting Minutes_20100702

` STArfE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 2, 2010
MEMORANDUM TO: Meeting Participants
Ronnie Smith, USACE Steve Gurganus, NCDOT-PDEA, HEU
Gary Jordan, USFWS David Hams, NCDOT-Roadside Envir.
Felix Davila, FHWA John Frye, NCDOT-Structures
Travis Wilson, NCWRC Roger Thomas, NCDOT-RoadNyy Design
Chris Militscher, EPA Brian Robinson, NCDOT-Roadway Design
Renee Gledhill-Earley, HPO Derrick Weaver, NCDOT-PDEA
David Wainwright, NCDWQ Robert Memory, NCDOT, Utilities
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ Doumit Ishak, NCDOT, TP13
Janet Robertson, Lumber River RPO Eric Midkifl', NCDOT-PDEA t _ t4Q
Deanna Riffey, NCDOT-PDEA, NEU Anne Burroughs, NCDOT-PDEA, NEU
Leilani Paugh, NCDOT-PDEA, NEU Dennis Herman, NCDOT-PDEA, NEU
John Olinger, NCDOT-Division 8 Paul Petitgout, ESI
- Drew Joyner, NCDOT-PDEA, HEU Mark Reep, Ko/ Florence & Hutcheson
Andrew Nottingham, NCDOT-Hydraulics Brian Wiles, Ko/ Florence & Hutcheson
FROM: Steve Brown, PE
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch' _
SUBJECT: Concurrence Point 2A/ 4A Field Meeting US 1 from Sandhill Road
'+.. (SR 1971) to North of Fox Road (SR 1606), Richmond County, Federal-
Aid Project No . NHF-1(1), State Project No. 8.T580501, WBS No.
34437.1.1, T.I.P. No. R-2501.
Attached is the information package for the R-2501 Concurrence Point 2A/ 4A field meeting
scheduled for Wednesday July 21, 2010. This package responds to comments from the CP 2A/4A
meeting held on August 20, 2009. We will meet at 10:00am at the NCDOT District Office
conference room located near US 74 at 219 Clemmer Road, Rockingham, phone [phone].
In the office, we will discuss additional options considered at the Falling Creek and McDonalds
Pond Restoration Site crossing (Structure 8). Afterward, we will travel to the project site (off
NC 177 and E V Hogan Drive). We will have several vans available. If you have questions or need
other information, please contact me at slbrownPncdot.gov (919-733-7844, ext. 235). You may also
contact Mark Reep, of Ko/ Florence & Hutcheson, at mreep(a,flohut.com (919-851-6066). We look
forward to seeing you on July 21.
SLB/mlr
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
- RALEIGH NC
n
07/01/10
1 - US 1 from SandhiH Road (SR 1971) to North of Fox Road (SR 1606)
Richmond County, Division 8
NEPA Merger 01 Concurrence Pt. 2A/ 4A Meeting
An R-2501 Concurrence Point 2A/ 4A meeting was held August 20, 2009. This followed a September 18,
2008 Concurrence Point 2A / 4A merger team meeting and a November 12, 2008 field review. During the
field review, merger team members requested additional information at the following locations:
Structure 7 - South Prong Falling Creek (W26)
Structure 8 - Falling Creek (W37) at McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
Potential Wildlife Crossings - From Wiregrass Road (SR 1640) to Fox Road (SR 1606)
At the August 20 meeting, merger team members confirmed their agreement with culverts proposed at
seven of nine major stream crossings (Structures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9). Bridges are proposed at
Structures 7 and 8.
At South Prong Falling Creek (Structure 7), the main stem of the system receives a high quality
classification (using NCWAM) as a riverine swamp forest. The secondary stem also receives a high
rating as a bottomland hardwood wetland but is not as hydraulically important to the main stem. Potential
mitigation may be provided along properties between US 74 Business and the wetland system. NCDOT
proposes 450 foot dual bridges, equalizer pipes for wetland connectivity, and on-site mitigation. The
merger team members agree with NCDOT's recommendation.
At Falling Creek (Structure 8), the project crosses the 127 acre McDonalds Pond Restoration Site,
constructed by the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in 2005. It should be noted here that the Least
Environmentally Damaging Preferred Alternative for this project was formally established and selected in
2001, prior to construction of the EEP site. This site exhibits wetland restoration, enhancement, and
preservation opportunities. According to the third year's monitoring report, the site is meeting established
success criteria. Credits are available for stream and riparian restoration, enhancement, and preservation.
Based on input from the USACE, a current accounting of credits issued and available for this site is as
follows: ,
• 2,710 linear feet (10 of Stream Restoration
• 770 If of Stream Enhancement
• 5,800 if of Stream Preservation
• 15.96 acres (ac) of Riparian Restoration
• 4.20 ac of Riparian Enhancement
• 4.50 ac of Riparian Preservation
NCDOT proposed the 120 foot bridge length with 36 inch equalizer pipes on each side of the stream
crossing for wetland connectivity. A 60 inch pipe was also proposed for upland wildlife passage at this
site. Because of the high quality of this wetland system, the agency representatives do not support a 120
foot bridge across the system. Several expressed concerns that a shorter bridge would change the braiding
of the stream system and have indirect and cumulative impacts upstream and downstream. The agency
representatives favor at least a 480 foot bridge that spans the braided stream system, sewer easement, and
allows wildlife passage. Approximately 25 feet of dry ground is preferred by NCWRC and USFWS for
wildlife passage at this location. The merger team did not concur with a bridge length at this site.
NCDOT did not agree with spending the additional money to span the system and elected to elevate
the decision to the Merger Management Team. However, in an attempt to resolve the concerns
without elevating the decision, NCDOT explored another Falling Creek crossing location.
Page 1 of 7

R-2501 - US 1 from Sandhill Road (SR 1971) to North of Fox Road (SR 1606)
Richmond County, Division 8
NEPA Merger 01 Concurrence Pt. 2A/ 4A Meeting (Cont.)
Proiect/Crossing Highlights
NCDOT requested concurrence on CP'2A/4A, Bridging Decision and Alignment Review and Avoidance
and Minimization for 9 major wetland and stream crossings. The merger team concurred with 8 of the 9
major wetland and stream crossing recommendations ("NCDOT Preferred"). NCDOT proposed a 120-
foot bridge at Structure #8, Falling Creek (W37) at the McDonalds Pond EEP Restoration Site. During
the 11/12/08, field review meeting, all of the resource and permitting agencies requested a longer bridge
(approximately 480 feet) to span the entire High Quality EEP enhancement site. The information
concerning bridge costs and impacts is contained in the August 20, 2009 meeting concurrence package.
Studied Alternates
Original NCDOT Proposed: Culvert or 120' Bridges, 70' median
Agency Preferred: 480' Bridges
NCDOT Current Proposed: 250' Bridges, Southern Realignment
An alignment shift approximately 800 feet south of the preferred alignment (outside of the project study
area) has been considered to cross a narrower portion of the stream system. The stream system narrows
from nearly 330 feet in width to less than 130 feet. However, the wetland system is much wider at this
southern location. A comparison of structure options is presented as follows:
Wetland Stream
Structure Option Impact Impact Mitigation Construction Total Cost
(acres) (linear feet) Cost" Cost (Construction
3:1 slopes)_ (3:1 slopes) & Mitigation)
250'x 10'x 8'(2) Box Culvert 4.85 350 $530,000 $3
950
000 $4
480
000
LEDPA Alignment ,
, ,
,
120' Bridges
LEDPA Alignment 4.45 0 $320,000 $4,000,000 $4,320,000
480' Bridges
215
0
$155,000
$6
000
000
$6
155
000
LEDPA Alignment ,
, ,
,
250' Bridges
Southern Realignment - Proposed 5.80 0 $416,000 $4,700,000 $5,116,000
284'xIO'x8'(1)&
265'x 10' x 8' (1) Box Culvert 0 6.25 1,095 $1,019,000 $3,900,000 $4,919,000
Southern Realignment
•• NOTE: Mitigation Costs are based on EEP Schedule of Fees, effective 7/1/09 for Lower Fee Hydrologic Units, and 2:1
mitigation ratio (www.nceeo.net/nages/fee.him)
Agency Issue Summary
USFWS, EPA, NCWRC, USACE, and NCDWQ have submitted issue briefs to NCDOT presenting their
objections to the original proposed 120-foot bridges at this crossing. The following table summarizes the
comments, the agencies that presented them and NCDOT's response.
1 b34,.A
Page 2 of 7
,o
0
0
U w C
b C b m N
C 7 Y U U C U -d
w. y C ?
1 ., . O ? 4^ b U
?? O y .C ?? b0 C b w^, vi
... C O U U .?

•-.
O
i Q)
l
[n
O r4
O
7)
F'
N b .L N W
b w
° J r °
G ,?„ V C Q
° a I 1 G o 0 y ? Y o ¢ vU
° Xa, a 3 = o o
In,
E 0
V U ti U Y C C ' U U
F ¢ S N 3 C
. N
$
v J ° ?;
C .1 ?
., ,
C to
? C
is o o a .^
.? o .N •1 i a ?'' ac -o A"
i -oc °
' o .° t w
H
3 v 'a o Y ,
° axi r C! ° .
a
w o c oq' ° a
°
0
t
b 3 v ° .
?a .
0 3 ?
.?
N 0
c F " ° N o
° .
'y Q) J p, LC GJ 1
Y Y Q . lC ^
LC C as
0. rii O U
o f f.'
F" '9 .+ v
0 3 v° > Y d 'O U a p
V
a

O

h
to H C
c ? ?r- 3 w o ° O pO ? .
G w wU„ ° y vi U O b U C a y 0 :3 C C C U
Id L-
p
in
U h
d a
•?
e c s -
° p p 0
O
a
° y
a
O C Y
a' L a >> U C
ti w ^
p °

y'

Q

0
*
o

°
b

0 In.

3 G
w
0"

,c

?

