20070683 Ver 1_Application_20070420

t
}s„a SfAIFn
~}' ~
'~.Q~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 18, 2007
ATTENTION: Mr. Rob Ridings
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
`R~^
E~r~~~
~,'r~h, ~/'~
~.; . r~
SAN ~~~~ a
OAT ~RM~gT~ln"
~RB~N
~N
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
o~os~3
Subject: Application for Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Authorization and Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for the replacement of Bridge No. 3 over Ruin Creek on SR 1107
(Community House Rd.), Vance County, Division 5, Federal Project No. BRZ-1107 (8),
WBS Element No. 33635.1.1, T.I.P. No. B-4298.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 3 over Ruin
Creek [DWQ Index # 28-17-2-(2)], a Division of Water Quality Class "C NSW" Water of the State. The
project involves replacing the bridge on new alignment north of the existing facility, while using an off-
site detour to maintain traffic during construction. The proposed structure will be a 195-foot, double
span, pre-stressed, 72-inch concrete girder spill through bridge with 32 feet of clear roadway width. The
structure will provide two 11-foot travel lanes with a 3-foot shoulder on the left and a 7-foot shoulder on
the right. Because it is a two-span bridge, there will be two end bents and only one interior bent. The
roadway approaches will provide two 11-foot travel lanes with 6-foot grassed shoulders (widened to 9
feet where guardrail is required). Enclosed with this permit application is a project site map, buffer
permit drawings, PCN form, Categorical Exclusion (CE) document, half size plan sheets, an Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) mitigation acceptance letter, and a reforestation plan.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: The project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (subbasin 03-03-01). This
area is part of Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the South Atlantic-Gulf Coast Region. In
addition to Ruin Creek, there are two unnamed, intermittent tributaries (UT) to Ruin Creek within the
project area, as well as one jurisdictional wetland. Both tributaries enter Ruin Creek south of the bridge
and run parallel to Community House Road. The wetland is located along the UT in the southwest
quadrant of the project area.
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] Of 2728 CAPITAL BLVD. SUITE 240
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 919-715-1335 RALEIGH NC 27604
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER FAX: [phone]
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG

No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-
I), or Water Supply (II) waters occur within 1.0 mile of the study corridor. Neither tributary is listed on
the 2002, 2004, or Draft 2006 List of impaired waters [Section 303(d)] for the Tar-Pamlico River Basin,
nor do they drain into any 303(d) waters within one mile of the project area. Listed waters do not meet
water quality standards or have impaired uses.
Surface Water Impacts: No fill will be placed in Ruin Creek since no bridge bents will be removed from
or placed within the creek. No other permanent or temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters are
anticipated from this project.
Wetland Impacts: No permanent or temporary impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated from this
project.
TAR-PAMLICO BUFFER IMPACTS
The UT to Ruin Creek found in the southwest quadrant of the project area is located on the Vance
County soil survey and is subject to the Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules. The UT to Ruin Creek in the
southeast quadrant of the project area is not found on either the 7.5 minute USGS topographic map or the
county soil survey; therefore, this stream is not subject to the Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules.
Construction of the new bridge and approaches will result in buffer impacts to Ruin Creek and the
southwest UT (Permit drawings 4 and 5). Under the Tar-Pamlico Buffer Rules, impacts to buffers from
the construction of bridges are allowable; impacts associated with construction of the approaches which
impact less than 150 linear feet or one-third of an acre are also allowable. However, buffer impacts to the
southwest UT are road impacts other than those associated with stream crossings, which require
mitigation (Table 1).
Table 1. Tar-Pamlico River Buffer Impacts to Ruin Creek and Southwest UT (Square Feetl
Bridge Construction Other than Stream On-site Buffer Impacts
Crossing Road Replacement covered by
Im acts EEP
Zone 1 Irn act (s . ft) 6892 2854 403 2451
Zone 2 Irri act (s . ft) 5641 0 -- --
Mitigation requirements Allowable Allowable with -- --
(exempt, allowable or mitigation
allowable with miti ation)
Practical Alternatives Anal: This bridge has been determined to be structurally deficient and
functionally obsolete. Replacement of this inadequate structure and straightening of the approach
roadways will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations. Because this bridge needs to be
replaced, impacts to the riparian buffers of Ruin creek and the southwest UT are unavoidable. In this
case, replacing the existing bridge on a slightly new alignment with an off-site detour provides the least
amount of impacts to riparian buffers.
UTILITY IMPACTS
There are no utility impacts associated with this project.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
The NCDOT is committed to the incorporation of all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid
and minimize buffer impacts. The following measures were taken during the design of the proposed
B-4298 Permit Application
Page 2