0 0
0
h U O

a
ai
3
r

w
z o

o
U 0
O o
0
U N M y
.-? vi ^^ o vi ``
V ^. s
p, N U N
A 0 0 0 O
a ° o b ro a ° 3 P= V Q) cl,
) > c U, = 1 F, ° ai ° N a o
v
H x c E a c w° C cm
Y 3

m

4
.C+ 'n y

U
U

N
U \ v a
wi

U C
o a
i
0
C" U ?'

^
a
Q O
a y
y s
.
a Y w 7
co
+ E
C A U
Z
Cd .ty
U dD •
C CL U O .k
O
A. U
+C4
a
-+
?
.
ti
C
«
O
?
F ?
Z - a
i
F H v ti ro Q v> 3 F a
i 3 U 0.? U 0 3 w H d

of
3

Q wz w w w
m vi >. C C ?y E 00 00 U O 'O b o0 U

cd -C4 U a

2 =' ? ° `' x b c b a. 3 '0 0 0 tl?? 6
cV >
cl U p U y .O '0 U y .+ id b
C 00 c
In
? p
U G

p

U ,
CIJ

N b0 m
? C U C
O.
0 U

-0
O id LL 0 .
U
.O w
?
? 0!i •
? 'D p O ? U ? ? V] C y
? L' 'b
U Q 0
'
O
N
?' +
. C '
d ?
4 .
F C
V j
y p 40 y 0 .
w ?.
O r ° ro .^Y 0 V a
0 2
?b ? b o03w^ ?.N $
ro sae
y
w .n U 0
° O •j
u o
itl y a) 'C
sx T C y p C .
C C C
° y U
co
c b ?
a n 0 3 U
a °. ) a
°D
E2 N o w -
8
E U
0
v. ° abi a?i E u 0 N o N 0 cz 0

'b U E itl cC
" b C U b-0 q
p y
C b
b y rn
r
C
C ?" ?? U .
N F' ? U
" C
O

U ,
C k
P] F
o a
F o p
0
C p o C
c ?0
p w U p .

Q C
O ?. c
C N
a-
y o
!G 4 >
W
>
0 W •c
0
Q) 0

C U
d c
.. .
h
w
0
M
OA
nl

b
0
a0
rl
b ?
O
k a
? d
o ?
°O d
L C ?,
O p
z •?
s a
.•r
V)U
O
U p
G ? d
tt
v1 u
o P?
V z
0
N
a
ti O
? G U W
°
C `l p ?a Ca O V . .? to ?•
a b z c o c'? 3 ? C OQ o Q o I

o
?" ?
7 y
° n
ti N v°° In
CIS 0
Y
y
u In
F 6 y
'In a ° X O w 7rJ p w ° O In

y
' .b
'"
°
'
a
C
C
U w
i 'v
G o °
'° o y
..'G' ,
' o a
i
ro
•p CL E

o
v
v -C
a `°
' ° In
oG
c"
v
ro 6 ti
0 3 0 0 °
ai
ti n
ro
o G'- G It 0
"a
0 4t
-
'3
-
° .
3 E
In ? I
G 0
-
O z ?
.-
"0 C
U
J U ro b
CIS
? y
u u O
G s
t
tl ? , '
b ?
y = G I G

U _
° N U Q UC N ~ > ? rn
0 O c" ti ro
M -
0 o o a o
In m

Y
3 1. 0
tia x°dd_
G S x o o ai en
? 0 ° 1 " N 0 u - y
? o o? ? ' C [- 3 3
C , ? ? 0
°o o
U b v°i C
y .
0.
'zj
U
O

ti p

G

an

O Q 7
C z ° > b
> 3
In 4
a y
-It a ,L
° z c`
W `?' :
.O ti O D U •? ,L ?..' 06 W V T
O m iC V
h y p ,n ca W .9 U
.+ y C
Y « W G O G .L' G y ti
ti° ° o 0 3 Ga d
c m tr.
" zy
3 0 o
o o

A 0 cd
E .0

'
o 0
a E
G
v
A
N
° 'n
"
eon
U ?? a
a c
In
° o>
r
° o ?

o a ? . ?v

v o-

U o
>
o a

z

Q.

F- 3

E :
8
V
Q o_ a

3 w
M
o w° v

?o

z

Q a °
v. ? `4. , ?' J L p m
d a P v 33
U
w w ?1
w ? V te{
L>`? Z
s
?
? w
ZZ
d > j
( d ?
.
c i c° a you v° > c a c= E w
.^ o 0 r>l
°
?. '? LY 5 ? a
?tl 0' s
O t^C
J y C ro
?'" C i3 N ^ ..U.
E b
. y
?yNr" E
a
o a 3 N In w cd 3
a G >
- '
'

roq°
w h
c
W It
F
G to 0
"
8 V
= >,
o o 0 a
3 ??. ? Y Nx

00
pp ? Y N r. u z u r. ? fl 0. o°? ? F
p W y ro
on ?? o a o f a° U
y o Y v
In :3 C', 0 cc
s
?
0
1 E
0 3w o o ?
C w 3 ° ia, 0 3
° or
a
=
3 s, ?
++
b0 .
W G, [h ?y
C O
• p cC
"
ti ?+ y In ap y O
to
'
N Y
,?
3
? d O C . p, .O - U p .^ C
c.
. ^ 4J y :
0 E
F
U
0 L
0.
. Q fl U° 3 O b ro . E ro o y v E t

O
U p ° w
?
y
'
qU
G
o
O
?
Q o
.
, K m •
ai
K =

r
w
0
v
bo
a
O
? y
'b C
Q
a ?
a
? oo Q
0 0
? > N
?Aa
r" q q
.. q
a o U
y ? o
b ?
o a
z
H
0
N
a
' N F U N N ro U U b ?"' y --
r

' ° O O° O
u .? °

C '? F .O O .?

G . O
00
C 7
G H O
V ti
O
in

'
40, Q C, U co
-cl
a
F° • 3 ro ° ti
o cc
3 vos
r-
G U
0
° ro n \
N X
on o
.. F E H O
F b O C
b
a° F ° l ° u
B o
Q? V
U °
a
A
G

C
J c
v
N G
U r
b Y
w
° ro o a
i w
ai O .. T a
i
L 0
00
aq ? Q)
G P 1_ ? o p •o
.C Oi X
ro i y G U `n ? 7 ? ? ro A 3 U N
y qEG b b
_ F
` S"' ,L
' ti 'O VJ
0
ti 0 a F°
°
Q.) b e u G 0 o

q St

°° ?q -0

° r.

ro
Cc

Y

b n w
0
3
O ti
ro
ar °
c o>
- .o b a
i 8 o Y
° v
Nbw C a CL.
3
0
°?
??
o
U[ C m O G GJ V U Cd
O
O
to 0 ro
/
z a
a Q U
Z 3 z V] a y
y
a
a u3
a? Q o a
d', w n
? z w
w ti a+ F U .? b b U ,t. U ? 'n 'C U N U U 'L7 G rn T vi
' 3
y , b o.
3 b .. F
> ro G o ti
3 0
: co to 0'fl i °'
bD Sr' i'
h F ° 3
'?^,, a G
, ?,
15
o ti 0 3 c >u - ? °ro'? N 3 E b

N c

y 0 b? g.

y b

i
U Coo L b U O C O N
.9 ' N y ° C id h H U C
?D ,
C ro 3 O v z p s
.
0. O o r. .. U° G. G V 'b y OA
U
ro Q q, C X ro wd y p U N O bq n N E..2 ti p O
V ,
O V h 00 '? '?
° ti b
ro > G C V U •C
b y ° U o ?^ o: b ° g a

I m
ti G
? w
a qT ?
C G
?°
v d ro F F
?
a
a o?° • o v

C °.
G
ro

?
.+ cd
R

L C
U
U G
O ro ro

3 V ro

C
V
3

U
m
N ro
v .
g W
.
o y ,
°
o
°
°° o
o o b p
p
c
tl
o a 3 ti y
ro o
F ? o
' °
- ? = ?
°
? 3 a ?' p o '? o°n v .
O y ^
8 y o ? ?
G?
b cq ?
o
k ,_., G
? r?
o ro F •ti
v

E

?
oo N ro
n
-
?
Ca
U CL

G 'Cd
ro b
° C
v
O
i
Cab
U cN Cd
p,_
y U
,? V V U U
N c
tl O V'
3
z E `?
S O
c? >
3 V
E z
n ti 3
v c z ro G a U . . ro a m ro o ro
o 0
c
QI
V
0
.b C
°
a ?
x a
y
o M
w ot
LI
°
.y
z°
C.
Irl
o C,
'" q C
o e o
R: ? U
0
Qa?
ea of
aj
o a
r? W
z
rl
O
N
a
p • ^ U ? O .D ? C c?tl " ro ? y N aNi ? vUi
on ro
O O C .'"+ .
N - .ti
% U ? 3
L1. y
a ? ro
U Q
C a>
'? >
cYC ? U
? [-.
3 a
A c
d
5ub c Y°
• ? i
o ° cro a a?
c • ? n .,
? o a
i a s ? a° ? ro w° e
y . ° 3 9 F °O p c
C's
c a U [ U 3 O atiui ?
c W .o
0 o v .? rp p 3 o ro °*C?
a U O U
>,
a
w
"C Y

" y

ro
3
o
co
.c
Ca
ti
ro
v,

E ?
° v Y ? a
i -° 3 U ? aci ?

ro U
U
ti
° ^ c?C p Y U N
.
v
a.
o
ro
°
`'
Oh as
A

m
v v 0 o v ro c k °
?° 3

. ti ° ti
° o o .
w
d j
°
Q m o
ro p 3
U O y
U
U a
O ?
Y ° o
N Y
ro N c
U y ti
U
b4
O .s. '9 C
ro c
d .? ro ,•
•
to U `? C
y w ?
O U M ro b
ca
o
3 b
o c ti
3 c °' o °q
c 0 h
b
0 a C
ro .
6 o G
d o ° c
'? 0 cn
o.5 ro
°' °
Y
*
co
[. Cd
N
'?
'
L C4

y U
C.'
Y U
jt?
VI LO YO !^' N .yL
C VJ ^? U
y L p
0 O O rn U
r
ca m

N N ro b C)

bA

,_ O }. '?