t
bridge to avoid and minimize impacts to the streams and buffers:
• Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and Bridge Demolition and Removal
will be implemented.
• The proposed project includes complete bridging of Ruin Creek, without any bents located in the
stream, allowing for pre-project stream flows to maintain current water quality, aquatic habitat, and
flow regime.
• Impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands will be avoided.
• The roadway grade was kept as close as possible to the existing, minimizing fill height.
• The proposed bridge will be 58 feet longer and 13 feet wider than the existing bridge, increasing the
floodplain under the bridge.
• An off-site detour will be utilized during construction.
• Two preformed scour holes will be constructed to filter storm-water runoff.
MITIGATION
NCDOT will perform limited on-site buffer mitigation at the SR 1107 overpass of Ruin Creek. The
proposed mitigation will consist of restoring 403 sq. ft of riparian buffer within Buffer Zone 1. This
restoration will involve excavating existing causeway to match the natural ground elevations. Excavated
areas will be ripped and disked prior to planting if necessary. The restoration area will be planted
following successful completion of site grading. As specified in the reforestation plan (enclosed), the site
will be planted with a mixture of river birch (Betula Nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and
black walnut (Juglans nigra). This mixture will be planted on six to ten foot centers at a density of 680
trees per acre. The site will be inspected following completion of the project. NCDOT proposes no
annual monitoring of the site. The EEP has accepted NCDOT's request to provide mitigation for the
remaining 2,451-sq. ft. of buffer impacys for this project (letter enclosed).
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered
(PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
website (updated January 29, 2007) lists 2 federally protected species for Vance County: bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and dwarf wedgemussel (DWM) (Alasmidonta heterodon). Table 2 lists the
species and their federal status.
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species for Vance County
Scientific Name Common Name Status Biological Conclusion habitat Present?
Haliaeetus Bald Eagle T* No Effect No
leucoce halus
Alasmidonta Dwarf E May Affect, Not Likely Yes
heterodon wed emussel to Adversel Effect
c - aenotes Cnaangereo (a species that is m danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range). "T'- denotes
Threatened (a species, which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range). "*"-Proposed for delisting
A biological conclusion of "No Effect" has been issued for the bald eagle due to the lack of habitat
within the project area. The project area does not contain large areas of open water, and therefore lacks
potential foraging habitat for bald eagles. There are no large ponds or lakes within one-mile of the
project area.
A biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" was issued for the DWM by
the USFWS on February 23, 2005 and can be found in the CE document. Concurrence was given with
B-4298 Permit Application
Page 3

the understanding that apre-construction survey would be conducted. Records from the Natural Heritage
Program indicate that DWM has been documented to occur within 1.0 mile of the project area (in 1998).
A survey on April 20, 2004 and apre-construction survey for DWM on February 27, 2007 yielded no
DWM individuals.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
This project has been reviewed for jurisdiction under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). There are no
impacts to Waters of the US, therefore none of the actions of this project fall under jurisdiction of the
CWA. Therefore, no permits pursuant to the CWA are required.
Section 401 Permit: This project will impact Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffers and written 401 concurrence
will be required.
Buffer Certification: This project has been designed to comply with the Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer
Regulations (15A NCAC 2B.0259). NCDOT requests aTar-Pamlico Buffer Authorization from the
Division of Water Quality.
A copy of this pernut application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.html. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Amy James at 715-7216.
Sincerely
~. -
Gregory J. horpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Cc:
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti,_P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, Project Services Unit
Mr. J. Wally Bowman, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, DEO
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Ms. Jennifer Goodwin, Project Planning Engineer
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
File-B-4298
B-4298 Permit Application
Page 4

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
^ Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: none
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number:~919) 733-3141 Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
1 of 9

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps maybe included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge 03 over Ruin Creek on SR 1107
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4298
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Vance Nearest Town: Henderson
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): see vicinit ~ map
Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): -78.484723 °N 36.252658 °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Ruin Creek
8. River Basin: Tar-Pamlico
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The project is located in a rural area consisting of low
density residential and forested areas.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
2 of 9

a A
Bridge No. 03 will be replaced on new alignment to the north of the existing. bridge with an
offsite detour. Heavv duty excavation equipment will be used such as trucks dozers cranes
and other various equipment necessary for roadwav construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a deteriorating bridge and improve
the aliamnent of the approach roadways
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USAGE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs maybe included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 3 of 9

1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: no tempora or permanent wetland or
stream impacts are anticipated; in addition the construction limits of the temporary workpad
will not encroach into Ruin Creek.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.

Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)

Type of Impact
Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, mazsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-yeaz
Floodplain
(es/no Distance to
Neazest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multi ly length X width, then divide b 43 560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
(linear feet Area of
Impact
acres)

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
Page 4 of 9

5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) _

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of

Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List t]
he cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resultin from the roject
Stream Impact (acres):
Wetland Impact (acres):
O en Water Impact (acres):
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres)
Total Stream Impact (linear feet):
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
Page 5 of 9

VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It maybe useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Please refer to the attached
cover letter
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o. enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stnngide.html.
Page 6 of 9

Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Mitigation by EEP (acceptance letter enclosed)
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet),: 8159 sq. ft.
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
7 of 9

X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all. impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ® No ^
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(s uare feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 2854 3 (2 for Catawba) 8562.0
2 0 1.5 0.0
Total 2854 8562.0
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
XI. 3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the Riparian
Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified within 15A
NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. The Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund will be used for
8159 sa. ft. of the needed mitigation. The remaining 403-sa. ft. of mitigation will occur throu
on-site buffer r~lacement. Please see the reforestation plan in this permit package for details.
XII. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. N/A
XIII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
8 of 9

•
XIV. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact neazby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Cazolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XVI. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).

Applic~ant/~gent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

r •
HEALING
L [.oaeq a 6aa6Wia site m a ahadP,wd
~raaatad aeea.
2. Emnase a Sat hoaom tramp
~ haaha. deq sad peaWe drahoafe.
3. Baalt® the trmi with 2 ioaha wag
ratted twadaat. Roe • Z hmh Lger of
wdl raced aawiatt at a d~4 ~
d aces aced of the taemh.
4. Plea a aityle hoer dpla^n
edaintt6a daDes and ao that
the root ooHar w at frao•d lad.
3. Plane a 1 irb hgar of wdl tetrad
eawtiout aer the eoou maioa.iohy
• abvhlt adw
ti. RWnt Igaea oteolaou sod aaeduac
•a n.e•aa~s aced watx t6oaw~ly.
SEE]
ESTATION

'IANTED 6 1Ff. TO 10 1FT. ON CENTER, RANDOM SPAC~TGa
ROXQITATELY 6S0 PLANT3 PER ACRE.
~.t, t:vivrvxn>I TO THE FOIIAWINGe
REFORESTATION DETAIL SHEE'
N+CDuQT.• ROAOi1pR INVIRON1lBNTA1. UlIR
b4298 reforestation sheet.dgn 04/10/2007 10:24:49 AM

..
o stem
a . ~ ~e:~. ~ ~.
PROGRAM
January 22, 2007
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
RECEIVED
JAN 25 2001
Ol~'iSi~`d ^" N!GItNiAYS
^~~~ ~~,,,c r~~ ~ '~`i;BAIENVtAONMENT
B-4298, Replace Bridge Number 3 over Ruin Creek on SR 1107,
Vance County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the buffer mitigation for the subject project. Based on the
information supplied by you in a letter dated January 8, 2007, the impacts are located in
CU 03020101 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin in the Central Piedmont (CP) Eco-Region,
and are as follows:
Zone 1 Buffer: 2,854 square feet
Also, as indicated in your letter, the NCDOT will provide some of the buffer
mitigation required for the impacts associated with this project on-site. The total
anticipated buffer mitigation required to offset the impacts is 8,562 square feet and
approximately 403 square feet of buffer mitigation will be completed within the existing
right of way of the project. Therefore, EEP will commit to providing the remaining
buffer mitigation need of 8,159 square feet. If the buffer impacts or the amount of
mitigation required for this project increases, then this mitigation acceptance letter will
no longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required.
All buffer mitigation requests and approvals are administrated through the
Riparian Restoration Buffer Fund. The NCDOT will be responsible to ensure that
appropriate compensation for the buffer mitigation will be provided in the agreed upon
method of fund transfer. Upon receipt of the NCDWQ's Buffer Authorization
f~ ~ 3 t ~,~7 ! ~~'~, "•~ r rJ . ^ti' i~ r, E • d.. A / : C .. ~. ~-~ ~ ~./,%p , SMiE-•b'• ~ ~A..;~. ~'i ~~/~+
_, ~ NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-715-0416 / www.nceep.net

~ • ~
Certification, EEP will transfer funds from Tri-Party MOA Fund into the Riparian
Restoration Buffer Fund. Upon completion of transfer payment, NCDOT will have
completed its riparian buffer mitigation responsibility for TIP B-4298. Subsequently,
EEP will conduct a review of current MOA mitigation projects in the river basin to
determine if available buffer mitigation credits exist. If there are buffer mitigation credits
available, then the Riparian Restoration Buffer Fund will purchase the appropriate
amount of buffer mitigation credits from Tri-Party MOA Fund.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
8 . ~~}µ~ I
William D. Gilmore. P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE-Raleigh
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4298

4 o~stem
PROGRAM
January 22, 2007
Mr. John Hennessy
N. C. Division of Water Quality
Mail Service Center 1650
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4298, Replace Bridge Number 3 over Ruin Creek on SR 1107, Vance
County, Tar-Pamlico River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020101)
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide tfie buffer mitigation required for the subject project. The buffer impacts
associated with this project are located in Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar-Pamlico River
Basin. As indicated in the NCDOT's mitigation request letter dated January 8, 2007, the project
will impact buffers only. The buffer impacts are 2,854 square feet in Zone 1 with a total buffer
mitigation requirement of 8,562 square feet. Approximately 403 square feet of buffer mitigation
will be completed by the NCDOT within the existing right of way of the project. Therefore, EEP
will commit to providing the remaining buffer mitigation need of 8,159 square feet. If the buffer
impacts or the amount of mitigation required from EEP increases or decreases for this project,
then this mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance
letter will be required.
The NCDOT will be responsible to ensure that the appropriate compensation for the
buffer mitigation will be provided in the agreed upon method of fund transfer. Upon receipt of
the NCDWQ's Buffer Authorization Certification, EEP will transfer funds from Fund 2984 (Tri-
Party MOA Account) into Fund 2982 and commit to provide the appropriate buffer mitigation to
offset the impacts associated with this project.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
~. ~l~-
W ' m D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, P.E., PDEA, NCDOT
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE -Raleigh
File: B-4298
_ ~~L,
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Lester, Raleigh, NC 21694-1652 / 919-115-0476 / wwa~.nceep.net

.tsh.dgn
_.09/08/99
f C0IYTRACT.• C20I599 TIP PROIECT.• B~298 1
~ I ~ ~~ ~ ,~
ti \~ •~
w ( ~,
A~ C
a ~m - --- - - _CO ~ ' cyD,
y ' v
CH ~ \ ~
V ) T
°z Z of
~~ ~ ~ ~ 1
7 N~ y Z ~~ ~ R in~~reekl ) `~ ~
_ cau
~ z _
_ I~ _
O ~ IN ~+ to '0 0
y _ IN ~,
~ j i
~~ '~
~0~ c ~ c Z ~ ~`-~ to
-°o / ~ o C
o z ~ Z -i ~.
o rn
0
----~~
m N
~ 30 m
47
~~ Z ~ ^J
I = ~ ~ ~ ~
w \~ ` O x
'gym ,'~~ b ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~
'" ~ ~-a
~~\~_1 ° O
~ 1
r.,
~ ~ ~ • r~
C O ® ~
~ ~~ ~~
v `' o ~ ~ ~ ~
y ~b ~ c ~ ~ ~
Z RUiN CRE- fK
~~ }
m ~ ~~ ~ ~ n
pp a
O 6I }~ °~ +
Z T ~ ~'~" p ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ m b
i ` ~~ o v
~i G~
~ ii ~ ~ ~
m ~i ~~
v ~,
Q ~~ m W
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
v "'
~~ N ~~
\\ \~ ~
~~\\ ~I
~~ ~
=~ ~, prp
i -w
~\~
\\ O
g ~~
~o~7CD a a ? n ~
\DTI~ ~ ~+
~~ N ~ S
('~ ^
~--~/ JIB I m m .A
S m MAD Q395 ~ 0~ ~' ~ t ~
x~ zD °°~
~~ ~ mm a
s~
~ ~
m
~r ~ ~~ ~ ~~
z N ~ ~" ~
~~

zz-oEC-zoo6
r:\h4dr auhc
C i
T~TJ
z
rn~
~~
z
.dgn
l0/02/OG R/W REV: PARCEL 2 - ADDED ORNE AND TGE: PARCEL 4 - REDUCED PROPOSED Ri1M AT -ORI-.sls
~~
n
r
m
o ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ m
~ ~
0
D
(/~
IV
O
Z
m
~~
~_ _
r~
~y
O x
~---I .-
s
ODZ
n
Dpi
oorr m~
~~
~~ ~
~~
m nZ
zz
z~ /
~`~~oD v l
rr"u"~
v~ ~~o
~~~w~~
y~~
``
`~
0
N
t~ O~n
z~
~ ~~
I~ ~~
y r~l
N om
n ~o
~ ~a
~ IVr
~ ~Ro
Z ~ 1
O r~
I
b
N
\~\ ""~
~ ` _
1 ~~ \ ,
J ~~
J 1
Q
O;
S~
~~ o
n
nZ
Z~
\ ~~
\` _\
11
I
I
•~ ~ F ~+S
/ ofn SO
/ °1
~ ~
~
. QQ
S!

a O
=

' ~ O
n
o
o
H ~
0
Z
!~ YS'St2
M .65- N -~~~ `
~~
+
~ A
8t3 ~
dd
~
Z
+
b ~
~x ^'
:

~ p a
O
~~ m
m2 Zo
OA Z
\ ~i
a
~~

~
nk
o
s
i
i~
~ ~~
~
m
O
~ ~ O
~ F
~ ~
~ N
4 11
a
O
* ~
~
~
~'
~~
~ ~
~
A ~ 4
N7
m m

y
"' O
Z
f ~o
nA
mto
N
K
N

~
~
m `~' D ~`°'t+
'r
T
4
' .~' 8
y `.
t- i
~~

~T
e
y

~

~J i

~~
y ~
!w D
~+ ~ _
~.
<
'~
I+ ~
Oc
~
ti
% Q~ p .
I8 {,
p
rY'Q
I
s
~~'

~ ,
„
~ ~~
gg4
t 8
~ ~ ~ n
T
+ ~ ~ E ~' ?
g ~ o G ~.
` ^y
o ~.
~ ;4
8~
s
~~
m
m L'f O
~~
~~
Z 2
:(n
II n
D
or
om
8 Cr
sr
u~
°z
~yy
2
...
N~
~ ~.

~oKs
l0/02/Q6 R/W REVIPARCEC 2 - ADOED ORNE AND T.CErPARCEI 9 - REDUCED PROPoSEO R/W AT -ORI-.s/s
22-DE~Y 2006 10:02
r:\hy auh cs\oer mgt\olnsht4.n an
0
~ n y
~ ~ r
r
r-
~ O o
n ~ ~
C°
r- n n
rn fA ~
r
W m m
o ~
W ~

m ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ rn m
o ~ ~
m ~
~ _

D ~ ~

~ ~ .D

~ D D
C7 n
N "~ -•I
N N N
~
N IV
rn
Z z
- m m
N -
~~
Z .yh0
is
' rn A ~
~ O ~_~ '
s „m~3
},®®~ D
~~~ t~
~1
r~
~~
OZF _
>pFf ........,.
...,:Q6f - ...
0
to O~n
rn Zrn
N rn~
V
~ ~~
N ~m
a o
~ ~~
0
~ IVr
p i i
~ ~R~
2~i
~~
i
~ ~
ut
N
K
w
O n
i Z
~s•sez i
g~
~~ m~
gig. o
.~ e O r
~'
,.~~ ~: m
~k
` ~
Q