.`9 rn

U

Q w

ro

C ti

y
° y° o d 3 v> y o o ° °' y
''

¢°

ro y* p
? O U
U F W a

' _ ro
F b 0 >, ro C4 >, v N w° o
n E
E U

° c
o^ Y °?
f9 3
? ?
o ° cl 0M o ? .? ?
4) as "D :3
Z zo o ro o
0 Qa ' a° 3' v
.
y
u U U
Q
Q ]z ?D ? w
N U ro 'O
b0
7 C' 7O
O N
y U O >,
" .? U U
?' .i C
O N p.,
.? W r
ro 0 w
rf.: °
c •J'
°
V]
'
pq F
C
U d X
a O
ti ro
G O
u es
y O .?

w 0 OD

c .? c
d

3 w v
C

3
3

v

Y
V
w
« OD vi

c

c
Uj

o
?

y
c

U F.
ro w°

as . C y U v? .y
r y r O c?
'0
N y !. U y v Q cd
A G N
U U ' y u
LL U° 'C ro -
'0 'r"' C O ..^ v? •: to
T 0
7 p
p U
C ° S1 cYtl ro W U O C > w ? C ' 'D ro
F. O p
jp YO C .
G b U
1
, r
'
,
0 r.
o cl r-
2 0
'
d 3 c °' U o as m b w
N

c

°'

3 °" v 0

o ro

°

b U

U o r-
0
°
b
°
U ro ro U Y
C O
C CL ?N
0 3 b c
ro :
N

i
y a
ti
7 C
' v

C i
U s 3
? ?y^o ro.c ? o ro o v.k C ? c Y .
_ p oF" Cd o °
ti
° °J v,
4Z °
Q) ° . 0 8 °Ya m c
?'? ro .o
y o
h
4m. t co
9) y 0 3 U ° a .
D v y ai v o . c a
0 t
.?
O cy b .
O
N ti
F
N .b V y
F
ro
C L
. ?!'
W b
y
p ?'p
G
.
+
.^ q
' ?'' 3 °=
c ro O ? °? c? c ? ° O
ro v t° c U C ? 3 U v U ro v ° a°i 'o a'"i
S ,
7z p
a 3wz ° ? ff ° U
°
b 0
a.
?
a
a o
?
.
x
w
0
a
0
N
.b C
C
?i
k a
0 C
G4
w d
o ?
O O
y /^yam N
^ ICI Q/
.ti
? O
0./i o U
E ?
W a
ti W
? z
0
N
N

U U U ti ^, U to c> m
?.
a c'n? a
=O
a N O O
°

3
.
?? cts
d o oA aw
2 C
£
o-
;s? ?? 3
°??
3 ? ctl 3
;. •
of U N b .'L... 0 K ?C O a ctl
.
C
3p t ° °`Op aG a
i
0
l
0
a
0
X
0
° ° d w 0
-

o M
E° ?O
'E
r cs
Q a
ro
o
b

q W o aJ
0 3 o a 3 °A Y W H w

°
ro ? ° > U E ro b E

a >Iz a
y' b o'oa
„
° v f° ° aai a
y
a°i d

i
y
U C > d 0
cz
u
L' A
y U a

p U
V
i.
i y
N m p m . 'O

Cc C C +?'+ C E

? ?

p C
u
o ?.U `" - cL Y
o?
.v

on
? ?3 3
d ?
? 3
?
?
'O A a j T Z Q

Y Y E r+ Y •L Y? V1 a (V N (? Y (d ?? ? 3
a... b y O y y y O O k N ?.. E O ed
Z U '?
cad Y ? ? ? U '? ? Q .•?.+ w ? U U v
U .L U `' N

° °?.? v b o
o
p
.E `
8
ti
"U' `? C ? ` U ? p W ? U w ? y ? ? p y d ? OU cA
d
O p 3
X N? p U U i y w .b b y Y
U
„ a r y
N v E o
°
° q
a
7 o o ° a
i
+' id O m vi
a 7 C .4 cd
O N °

d
o o °'
3 3
a Y
° 'a
J

to
c a O
y

E
° d
E
? w U

d? a
i
U
a >
o
•o ? ??
°
a
o E
U v 3 b :°„? ?
v .?
o c
o r oC
a
B ?
- F
U

a?a
32 d
3 C,3
- m
o
a
°
cz1, „E
> bb d
Q" o b
a mob
? N a d
°?
E o o c?
NZ
5n U z 0 a° u M u a 3 Z 0 p

0
a.
O
N
N
z
u
L
e.
F
0
W
E
Y
L

v
° .. 0 0 0
oa{ O 0 0 p
o
O O N
M
N

z

>Z ? -?.: W O ' O O
0 O ? O p
O m =` d ' G 0 V b O

...m b N v =. ? M r s9 eo
T N

z e c

? O O p
4V
. ? O ? ? r
O
= 0
0
`?
-. 69 b
9 b
m ?o H,
?
$ a 9 a
?y a
m .
O r
N
N N
M
w
r Y ? ye N
N
N U
'
Z'a d O o 0 0 o O
o m .?. °o c r" ° r 'Oo
?' m ° ° `"
?
o
m ?o r y
'o r o
v -
r ss ? o
v

`a
y

a
'U W d O p O O O G
-?
y "

.
• r
n N o
w r. U O C b N
_ .
.. 0
w' bN m e V r ? V
? ? r
O.N.. O ? O\ N N

Na

a s O O O
' W O 0 O O O p
°•, ? P9 O O N ?D op O
. ?m O - ' O W [t M y
O r N a bf NVi r

N
]

h a °o 0 0 0 0 op
.
5 m .. o c e ?i p
d ? 0 0 o°pO oro r CT

n" N M
a Vi t9 ?

d
?

U
= - w
o o u q
w
c r ? U e u m o
3 C 0
v c

F
s °, '-'
o
U ? L
? h C

U
O
W
N
N
r
U
o
a`
a
F
O
N
O
N
d
m
F
O
lV
9
a
J
O
O
s
3
J
W
0
J
d
J
v
a
v
'O
J
U
VI ^.0
W .L
C
O ?
d CJD
R 6
J G
tO G
m ?
o LJ
U
O
m c
? M
W O
R
z .m
? E
N
a
0
F
0
V
0
c00
C
r
E
d
10' ,
v e N

?u%? - 3 N O O O
1I?
N N
V1 O •-• p vi oo a0

a ,.
z

`Z:x ? S
?!d o o o

b
-
$ a K w
a ?, 3 ?, ?,

C 9 9 W?

t. O 61'
00
N 0
O 0
O 0
O
,. a °?! ?: e> d.
- a r`"n a
N oo ? w vo?i
??.:0 N Cza N (A ? frA

N (?
e 9
=
'
za u:
?
? ?,V^ o ? o o e
. ?
v. C
? Y
m ?, N
y
M 3 ?
V o o

o O

"
m b N .p L ? N1 N ? r
r N r
P

O :gyp '.. '
z a v. ,V. ? o o o S
';'V o eo
? ti a. 3 .rc o 0 0
, M ?
?v O .N
:° a 'C;U
m N N
3 b9 ? K

'
gym`., . o e

a
?T
GA
.- v Q i - a o o °o
.Vl
' h p 3 N ? O ry
,
? 00 r r
'-N
m' a• ^ VI ^ 3 ? ? ? d,

.'?
71

L
K
'?`
N N
h
o e ? U
e y N ` W
E ° 9 W V r a m
' ?
a+ E - E ,?, ao

v ? W e. y d ? ld
L
h l
G VI a O
x_ 3 F

0
E
N
9
vI
0
0
w
3
W
0
U
d
u.
0
U
Y
a
W
W
C
0
L
U y
Aw
m
U j
A y
00 y
U
G
W
z .o
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Preliminary Estimate
TIP No. R-2501B Prel. County:
Route US 1 Bypass
Comparison of Bridge and Culvert Costs
for Site 8
Prepared By: B. Wiles (Ko/F&H) 5/17/2010
Requested By: Brian Robinson 5/26/2010
Priced By: Ion Weathersbee, PE 5/2612010
Richmond
Line Sec
Item Des No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Price
Amount
SITE 8 -1.- 600+00 to 615+00
Culvert
Excavation 16.600 CY $ 8.00 $ 132,800.00
Borrow 163,500 CY $ 6.00 $ 981,000.00
S
n Fabric 29,650 SY $ 1.50 $ 44,475.00
C 20,014 TONS $ 36.00 $ 720,504.00
-L
M 8,000 SY $ 45.00 $ 360,000.00
]er 3,333 SY $ 45.00 $ 150.000.00
4' r 1,333 SY $ 45.00 $ 60,000.00
2 50' L, 23' Fill
RCP,
[11 500 LF $ 54.00 1 22000.00
Double RCBC 10'x8' 85^, 250'L, 20' Fill 250 LF $ 2,300.00 $ 575,000.00
Sewer Relocation 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00
Wildlife Passage 60" pipe) 250 LF . $ 140.00 $ 35,000.00