s~

nn^
Z'

', ~o
'': O
. O
~' 320I,~ ''
N
8
Tt °+
g~ ~ ~~
--1
~w ~ o o D
+$
N+ ~ ~ -
S~ ~.
a~ ~
O y
+ ~yR
~g ~Q
S A S yip
~ H a=1
•64.3
5QQ
~ d
o ~ ~ ~
D
r o -
+ y~5 0 ~_.
g Qo
~ °'~
. ;~ ~
Y;g
Nqp
V
6~
m
m~
ss
00
zz
=N
~~D
or
o'T'
8
3
2
~,
a
~I
a'
x!
_~ W
~v
O ~
-.~
~_ .

~D
(/~ `m ~ Z
-I
rl ~ V 4~

Z
"~
n

z
i a
~ ~
rn -A r ~ ~ o
r~
~ ~ ~ ~y ~ ~
WmD~ <nl ~Y,
c C,~
..0 = + y~ ' ~' ~
w -~ ~ ' c° /~j~
~ '~ /,
o ~ ~
o° ~ /°~
~ ~ ,~~ ~ i
~N~~ ~
C O O
m~Dm
m o
m ~~ 0
~DDT~
.LS 19b
O cn
~?rr
--~
a~
..SI , 0 ,b N
~O---I `
y
Z~mO
m0 CD
N I
~~ -, /
o y
~
~
z
o '
w
D ~
~~
r
rn
N
W
Z
Z
N ~
N
-~
m
~a
i~~ ~
~~
G +
1' 1
i
~ ~' ~ ~}
,,,
r ~~
11 i I ~
i ~.
:,
Rai ~~
1 ~~
,J ',\
~~',
c ~ j' +'~
~.~_ ,
~ ~
~ ~
Q7N ~7-i
C 00
~C DfTI
0
m~~p
~D D ~
NZ~m
OpNX
Zrr~n y
mho--~
Z°-"'-'~
m ~c
O f„
O ~
~~
0
o
0
a a
r~ N
~m
~ 5° SQ, ~_
93 40 /'/ ~p ~ ~
_~ ~ I
~ ~
\~ \
_~ ~ ~s,
~~
`'-`-ice-n`'S
J 1
r
m
n
~ Z
O
`~~
`1®
~\
\ Z\ \
r~
~m
~~
No
'2
s ~~~
~C O y
/ ~ y p -1
ti ~°o
o ~~,~
_.~
rn l f7
r =
~~
v
n ~
_ ~
n
Z
-< ...~
c~
O
o
Z
fTl Q7
z~
I- N
D c..fl
~~

U7 ~ D
C7 (~ ~U
D z
~ ~ I

D ~O
o
_ ~ I-
II (~
~0
~
O
~ rn~
Cn C D

c~
D
r
m
c
v
D
n
-+
N
0
z
m
D
r
r
0
D
r
m
c
m
D
N
N
0
z
m
D
r
r
0
D
W
r
m
W
c
,,
m
"D
n
N
N
0
z
m
N
\\
,bS•sLZ ~ z
M,.6S,6b,z N -~
--~ m ~
pO~v =~ _
~ m
a3~m C ~ ~
o~z~ O m -I
0
I
I
I 1
PI/O`
\ \ \
1
1
\ 1
~ 1
\~
CC„ ~ r
m~N~\
~~°rn~~
1'n~Oy ~1
ply 11
O ~ 1'

`°
0
~ 1
`~
z
\o
c
\rn
0
g
1,

r
~rn
~N°p
~~ _~ x
~Z
~~
n~„
~?n
my
A
O ~
n~
_ ~
_~~
b
of
\ ~=
~ m
~ rn
`~ ~
O D
n k=
Z
Z
rn
v N
rn
70
rn
r
r
r~
n
~ ~
l ~ of
1 ~'
ml
I
I-- ~- ~J
SF,o\
/C
F
~FSF ~Fl p
R~
O
~A4%9 . F'yF,o
E
n

~~
Z ` 7p
~ 1

1

~ ~
I

~ 1
1
~I
o

o I

~ ~ ~
~
` 1 I
W I
1

~
1 I
~ II

~
1 ~1 I
, ~ ~ ~ ~ I
-~ ~
z ~ ~
~~
o I
-r
m
15
2
6~
N D
~ s
N p
~ U: ~
~ ~

/
\ ~.
rt` ~o
~~ ~ ro
z~
I I
~
I m
I ~A
0
I Z~
I I oa
~~
I I ~ nti

I
I "`
mr~
I ~ o~
I I m~
I I nn
~~
`
m
~
0
\
\ ~
I ~~
~ ~\ m
o `
CSI >
N In
I ~ ~ r" ~ ~
I ~ ~ ~ ' ~
~ 1 ~+ ~ N
~ ~
~~
I ° ~
n
~~
~~
..~
-~ 1~
O
N
O

i
0
J
i
i

l2/l3/p6 R/W RfV. PARCEL 6 -REDUCED PDf
s/s
27ti FEB-2007 10:44
r hudreulics\oer
O
)>

~iy
y8

i
0
~a
\~OxOO

?Z
~r

0

rt
~~
mfr
~~
R,

/ '
1 ~~ 1
'~~
1

,~
,~~ \ N
\ ew
w
0
O
/ s
Y' ~ ~ ?gT/6 B.w
n
~ JOT OS ,•~
\ .YI'1~
3.90,20.11 S
J• h t Y
~ `
~ ~g~~
,02'101~~~ ./
,.. ~ ~o
.,_r,
;i ~ ~ 1^9 ~~~ ~
}o ! *' ~
~ ~ \~ ~~
w
t ~; ~rO
/~
r / / O
~ ~ ~
~ ~ G~
f / / ~
i/~/ \ \\
b,
Vii' ,\ .\ ,\ y ~ ~ z
i'~~ .\~Q;. \ ~ N
y
1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~a
E ~ a ~ / ~ a"
•, i .o"a
_ . ~ ~~
- - ~~
~p ~
\ 3/H0~3Nti ~ z ~ ~ ti, ~
\ ' °c
~ \ ~ S.ty~d ~~
'. ~ ~ _ - m
s 8\
~ \ ~ 1
\ ~ ~ '" I 1
~ ~
~ ~ \ ~ n
\ ~
~ \ ~ ~ ~
' ~ \ \1
~ ~ 1
\ ~ 1~
\ \
\ \
~ ~ `1
~ ~
..
.\
. .
/~
\ ` _ ' = NIA
D _-~
~7 ~--.
rnT(I J ~'-
W v
CD
~~ •
n ~
O ~ r
n ~ o
O rm D D
~o m ~ W
~ m ~ $m
~, co m ~
rev ~ C ~ ~Z
rz-~-~C-~ ~ ~ m ~ ~r
~~TI'~1T'~ o
IN ~ ~ ~
D ~ ~
~-7--~ -OI n D P
W N --I n
N ~ N
D ~'
O N
N
m z° z
z - m
N
\ ~ ~, ~
~';~~;' p
/o;
~ ~a ;';'
\
\~``.f
\ e o$s
\\
o .~
as \~ p
\ \ .. ,__-
\ \ ~~,,~
~,
$~, .
~~~~ 1
I~m 1
I' I11~ I
I~ g ~ ~z
I II I n. mT
i _' ~r
I~
~ ~
I~ ~
~I
~~"' •
~ ~~ :;~~
~ iii ~
C! rN~

~~ ~
~~~ xr

a
x~~ "~

~~

~ } ~ ~
ypp~~ ~S
3 ~~ 4
~i
~~
e Z
..
~~
rn Cl
o nn
~S

O

:•~
a

7. Z. d
] ~`
~~ 1 ~ (
~ ~7
~ tr ~$
~
~ :~ '
`a=2
o~
wo
S
O :N
~~D
Or
o'T'
O
O
r
~ r
a -+
0 o e D
~` 8 ~~-
8 ~p *, s
w
} ~~
T a~
y .~ fsj