Misc. & Mob (10% Preliminary) I LS $ 299,221.00 $ 299,221.00
Contract Cost .................. $ 3,425,000.00
E. & C. 15% .................. $ 525,000.00
Construction Cost .................. $ 3,950,000.00
Line Sec
Item Des No. Description
Quanti
Unit
Price
Amount
SITE S -L- 600+00 to 615+00
Bride 120 L
Excavation 16,600 CY $ 8.00 $ 132,800.00
Borrow 145,500 CY $ 6.00 $ 873,000.00
Soil Stabilization Fabric 24,650 SY $ 1.50 S 36,975.00
Class B R Rap 16,639 TONS $ 36.00 $ 598,995.00
L- avement 7,360 SY $ 45.00 $ 331,200.00
10' aved shoulder 3,067 SY $ 45.00 S 138,000.00
14' paved shoulder 1,227 SY $ 45.00 S 55,200.00
2 36" RCP. 250'L, 20' Fill 500 LF $ 54.00 $ 27,000.00
New Dual Str 2 38'W x 120% 9,120 SF $ 95.00 $ 866,40000 11
Sewer Relocation 1 LS $ 40.000.00 S 40,000.00
Wildlife Passage 60" pipe) 250 LF $ 140.00 $ 35,000.00

Misc. & Mob 10% Preliminary) 1 LS $ 340,430.00 $ 340,430.00
Contract Cost .................. S 3,475,000.00
E. & C. 15% .................. $ 525,000.00
Construction Cost .................. $ 4,000,000.00
Page 1 of 3
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Preliminary Estimate
Line
Item
Des Sec
No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Price
Amount
SITE 8 -L- 600+00 to 615+00
Bride (480 LF)
Excavation 16,600 CY $ 8.00 $ 132,800.00
Borrow 72,000 CY $ 6.00 $ 432,000.00
Soil Stabilization Fabric 10,250 SY $ 1.50 $ 15.375.00
Class B R Rap 6,919 TONS $ 36.00 $ 249,075.00
-L- avement 5,440 SY $ 45.00 S 244,800.00
10' paved shoulder 2,267 SY $ 45.00 $ 102,000.00
1 4' paved shoulder 907 SY $ 45.00 $ 40,800.00
New Dual Str 2 38'W x 480'L 36,480 SF $ 95.00 $ 3,465,600A0
Sewer Relocation 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00

Misc. & Mob 10% Preliminary) I LS $ 477,550.00 $ 477,550.00
Contract Cost .................. S 5,200,000.00
E. & C. 15% ................... $ 800,000.00
Construction Cost .................. $ 6,000,000.00
Line
Item
Des Sec
No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Price
Amount
SITES -LRBR- 600+00 to 621+00
Bride 250 L (Southern Alignment)
Excavation 26,600 CY $ 8.00 $ 212.800.00
Borrow 61,200 CY $ 6.00 $ 367,200.00
Soil Stabilization Fabric 20,400 SY $ 1.50 $ 30,600.00
Class B Rip Rap 13,770 TONS $ 36.00 $ 4951720.00
-L- pavement 9,867 SY $ 45.00 $ 444,000.00
10' paved shoulder 4,111 SY S 45.00 $ 185.000.00
4' paved shoulder 1,644 SY $ 45.00 $ 74,000.00
2 36" RCP. 230'L. 15' Fill 460 LF $ 54.00 $ 24,840.00
New Dual Str 2 38'W x 250'L 19,000 SF $ 95.00 $ 1,805,000.00
Sewer Relocation 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00

Misc. & Mob 10% Preliminary) 1 LS $ 395,840.00 $ 395,840.00
Contract Cost .................. $ 4,075,000.00
E. & C. 15% .................. $ 625,000.00
Construction Cost .................. $ 4,700,000.00
Page 2 of 3
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Preliminary Estimate
Line Sec
Item Des No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Price
Amount
]SITES -LRCUL, 600+00 to 622+50
Culvert (Southern Alignment)
Excavation 25,900 CY IS 8.00 $ 207,200.00
Borrow 92,000 CY $ 6.00 $ 551000.00
Soil Stabilization Fabric 23,667 SY $ 1.50 $ 35,500.50
Class B Ri
p Rap 13,
TONS
$ 36.00
$ 575.108.10
L- pavement 12,000 SY S 45.00 $ 540.000.00
10' aved shoulder 5,000 SY $ 45.00 S 225,000.00
14' paved shoulder 2,000 SY S 45.00 $ 90,000.00 11
2 36" RCP, 230'L, 15' Fill 460 LF $ 54.00 $ 24,840.00
Si a RCBC 10'x8' S6^, 284'L. 10' Fill 284 LF $ 1,350.00 $ 383.400.00
SingleRCBC I Ok8' 65^, 265' L, 10' Fill
Overflow & Wildlife Passa a
265
LF
$ 1,350.00
$ 357,750.00
60" RCP 272 LF $ 140.00 $ 38,080.00
Sewer Relocation I LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00

Misc. & Mob (10% Preliminary) 1 LS $ 311.121.40 $ 311.121.40
Contract Cost .................. $ 3,380,000.00
E. & C. 15% .................. $ 520,000.00
Construction Cost .................. $ 3,900,000.00
Page 3 of 3
Avoidance & Minimisation
¦ Avoids 11 of 21 streams in the corridor (90% of stream length)
¦ Avoids 35 of the 52 wetlands (93% of wetland areas)
¦ Avoids 7 of 10 ponds (83% of pond areas)
¦ Structure 1- Osborne Road/ Baggetts Creek - S3. W3. W9
Alignment reduces wetland impacts by crossing stream S3 between
two large wetlands W3 and W9
¦ Structure 3 - UT to Speeds Creek - W11. P1
Alignment avoids stream S6 and crosses a narrower portion of Wl l
¦ Structure 4 - Watery Branch - W14
Median width reduced from 70 to 46 feet in wetland area
Avoidance & Minimization
¦ US 74 Bypass Interchange - W18. W19. W21. P2. P3. and P4
¦ Initial full clover interchange impacted 25.2 acres of wetlands,
3.5 acres of ponds, and 3,940 feet of stream
¦ Alignment was shifted southward and the interchange
footprint was compressed using directional ramps
¦ Impacts were reduced to 16.2 acres of wetlands, 0.5 acre of
ponds, and 1,850 feet of stream
¦ Structure 7 - South Prong Falli nag Creek (US 74) - W26
¦ Alignment between residential neighborhoods
¦ Crosses the smallest portion of wedand W24
e Bridge is proposed over South Prong Falling Creek instead of
a large box culvert as initially planned
Avoidance & Minimisation
¦ Structure 8 -Falling Creek- W27
¦ Alignment is along the south side of the corridor to avoid
pond P7 and wetlands W32 and W33
¦ Alignment crosses a narrower portion of W27
Structure 9 -Chock Creek - S20 P9 W49 W50
¦ Widens to the north side away from P9 and W49
¦ W49 is the highest quality wetland along the US 1 widening
portion
¦ Culvert extensions are planned
¦ Shifting the alignment further north results in greater impacts
to W50
2
MCDONALDS POND RESTORATION SITE
2008 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3)
March 2009
Prepared for: NCDENR - ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1619
Prepared by: ECOSCIENCE: A DIVISION OF PBS&J
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
E'Cos)/stenl
Richmond County, North Carolina
EEP Project No. D04020-2
Design Firm: International Paper

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
In response to a Request for Proposal (RFP, No. 16-D04016) issued in December of 2003, International
Paper Company (IP) proposed the establishment of the McDonalds Pond Restoration Site (hereafter
referred to as the "Site") located in Richmond County, approximately two (2) miles northeast of the town
of Hamlet and three (3) miles east of the town of Rockingham. In order to provide stream channel
restoration and riverine wetland restoration, IP has removed the McDonalds Pond Dam (Dam) located on
Falling Creek.
The Site comprises approximately 128 acres, and includes the 17.7 acre McDonalds Pond (a.k.a Shepards
Lake), portions of Falling Creek, numerous headwater tributaries and over 80 acres of forested riparian
wetlands, seepage wetlands, and marsh wetlands.
The Dam was removed in a manner, to minimize potential impacts to water resources both upstream and
downstream of the dam. Gradual dewatering and phased dam removal were undertaken to avoid
introducing sediments and pollutants into the receiving Falling Creek reaches downstream. Heavy
equipment operated from or within the footprint of the former Dam during dam removal operations,
thereby minimizing the impact to the adjacent intact forest and wetland soil. Dam removal began with the
dewatering (lowering) of the pond in the fall of 2005, followed by the clearing of trees and small bushes
from the former earthen dam in February 2006. Excavation activities continued for approximately two
weeks until dam removal was complete in mid-March 2006.
Monitoring Plan
Monitoring activities began in March 2006 (Year 1), and will be performed for at least five-years or until
success criteria are achieved. Post removal monitoring data will be compared to reference sites as well as
biological baseline values collected in September 2004. Primary success criteria of the project include: 1)
the successful classification of restored/enhanced reaches as functioning systems, 2) channel stability
indicative of a stable stream system, 3) development of characteristic lotic aquatic communities, 4)
establishment of wetland hydrology (as defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] Wetlands
Delineation Manual) within the former pond footprint, and 5) vegetative success of 320 stems/acre after
the third year of monitoring and 260 stems/acre after the fifth and final year of monitoring. The following
monitoring report describes the results of monitoring activities completed during (2008) Year 3
monitoring.
Year 3 Monitoring Results (2008)
Stream Assessment
Restored and enhanced segments of Falling Creek have continued to establish braided, anastomosed,
bifurcated, and single-threaded channels characteristic of the area. Restored and enhanced stream
segments across the Site have further developed stream pattern, profile, and dimension similar to that of
reference reaches. Cross-sections located within the former pond indicate that deposited pond sediment
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site

continues to be transported downstream, as evidenced by increased bankfull areas. In addition,, stream
banks have further stabilized with native vegetation.
Aquatic community assemblages within the former pond have maintained characteristics of a natural lotic
system. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the macroinvertebrate samples taken in October 2008 (Year 3) from
restored segments of Falling Creek (within the former pond) consisted of macroinvertebrate genera
predominantly found in lotic systems. Genera predominantly found in lentic systems represented only
eight percent (8%) of species collected within the former pond from the Year 3 sample.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Habitat Assessment Forms (I-IAFs) were completed
at multiple locations along the restored and enhanced segments of Falling Creek. The HAT scores
indicate that the restored and enhanced stream segments continue to develop in-stream habitat
characteristic of reference reaches.
Wetland Vegetation Assessment
Vegetation monitoring for Year 3 was performed based on the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Levels
1 and 2 at eight (8) 10 x 10 meter plots. Based on Year 3 monitoring, the average count of surviving
planted species is 536 stems per acre. If volunteer species are included, the total survival increases to
3561 stems per acre. The Site exceeds the established success criteria of 320 stems/acre after the third
year and is on track to exceed the success criteria of 260 stems/acre after the fifth and final year.
Wetland Hydrology Assessment
Even though extreme drought conditions occurred in the area, all four (4) on-Site groundwater gauges
have registered water levels within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 28 consecutive days
(Richmond County, NRCS) or 12.5 percent (12.5%) of the growing season. Therefore, wetland
hydrology at the Site is meeting the required success criteria.
Summary
Following the third year of monitoring, restored streams within the former pond have continued to
develop stable lotic conditions typical of reference systems. Pattern, profile, and dimension data obtained
from channel surveys indicate that stream geomorphology continues to shift toward that of reference
reaches. Stable single-threaded (E-channel) and braided (DA-channel) streams have continued to develop
at the Site. Groundwater gauge data within the former pond indicates restored wetland hydrology (despite
drought conditions) and closely resembles that of the upstream reference gauge. Vegetation surveys
support the establishment of a Streamhead Pocosin/Atlantic White Cedar forest community with thriving
planted and volunteer species. Stream, wetland vegetation, and wetland hydrology success criteria were
met in Year 3 monitoring.
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
ii
. . I
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 Location and Setting
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) is currently developing stream and wetland
restoration strategies for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03040201. As a part of this
effort, International Paper (IP) was selected to complete the McDonalds Pond Restoration Project located
in Richmond County. The McDonalds Pond Restoration Site (`hereafter referred to as the "Site") is
located approximately two (2) miles northeast of the town of Hamlet and three (3) miles east of the town
of Rockingham between NC Route 1 and NC Route 177 (Figure 1, Appendix A).
1.2 Restoration Structure and Objectives
Falling Creek, the major drainage feature on-Site, was previously impounded by the McDonalds Pond
Dam (Dam), constructed over 70 years ago. Approximately 3,700 linear feet of Falling Creek and
tributaries were impacted by the construction of the pond dam including streams contained within the
pond footprint, as well as stream sections located both up and downstream of the pond. In addition,
approximately 17.7 acres of riverine wetland were inundated with the construction of the dam.
Approximately 4.2 acres of the floodplain immediately upstream of the pond were impacted by the
"backwater effect" (the backing-up of water), creating marsh wetlands with saturated conditions
unsuitable for historic wetland communities. An eroded pond outfall channel located at the northern
extent of the dam drained adjacent wetlands and redirected historic flows of the Falling Creek floodplain.
Stream restoration efforts were achieved through the removal of the Dam resulting in the restoration of
2,969 linear feet of stream. The former Dam was excavated to the approximate level of the pre-existing
valley contours, allowing the stream unrestricted flow through the Site. Stream restoration efforts were
designed to utilize passive stream channel restoration processes, allowing the channel to reestablish
naturally following the removal of the dam. Stream enhancement (Level 1) was achieved through the
removal of the dam and the filling of the northern outfall channel, which returned the historic hydrologic
characteristics (stream volume and velocity) to 770 feet of impacted stream channel downstream of the
former dam. Riverine wetland restoration was accomplished within the former 17.7 acre pond footprint
through the excavation of the Dam and the establishment of native Streamhead Pocosin and Atlantic
White Cedar forest communities. Additionally, the Site includes the preservation of 5,800 linear feet of
stream, 77.8 acres of wetland, and 25.6 acres of upland/wetland ecotone buffer.
1.3 Project Objectives
The primary project goals include 1) the restoration of a stable, meandering stream channel through the
areas impacted by the Dam, 2) the restoration of historic lotic aquatic communities that represent the
Site's natural range in variation, 3) the restoration of historic wetland conditions within the pond
footprint, and 4) the restoration of natural wetland plant communities within their historic locations.
Additional potential benefits of the project include the restoration of wildlife functions associated with a
riparian corridor and stable stream and the enhancement of water quality function in the on-Site,
upstream, and downstream segments of Falling Creek and tributaries.
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
I
The specific goals of this project are to:
• Restore approximately 2,969 linear feet of historic stream course, flow volumes, and patterns
through the marsh wetlands, McDonalds Pond footprint, and immediately downstream of the
existing dam.
• Enhance an additional approximate 770 linear feet of Falling Creek downstream of the restored
stream channel extending into the gas line easement.
• Protect the headwaters of Falling Creek that are located within the Site through preservation of
approximately 5,800 linear feet of Falling Creek and associated tributaries.
• Restore approximately 17.7 acres of forested riverine wetlands within the McDonalds Pond
footprint.
• Enhance 4.2 acres of forested riverine wetlands within the marsh wetlands located at the head of
McDonalds Pond.
• Preserve 77.8 acres of forested riverine wetlands adjacent to Falling Creek and associated
tributaries.
• Restore and enhance habitat for vegetation and wildlife species, characteristic of Streamhead
Pocosin and Atlantic White Cedar Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
• Enhance the function and value of the Falling Creek wetland community through the preservation
of 25.6 acres of buffer along the Falling Creek stream/wetland complex.
Table 1. Summary of Stream and Wetland Mitigation Units

Restoration Activities Linear
feet
Acres Mitigation
Ratios Percentage
of Mitigation
Units Mitigation
Units
Stream Restoration 1,784 N/A 1:1 1,784
Stream Restoration
(undefined channel) 1,185 N/A 1:1 75 1,185
Stream Enhancement (Level I 770 N/A 1:1.5 513
Stream Preservation 5,800 N/A 1:5 25 1,160
Total Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) Provided 4,642
Total SMUs Under Contract 4,364
Wetlands Restoration N/A 17.7 1:1 75 17.7
Wetland Enhancement N/A 4.2 1:2 25 2.1
Wetlands Preservation N/A 19 1:5 3.8
Total Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs) Provided 23.6
Total WMUs Under Contract 23.4
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
2