as• uY.
~ p n V/ W
~ ~ n ~
N ~-
~g S ~
g
~~ ~
_
~' ~
S hq ~<'
sr ~
a
~~
a ,~
~~
x~ ~~

t5.dgn
S~13/QS R/W REV. PMCEL 6 - REQUCED PDE
1
rr
Ory
•'I
I,,. '
0
O
\ \ FY
S
Z9j~6~ B•M
\ v. ~i.~~
0705 6
r ~ A ~` .bl'LB
-. ~`. ......I~ \ 3 .90 d0 .l l 5
.,....,~~5 ''~. ~ -_-~=yam F
N ti
.. ~ H ~ ~02~10~
I ~r~N
W
rDn
V
Z
_..._
.. ... ....... y y p
K~~ in ~ IhOS
.
~` F~~ ~
°' ~ ~ ~
. n2p.,'\ 7Cm
~. 1 ~>3 _ 25
i mm:... .
i ~ fr O
i
y.../
~ ~ .. O .
~ ~ s
i
.'~ ~i ~ O~
'.i \ ~
i ~
-
-n.. ....... _. D
~ r
-
r-
D ~ O
W D ~,

m y .
`~.: ..
:
Lfl ~ ~ o
' pp
~ m r
~ oo m
\ ~

N C ~

O ~ ~ ~

o R7 ~ ~
~ r,~ ,,
~ ~ ~

~
_
D ~ ~
C7 D D
~ f"")
N -I (7
V1 "~
N N
°
z o
N
m z
m
- m
N _
O,y
R

\O~O~

r
4 rEM
~~ ~ ~~~ ~;~ ~'~ 8~
d : ~ '
is
~e ~ ~~ g

~~ q

Z

o
mn e
AA
~~
ZZ u
~ ~~

H
~~
'J
n~o~
°i a
P~
`a22
o `~
`"o
s ~I
:(n
~~D
O~
o''~
> R £2
S
r
u
a ~~
m o a
~ ~ -
w m ~ aw ~i
~' e' 0~ 4
$ Y n
~ +G
y i d^
T
a r_-~ -1

0.5' YIh

~( °
`M•J
~ 8 ~ 0
r ~"1T n
v
4 ~ ajla~ ~
N
w~
~
a
N= r V ~
~ ~ ^
1
~ ~ (~ 1 V
d ~~ 3> ~+ o ~- o D 1 N
up ( ~ ~ ~ ~y
~" 8 ' G d
w
~~ ~
S
s
a
C
~I

ll8rgq ~-~iNl ~ v , _
g~ sz ~3ts

2-DQQEcCc~~~-dd200yy6~~~~11:5p7r~ a~ ~' ~ ~~~
~!ilUSERNAMEit3! 4298_rdy_tah.dgn
09/08/99
Ca11 t TRA CT: C201 S99 TIP PR a ECT.• B-
~Z~~
~ o o

~
~
O

O _~
O
T
~j

O

O
r
A ~ A

A
~
~ N
Z
~ ~
y
~

~_ o g
g g
n ~ b
_ v"'N ttt

to II II II II II II x
II c° c`"'u c:~ra" a
O~ 3aeaeae°° a
aR i a

~ m

= _
m
CZ,'
_ N

~ 70
~`
~
~
Q Iff
~
~
O '9
A
O
~
m n y

~
m N
m
II
O II
O II
~
~
t~A V m
3
N 1~-
Vm! ;
N

_ ° ~ b
N ~ e
N ~

o ~

~ b
a
.Q~
x$

q,~,
'o
A A
~
`
~
n

~ N
V
0
~
~~
,oa
~~
rn
~~
°x

~~
~z
~~
~~
y
~~
3-~
ZH
n~
'o ~
~a
0
C y
DO
~~
N
Z
~-~n
~O~
Z
v~0
oZ
1
R=1 N
~~
30
N nnm
m ~i
~N
~_
r ~
C
m~
vo,
m
a
•
v
m
N
~z
`X'
m
O
z
a
v
Z
H
v
m
A
C
v
b
~~
~r
:~
~~
'~~
r
`z
1 1\`\ ~ o V
\! , ,
~ ~ ~ C
~ ~ C
j-------/`~~ca ~
C ~ ~
--- -- - r..=~ c
0
°' ~~f¢A' to ~ ~
N V
c
Rin ~ ~ ~~~
Lek - c
~N ~
~o N ~ ~
~o
~-~ _ OD
Loyd ~k I o ~ a
I~~~ to
J U
I
I~
b O
''l
O
!~i ~•
V Q
~ nw
~~
~c~ ~ ~
b
0 A
o
b
~~
C t~
A ~~
~r1 z
~~
O ~~
C
Z ~~
~~
`~
~P y ~ y
w
Ai r
m m
~~ } ~ ~
~~lal I~Iii
,io -