1.4 Project History and Background
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History

Activity Report Scheduled

Completion Data

Collection
Com lete Actual

Completion or
Delive
Restoration Plan *NA Jul 2005 An t 2005
Final Design 90% *NA Jul 2005 August 2005
Construction *NA N/A March 2006
Tem or S&E mix a lied to entire project area *NA N/A March 2006
Bare Root Seedling Installation *NA N/A March 2006
Miti ation Plan *NA June 2006 July 2006
Final Report *NA Oct 2006 Oct 2006
Year I Vegetation Monitoring Dec 2006 Oct 2006 Dec 2006
Year I Stream Monitorin Dec 2006 Oct 2006 Dec 2006
Year 2 Vegetation Monitoring Dec 2007 Oct 2007 February 2008
Year 2 Stream Monitorin Dec 2007 Oct 2007 Febru
ary
2008
Year 3 Vegetation Monitoring Dec 2008 Oct 2008 Dec 2008
Year 3 Stream Monitoring Dec 2008 Oct 2008 Dec 2008
*NA - Scheduled completion dates unknown due to unanticipated project delays.
Table 3. Project Contacts
Designer 6400 Poplar Avenue
International Paper Memphis, TN 38197
[phone]
Construction Contractor 28723 Marston Road
Environmental Repair, Inc. Marston, NC 28363
[phone]
Planting Contractor PO BOX 789
Garcia Forest Service, Inc. Rockingham, NC 28379
[phone]
Seeding Contactor 28723 Marston Road
Environmental Repair, Inc. Marston, NC 28363
(9]0)280-6043
Nursery Stock Suppliers ay 169
International Paper 30414
13
=County
1097 CCounty Road #3
39886
40
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
Table 3. Project Contacts (Cont.)
Nursery Stock Suppliers
International Paper 5594 Highway 38 South
Blenheim, SC 29516
[phone]
North Carolina Division of Forest Resources
726 Claridge Nursery Road
Goldsboro, NC 27530
919 731-7988
Monitoring Performers 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
EcoScience: a Division of PBS&J Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone]
Stream Monitoring POC Jens Geratz
Vegetation Monitoring POC Jens Geratz
Table 4. Project Background
Project County Richmond
Drainage Area 2.5 square miles
Impervious cover estimate <5 percent
Stream Order 3rd order
Ph sio a hic Region Southeastern Plains
Ecore ion Griffith and Omemik Sandhills
Ros en Classification of As-built DA5/E5
Cowardin Classification Stream (R2UB2)
Dominant soil types Johnston JmA
Ailey AcB, AcC
Candor-Wakulla Complex (CaC, WcB)
Reference Site ID Falling Creek
USGS HUC for Project and Reference 03040201
NCDW Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-07-16
NCDW classification for Project and Reference WSIII
An onion of any ro'ect segment 303d listed? No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a
303d listed segment? Yes
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor Aquatic weeds
Percent of project easement fenced NA
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
A
MUM
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
Dee Freeman
Secretary
September 3, 2009
MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Brown, Project Engineer, NCDOT
Through: Brian Wrenn, Supervisor, Transportation Permitting Unit, NCDWQ
From: Polly Lespinasse, Mooresville Regional Office, NCDWQ
SUBJECT: Elevation of R-2501, US 1 from Sandhill Road (SR 1971) to Marston Road (SR
1001), Richmond County
The merger team met on three (3) separate occasions, to discuss bridging decisions (Concurrence Point 2A)
and avoidance and minimization (Concurrence Point 4A) for the above referenced project. The first meeting
was September 18, 2008. The merger team agreed at that time to have an on-site meeting to look at the
impact areas and proposed structure locations due to the amount of time that had elapsed since the original
site evaluations. The field meeting to evaluate these sites was held on November 12, 2008. The merger team
visited several structure locations and concurred with NCDOT recommendations on seven (7) of the nine (9)
proposed structures. Additionally, the merger team recommended that NCDOT staff further evaluate bridging
alternatives at Structures 7 and 8 prior to achieving concurrence on CP2A/4A.
On August 20, 2009, the merger team reconvened to discuss NCDOT's recommendations for bridges at
Structures 7 and 8. The merger team concurred with NCDOT's recommendation to provide a 450' bridge on
South Prong Falling Creek and Wetland 26 (W26), also known as Structure 7. However, the merger team
could not reach concurrence on the proposed structure at Falling Creek at the McDonalds Pond Restoration
Site and Wetland 37 (W37), also known as Structure B. Due to the team's inability to reach concurrence on all
bridging alternatives, the merger team decided not to sign a "partial" concurrence form. NCDOT has decided
to elevate the selection of the bridging alternative at Structure 8 only to the Merger Management Team
for resolution. NCDOT has requested that the merger team members prepare and submit a brief stating their
position. The information below represents NCDWQ's position on the project.
NCDOT prefers the construction of 120' bridges over Falling Creek and W37 (Structure 8). NCDWQ prefers
the construction of 480' bridges over Falling Creek and W37 (Structure 8).
DWQ staff has thoroughly reviewed all of the documentation associated with the project and offers the
following:
Falling Creek and W37 are part of an Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) mitigation site. The site
consists of restoration, enhancement and preservation of streams and wetlands. The stream, which runs
throughout the mitigation area, is highly braided and very stable.
Mooresville Regional Office
Location: 610 East Center Ave., Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115
One
Phone: [phone] \ Fan: [phone] \ Customer Service: 1-877623.6748
I
t
l0
t NorthCarolin
n
ernet: x .ncrra
erqua
y.org a
N
ll
An Equal Opportunity \ A6innatirve Action Employer- a0% Ragclo&10% Post Consumer paper atura
ry
Mr. Steve Brown
Page Two
According to NCDOT staff, the wetland rates as "high" for all parameters defined by the NCWAM manual.
The wetland area appears to be very successful with the proliferation of well-established native species
and very limited invasive species present. The area also contains unique microtopography throughout,
which provides many types of habitat for different aquatic and non-aquatic species. Due to the highly
successful nature of the wetland and stream system, NCDWQ recommends limited impacts to preserve as
much of the existing nature of the site as possible. As any impact in the area will compromise a portion of
the integrity of the system, NCDWQ staff believes it is our responsibility to support an alternative that will
reduce that amount of impact and preserve as much of an intact system as possible.
As stated above, the existing stream system is highly braided. NCDOT stated that the construction of 120'
bridges over the mitigation site will not span all the braided portions of the stream. NCDOT is proposing
two (2) 36 " equalizer pipes in the bridge fill slopes, on both sides of the bridge, for wetland connectivity.
Based on this information, NCDWQ staff is concerned that the construction of the shorter bridge span may
not accommodate the required hydraulic conveyance for this type of natural system and may create a
"bottleneck" effect. This could lead to ponding on both sides of the bridge as well as a modification to the
type of wetland/stream system which currently exists. NCDOT staff proposed for discussion, during the
August 20, 2009, merger team meeting, the installation of culverts adjacent to the bridge to provide
hydraulic passage for the braided stream. DWQ staff believes that the installation of the shorter bridge with
additional culverts to provide hydraulic passage does not demonstrate sufficient avoidance and
minimization measures as it would lead to additional fill impacts associated with culvert(s) installation and
slope fill as well as impacts which may be incurred due to aligning the stream(s) with the culvert(s).
NCDWQ staff is concerned about the amount of fill that would be required if the 120' bridge spans were
constructed. Based on the existing site conditions, the soils in the area seem unsuitable (field observations
indicated they are spongy and unconsolidated for a depth of at least three feet) for construction and would
require the excavation of the existing soils in the area directly under the road and possibly to the toe of the
fill slopes. In addition to the excavation and "wasting" of these soils, new fill would be required to stabilize
the area, further increasing the costs of the road. The merger team was only provided with the cost of
various bridge lengths, therefore, it is unknown whether the costs associated with soil
suitability/constructability were evaluated by NCDOT.
NCDOT staff stated during the merger team meeting that bridge costs for this project were consistent and
based on a standard cost per foot amount. Based on the information provided in the merger packet,
NCDWQ staff is unable to determine cost per foot for bridge construction. For example, at Structure 7, the
245' bridge costs $12,292,800 for a per foot cost of $50,174. The cost for a 450' bridge is $14,165,000 for
a per foot cost of $31,477. Similarly, at Structure 8 the cost of a 120' bridge is $1,147,000 for a per foot
cost of $9,588. The cost for a 480' bridge is $4,267,000 for a per foot cost of $8,889. In addition, the cost
to construct bridges at Structure 8 is considerably less than the cost to construct bridges at Structure 7.
NCDWQ would recommend that NCDOT please clarify how the bridge costs were determined.
Based on the information outlined above, NCDWQ staff supports the construction of 480' bridges at Structure
8.
If you have any questions or require additional information, you may contact Polly Lespinasse [phone]
or Brian Wrenn [phone]. Thank you.
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Brown, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis, NCDOT
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 31, 2009
SUBJECT: Section 404/NEPA Merger 01 elevation issue brief for R-2501
1. Project Name and brief description: TIP No.: R-2501, US 1, from Sandhill Road to
Marston Road, Richmond County.
2. Last Concurrence Point: CP 3 Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA).
Date of Concurrence: Date of Concurrence Point 3, February 15, 2001. A meeting was
held on August 20, 2009 for concurrence points 2a and 4a.
3. Explain what is being proposed and your position including what you object to.
NCDOT requests concurrence on CP 2A Bridging Decision and CP 4A Avoidance and
Minimization for 9 major wetland and stream crossings. WRC concurs with the NCDOT
preferred recommendation at all sites with the exception of Structure #8 at the
McDonalds Pond EEP mitigation site where NCDOT is proposing a 120-foot bridge.
During the 11/12/08, field review meeting, WRC requested a longer bridge spanning the
majority of the mitigation site to retain intactness throughout the conservation area once
the highway project is constructed.
4. Explain the reasons for your potential non-concurrence. Please include any data or
information that would substantiate and support your position. R-2501 is a new
location section of US 1; completion of this facility will bisect a constructed
compensatory mitigation site. The mitigation site, known as the McDonalds Pond
Restoration Site, provides both wetland and stream mitigation credits for EEP. This
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
R-2501
Page 2 August 31, 2009
system is comprised of restoration, enhancement, and preservation credits and in its
fourth year of monitoring exhibits exceptional quality habitat, hydrology, and water
quality functions at the impact location. Bisecting this area will not only directly impact
jurisdictional resources within a protected conservation easement but will have farther
reaching secondary impacts throughout the system. The majority of habitat at the
crossing is comprised of a broad braided channel wetland/stream system with excellent
micotopography providing a multitude of vegetated hummocks. Outside of the braided
system elevation begins to rise rapidly, and although wetlands are present, upland
characteristics are more dominant. After conducting a site visit as well as reviewing the
surrounding landscape we recommended NCDOT construct a bridge spanning the lower
elevation wetlands associated with the braided stream channels plus a minimal distance
upslope (approximately 25 feet) to provide wildlife connectivity and permeability within
this conservation easement and the Falling Creek watershed. WRC's recommendation of
a 480 foot bridge would be the minimum bridge length to accomplish this.
5. List any relevant laws or regulations that you believe would be violated or
jeopardized if the proposed action were implemented and explain the basis for
violation. The mission of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission is to
protect, preserve, and manage the fish and wildlife resources of the state. The selection
of a 480 foot bridge at this location would best conform to our mission.
6. What alternative course of action do you recommend? NCDOT should concur with
the construction of the 480 foot bridge.
CESAW-RG
3 September 2009
MEMORANDUM FOR: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Mr. Steve
Brown, Project Planning Engineer, PDEA Branch
SUBJECT: Section 404/NEPA Merger 01 Elevation Issue Brief
1. Project Name and Brief Description: Action ID SAW-1995-00459, TIP- R-2501, US
1 from Sandhill Road (SR1971) to Marston Road (SR1001), Richmond County, NC.
2. Last Concurrence Point: CP 3, LEDPA; Date of Concurrence: 2001
3. Proposal and Position: At Structure 8, NCDOT proposes to build a 120 foot (ft)
bridge and a 220 foot by 60 foot concrete pipe (wildlife crossing). DWQ, FWS, EPA and
WRC (resource agencies) preferred a 480 foot bridge. I would have signed concurrence
for the 480 ft bridge.
4. Reasons for Non-concurrence: Of the nine major stream crossings for this phase of
US 1, the Merger Team agreed to culverts at seven and the FEMA minimum size bridge
at another. In reference to the issues raised by the resource agencies in the attached
Briefing Papers, I agree that the issues raised are valid and need to be considered in our
decision. On November 2, 2005, a NWP 27 was issued by Mickey Sugg to impact 0.2
acres of wetlands for the purposes of restoring the 127.86 acre NC EEP mitigation site
known as McDonald's Pond (SAW-2005-00233). The Conservation Easement was filed
July 14, 2005 in Richmond County. The site has been partially debited but has 2,710
linear feet (1I) of Stream Restoration, 770 If of Stream Enhancement, 5,8001f of Stream
Preservation, 15.96 acres (ac) of Riparian Restoration, 4.20 ac of Riparian Enhancement
and 4.50 ac of Riparian Preservation still available. In March 2009, Ecoscience on behalf
of NC EEP published the 2008 Monitoring Report (Year 3). Based on the information in
the report, the site is meeting established success criteria. The McDonald's Pond site was
reviewed by the Corps through the permit process and for compliance with the
MOA/MOU as a whole without the encumbrance of a new road. Given the type and
quality of the existing site, if a 120 ft bridge were to be approved, the validity and
efficacy of the entire mitigation site would have to be evaluated by the Corps. The
resource agencies indicate that based on the quality of the habitat, the limited
development in the area and the existing Conservation Easement, they cannot support the
120 ft bridge proposed by NC DOT. I failed to concur based on the high quality of the
site, the lack of effective comparative information between the two alternatives and that
the site is currently under a Conservation Easement and actively being debited.
Furthermore, the proposed crossing bisects the site near the mid portion and will alter the
hydrologic pathways that have been established. Placing compacted roadfill in a restored
braided scrub/shrub wetland with potential compressible muck/soil could have significant
effects upon the mitigation site as a whole. Failure to require NC DOT to bridge the
entire crossing will not only cause channelization of the restoration area and downstream
waters, damage wildlife corridors, but may undermine the NC EEP program and its
usefulness to applicants as an in-lieu-fee program.
Notwithstanding the impacts to the compensatory mitigation site and the issues that have
been raised above, we also believe that NCDOT has failed to demonstrate that impacts to
the high quality waters and wetlands that presently exist on the site have been avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practicable and thus the project may not be in
compliance with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
Information requested:
? Comparative cost for the two bridges.
o The cost information provided by NC DOT did not include cost for
relocation of the existing utility line that would be required for the 120
ft bridge. The cost analysis should include the cost of protective
measure that would be needed to assure that the utility line would not
act as a sump that would artificially drain the mitigation site.
Furthermore, the cost analysis should also include measure to prevent
the utility line from "floating" out of the ground due to saturated
conditions.
o Neither cost included compensatory mitigation costs. The 120 ft
bridge would require compensatory mitigation for direct, indirect,
secondary and cumulative effects to WOUS, both for the project and
the EEP site. In addition, higher ratios would be requested for the
temporal loss, as the site is already in the ground and meeting success
criteria.
? Qualitative and quantitative habitat data from the impact area and McDonald's
Pond site.
5. Potentially Violated Laws/Regulations: Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
6. Alternative Course of Action: NCDOT should agree to build a bridge that spans the
entire crossing.
/s/
Kimberly Garvey
Regulatory Project Manager
SECTION 404/NEPA MERGER 01 ISSUE BRIEF: 9/3/09
Submitted by: Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMM
Merger Team Representative
USEPA Raleigh Office
Kathy Mathews, Life Scientist
USEPA Wetlands Section
THRU: Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
NEPA Program Office
USEPA Region 4
Thomas C. Welborn, Chief
Wetlands, Coastal Protection Branch
USEPA Region 4
To: Steve L. Brown, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Planning Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT
1. Project Name and Brief Description: TIP No.: R-2501, US 1, from Sandhill Road to
Marston Road, Richmond County. Pipeline Merger project that includes 19.2 miles of
widening and new location, multi-lane, median-divided facility.
2. Last Concurrence Point (signed): CP 3 Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA). Date of Concurrence Point 3 Meeting: 2/15/01
3. Proposal and Position: NCDOT requests concurrence on CP 2AAA, Bridging
Decision and Alignment Review and Avoidance and Minimization for 9 major wetland
and stream crossings. EPA concurs with 8 of the 9 major wetland and stream crossing
recommendations ("NCDOT Preferred"). NCDOT is proposing a 120-foot bridge at
Structure #8, Falling Creek (W37) at the McDonalds Pond EEP Restoration Site. During
the 11/12/08, field review meeting, all of the resource and permitting agencies requested
a longer bridge (Approximately 480 feet) to span the entire High Quality EEP
enhancement and preservation site. The information concerning bridge costs and impacts
that is contained in the August 20, 2009, meeting concurrence package does not appear to
be accurate or complete.
4. Reasons for Non-concurrence: FHWA and NCDOT have not demonstrated appropriate
avoidance and minimization to jurisdictional wetlands and streams consistent with
Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. Alternative 21 (the LEDPA) of the proposed
new location project impacts approximately 5,627 linear feet of streams, 48.9 acres of
wetlands, and 36.2 acres of jurisdictional ponds (based upon slope stakes + 10 feet). The
information concerning bridge costs and impacts does not appear to be accurate or
complete.
A. Bridge costs between the 120-foot NCDOT preferred bridge and the 480-foot or
500-foot bridge preferred by USACE, NCDWQ, USFWS, NCWRC and EPA are
not fully detailed. Total project costs for R-2501 have not been updated or
provided to the Merger team.
B. Mitigation costs between the two bridge lengths are not included in the
concurrence meeting package.
C. A vertical profile was provided for Structure 7 at South Fork Falling Creek but
was not included for Structure 8 at McDonald's Pond EEP Mitigation Site (i.e.,
Wetland #37, Falling Creek).
D. There was no legend, scale, or north arrow shown on the figure entitled "R-2501
Structure 8 Falling Creek/McDonald's Pond Restoration Site". From this design
figure, it appears that the dual 2-lane, 480-foot bridges are separated by an
approximate 65-foot median. There is no discussion concerning the need to
separate these dual bridges by 65 feet and thereby causing greater wetland fill
impacts.
E. Similarly, this figure depicting the USACE suggested northern alignment and
525-foot dual bridges shows a distance between the two bridges of approximately
65 feet. There is no information in the concurrence meeting package that explains
the need for the dual bridges to be spaced this far apart (i.e., Constructability
issues).
F. As identified during the field meeting and as subsequently questioned by
USACE's Tom Steffens, a 120-foot bridge at Structure 8 would not span the
existing sewer easement pipe. The fill slope lines shown in this figure would
appear to cover more than 250 feet of the sewer line (EPA calculates that the
Right of Way - ROW is approximately 290 feet according to this design figure).
G. EPA and USACE's Steffens estimate that between 10 to 20 feet of fill would
cover the sewer pipe and several maintenance access ports and would eventually
require relocation in the existing EEP mitigation site. This potential additional
direct impact to jurisdictional wetlands is neither discussed nor detailed in the
concurrence package.
H. NCWAM was performed on Structure 7 South Fork Falling Creek (a larger
wetland site) but not on Structure 8 McDonald's Pond EEP Mitigation Site.
1. There appears to be multiple `fill slope lines' (dashed Hines) on this figure with
no explanation for the different lines.
J. As with Structure 4 at Watery Branch, NCDOT has mischaracterized EPA's
request to reduce the median width through jurisdictional wetlands. NCDOT cites
that the median is to be reduced to 46 feet for minimization purposes. EPA does
not believe that this standard median width for a 4-lane facility is demonstrating
minimization or avoidance.
K. The bridge costs are confusing and not,consistent: The difference between a 450-
foot bridge (NCDOT preferred that meets the FEMA requirements) and the 830-
foot bridge (Agency preferred) or 380 feet at Structure 7 is $2,376,000. The cost
difference at Structure 8 between a 120-foot bridge (NCDOT preferred) and 480-
foot bridge (Agency preferred) or 360 feet is $4,267,000 - $1,147,000 =
$3,120,000. The differences have not been adequately explained or documented.

The Merger concurrence package does not detail the uniqueness and very high quality
nature of the McDonalds Pond EEP Mitigation Site. This site has been characterized
by other agencies as being exceptional quality, especially as it relates to wildlife
habitat. NCDOT has not fully examined the indirect impact of constricting this
braided stream, vegetated hummock system with a 120-foot bridge. NCDOT has not
formally acknowledged that a 480-foot Structure 8 would no longer necessitate the
construction of a wildlife passage at Falling Creek (220 feet by 60-inch concrete
pipe): $40,000. NCDOT has not proposed reasonable avoidance and minimization
measures for the R-2501 new location project (e.g., Reduced median widths,
restricted distances between dual bridges, reduced shoulders widths, steeper side
slopes, bridging high quality wetland systems, horizontal alignment shifts, etc.).
5. Potentially Violated Laws/Reeulations: Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
6. Alternative Course of Action: NCDOT needs to provide full and accurate information
to the Merger team and NCDOT and FHWA should concur with USACE, NCDWQ,
USFWS, NCWRC and EPA on a 480-foot structure at the McDonalds Pond EEP
Mitigation Site.
Section 404/NEPA Merger 01 Issue Brief-August 24, 2009
Submitted by: Gary Jordan, USFWS
Project Name and brief description: R-2501, US 1 from Sandhill Rd. (SR 1971) to
Marston Rd. (SR 1001), Richmond County
2. Last Concurrence Point and Date: CP 3 on February 15, 2001
CP 2AAA meeting held on August 20, 2009 but no concurrence reached
3. Explain what is being proposed and your position including what you object to.
Of nine major stream crossings, NCDOT proposes culverts at seven. The USFWS concurs
with the seven culverts. For Structure 7, NCDOT proposes a 450' bridge over South Prong
Falling Creek. The USFWS concurs with the 450' bridge. However, for Structure 8,
NCDOT proposes a 120' bridge over Falling Creek at the McDonalds Pond Restoration Site.
The USFWS does not concur with a 120' bridge for Structure 8, but prefers the 480' bridge
option.
4. Explain the reasons for your potential non-concurrence. Please include any data or
information that would substantiate and support your position.
The R-2501 preferred alternative bisects the EEP site known as McDonalds Pond Restoration
Site. The site is a combination of restoration, enhancement and preservation of both stream
and wetlands. It is in its fourth year of monitoring, and has been shown to be an exemplary
site. The road alignment bisects the site within portions of the wetland enhancement and
preservation areas. Structure 8 lies within a wetland enhancement area.
Structure 8 would be constructed within an exceptional quality wetland system that is
characterized by a highly braided stream system. The wetlands are excellent wildlife habitat
with great diversity in micro-topography, being characterized by many vegetated hummocks.
The highly braided channel system is key to the high quality of the wetland system. The
braided system is approximately 500' wide where the road will bisect. If a mere 120' bridge
is placed in this location with causeway filling the remainder, the 500' wide braided system
through this high quality wetland would likely be necked down to a single deeper channel,
thus significantly impacting the character and quality of this exceptional wetland system.
NCDOT opposes a 480' bridge at this location because it believes that an increased cost of
approximately 3 million dollars is unreasonable to save an additional 2.3 acres of wetlands
(4.45 acres of wetland impact with a 120' bridge as opposed to 2.15 acres with a 480'
bridge). However, these are only the direct and jurisdictional impacts. Necking a 500' wide
braided channel wetland system down to 120' will most likely cause many indirect and/or
secondary wetland effects downstream and possibly upstream of the bridge. Though these
indirect or secondary wetland impacts are not jurisdictional, they are real nonetheless.
Constructing a 480' bridge will help maintain the high quality of the wetlands that lie outside
of the project footprint.
_?
5. List any relevant laws or regulations that you believe would be violated or jeopardized
if the proposed action were implemented and explain the basis for violation.
The USFWS believes that Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act would be violated if
NCDOT does not further minimize impacts to the high quality wetland system and braided
stream system at Structure 8.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) provides the basic
authority for the USFWS involvement in evaluating impacts to fish and wildlife from
proposed water resource development projects. It requires that fish and wildlife resources
receive equal consideration to other project features. It also requires Federal agencies that
construct, license or permit (e.g. Section 404) water resource development projects to first
consult with the Service and State fish and wildlife agencies regarding the impacts on fish
and wildlife resources and measures to mitigate these impacts. Specifically, the USFWS
provides comments and recommendations to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the
issuance of Section 404 Clean Water Act permits.
6. What alternative course of action do you recommend?
NCDOT should concur with the resource agencies on the Merger Team to construct a 480'
bridge for Structure 8. An additional benefit to constructing the longer bridge is that the 220'
x 60" concrete pipe located near Structure 8 would no longer be necessary.
Merger 01 Process
issue Briefing Format (Felix Davila - 9/22/09)
1. Project name and brief description: US-1 from Sandhill Road (SR 1971) to
North of Fox Road (SR 1606), Richmond County, Federal-Aid Project No. NHF-
1(1), TIP No. R-2501, State Project No. 8T580501.
2. Last Concurrence Point Achieved: CP 3 (LEDPA)
2115/01 - Reached CP 3 Concurrence
Concurrence Point Meetings Dates: CP 2A/ 4A
• 09/18/08 - Team met and agree that they needed a field visit
• 11/12/08 - Team Field Meeting agreed on structure type and length at
seven (7) of the nine (9) sites. Additional information and/or discussion
were requested for Structure 7(South Prong Falling Creek)(W-26) &
Structure 8 ( Falling Creek)(W37).
• 08/20/09 - Concurrence Point 2AAA Meeting attended by Ron Lucas in
place of Felix Davila Concurrence on Structure 7 was agreed.
Concurrence not reached in Structure 8. It was agreed to elevate issue.
3. Proposal and Position:
• Structure 8 crosses the EEP's Mc Donald's Pond Restoration Site (W37).
During the November 2008 field meeting, resource agency
representatives preferred bridges that would span the braided stream
system, sewer easement, and allow wildlife passage. At the 11/12/08 field
meeting resource agencies suggested to NCDOT to investigate moving
the alignment to the north.
• NCDOT investigated shifting the alignment to the north and presented the
information on the 08/20/09 meeting. NCDOT found that there is not an
advantage to the wetland system in shifting the alignment north since it
would impact other wetland systems outside the EEP area. NCDOT
proposes a 120 foot bridge length with 36 inch equilibrium pipes on each
side of the stream crossing for wetland connectivity. A 60 inch pipe is also
proposed for upland wildlife passage at this site.
Because of the high quality of this wetland system, the agency
representatives do not support a 120 foot bridge across the system.
Several expressed concerns that a shorter bridge would change the
braiding of the stream system and have indirect and cumulative impacts
upstream and downstream.
The Merger team did not concur with the proposed bridge length of 120
foot at this site. NCDOT and FHWA(represented by Ron Lucas at the
meeting) do not agree with spending the additional money to span the
system.
41gasons for non-Concurrence:

?V
NCDOT and FHWA(represented by Ron Lucas at the meeting) do not
agree with spending the additional money to span the system. Particularly
Ron Lucas (personal communication) commented, he did not hear any
compelling reason at the 8/20/09 meeting to justify, that it was a
reasonable public expenditure to increase the bridge length to either 450
or 560 foot bridge
5. List any relevant laws or regulations that you believe would be violated
or jeopardized if the proposed action were implemented and explain the
basis for violation.
• FHWA (as the sole federal funding Agency) and NCDOT have authority
under 23 CFR 775(a) & (b) to make determinations of what represents a
reasonable public expenditure when weighed against other social,
economic, and environmental values, and the benefit realized is
commensurate with the proposed expenditure. Copy of the relevant
portion of the law or regulation is attached.
6. What alternative course of action do you recommend?
FHWA supports the selection of the proposed bridge length of 120 foot at this
site and have determined it is a reasonable expenditure of public funds. We
believe, FHWA (as the sole federal funding Agency) and NCDOT (as the sole
state funding agency) have sole authority of determining what is a reasonable
expenditure of public funds, to minimize environmental impacts. So after
considering any new and compelling argument to be presented at the elevation
meeting FHWA and NCDOT will make a determination of what is a reasonable
expenditure of public funds to minimize environmental impacts at the EEP's Mc
Donald's Pond Restoration Site (W37).
7. Attachment: 23 CFR 775(a) & (b)
§ 777.5 Federal participation.
(a) Those measures which the FHWA and a State DOT find appropriate and necessary
to mitigate adverse environmental impacts to wetlands and natural habitats are eligible
for Federal participation where the impacts are the result of projects funded pursuant to
title 23, U.S. Code. The justification for the cost of proposed mitigation measures should
be considered in the same context as any other public expenditure; that is, the proposed
mitigation represents a reasonable public expenditure when weighed against other
social, economic, and environmental values, and the benefit realized is commensurate
with the proposed expenditure. Mitigation measures shall give like consideration to traffic
needs, safety, durability, and economy of maintenance of the highway.
(b) It is FHWA policy to permit, consistent with the limits set forth in this part, the
expenditure of title 23, U.S. Code, funds for activities required for the planning, design,
construction, monitoring, and establishment of wetlands and natural habitat mitigation
projects, and acquisition of land or interests therein.

^
y t

n,

ry i
t

1t{c

A
???
t l

y F

r

kq»;
r'1
f
v{:
4
x

r
Y
J is
`y
:Y b
i
' V-
Vy

- -
' \.r'
- - r f f
'
r )
I
I? I
..

^
r
s I . ? ?
II 1)
)P I
If I

v
O
P
! I
n j

j• ? j J

I I ji

/ / !J

jr)

)
I ? rr
/I

P //

I iAm- CS 590M0_72 .I - 590
f ? I
I ?
I -LR9R- ST 59214032
1 ? ? 1 I
? ? II I 595
r l II '`
r ? `\ ? A / I srs
' f // : ` -L- TS 615+90 -
\ I /?? 1 _L SC 6/!17074
i
6zo? ?? 620
1 f ll ?
1
t

d
n
?5 I
1
I
1
6? t
o ?

o ?
Z 1

m

cn
m
W5 o-?R

615
m
m
m
m /
z /
z
I/
59,
I

I 6600

O
f
615
620