''~ ~vs

S m N° Q ~ ~ o ~ o a ~ C C S a ~ g S O n C ; G O ~ ' 0 4
3 ~ ~ °o_ ~i ~ o ~ ~ ~ c
° ' ~ •3i 3 ~ d ~ O ~ 7 '7 i i
° .a
D ~ Q c n~~ o° ~'
c g a
S ~ ~ ~ C
I I ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I I
~/ m I ~
e a I ~ ~ , , ~ ~ Q- -~ ~ ~ •~ ~o o s ~ ~ e ~ x p Qo co
> I I ~JI ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I
I
o ~ ~ 3 ~ g c a ~ ~~~• ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ N
° ~- °o 0 0 ~ 3 -°_. M ° M ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~y o ~ o o ~ ~ ~ n~ ~o •o ~ '3, r ~ ~o ~o ~0 0
~ O ~q ° ~ G Q' ~ ~ O~ N N C ~ ~ 'O 'n -1 1 a (') O ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ''~. A ~ ° p, ° a.
'V ~ ~ o°° T~ ,oo o ~- o o s o 0 0 0~° c ao o m m° ~~ 3~
g o O a O c o o h o~ ~~ v v 3~ o °3 ~3 ~' ~~~ ~ a~ m o
O c a o~ n vs m ~, >> o o° o a ~. ~, o~ v m
c p = ~ °oaa ~ ° a a ~ ~, a ~. ~ ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ °
,n ~ m m ° ~, o x- o O
C O ° °M 7 ~' ~ ~ ! i
~ ~ ~ 3 3 ~'
r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,~I q p ~ r ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ,. I{ ~~
o ~ ~' „ n I~ IA ~ ~ ~ m m i I ~ ~ a
II° ~®~I I ~ ~ D
IJ ~ ~ I I I I "' T T I I i I1 ga~~
~ I I I I ~ ~ V I I I I TT ~
I
n
0
z
rn
Z
-i
O
Z
D
r
•
C ~
II
~ ~
O~
Q t
to e
~'
~~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~° ~ s o a o c ~' m
~~ o~ 0~ o 0 0 0 0~ m p
~. $. ~ _- o 0 0 0~ o m
~ o o c ~ ° v°
~ -~ ~
~ ~ ~ o .~ °- n o ? o o ~
m o O ~ ° i ° ~
O~ c o o~_ 0 0
>3 n ° n 'a
o A ~ A ° '
o ~ 3 a ° ~ _ '
°~ ° ~ ~c'•' o ° o
m __.
N ~ H
N C
m C m
T ..
I I I
I I I
I I I I
I 11
j j ® ~' ^~ ~ O~ T
~ I ~ I i I
~ ~ T~ ~ ~ -tea ~a
oaa ° ~ ~ ~~Q.~ ~
° s ° ~ o ~ `
v n o~ c ~. H o f
.y '_~ ~ O rt C o ~ ~?
o ~ ° ~ ffi ~ ~ °
~ ~ -o o_ s
~ r ~ ~ o s °
~ ~ °- s
~ O =
° ~ ~ O
y ~ ~ s
C
T
I
I I
I
I ~ I ®m ®o ~ ~- o- •-
i
I
I
~. ~.
~o. ~ ~ o ,O,o o m P ~
o
o s o.a ~ c
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~
o ~ 'a _ ~ ~
c o ~ 1 ~ ° o ~
°_
s = x
W
~ a c
~ ~ m ~
p o ~
0 0 ~
m rn
o.
i ~ ~ ~ i i C
I I ~ ~ u
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I ~ ~ II ~ ^
m~~~~ C C C C~ A ~ O
a y ° ~+° ~~ o o~ v ~ c~ y v v ~ o ~
s ~
rt
n. c ~ ~ o ~ ~ s s m ~ ~ c c N N H O ° ~ ° ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °
° a. ° _~ o N ~ [1 ~ P ~ T ~ s
.. O~ x ~° = o o C C g~ n a ° ~'
C - c o 7 • • ° a • O '~ ~ 0 02 ~ ' C
^ s o o ~ n
~' C ~ o in ~ o vi
p O ' C D S C N
S"/! ": m c
a m N ... m
T
~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ i i i i i i i ~ i i
I ~ i ~ ~ ~ j i
!n ~ I I I ~ I I I I
8 ~ I I I I I
Q ® O ~• ~+ ~ I I I
~ >n ~ O ® I
_ C'y ~ ~ ® O ~ I I
• ~ I ~ I = i ®© GC o ~ ® Q O
l o l I i © ~
! I i I I I I
' ~ I
s
Z
rn
rn
N
r
N
~~
•
`?
^

B-4298
P - r
8 n~ m =U~ o
m
~~~P~~~~-~ ~ ~
_ m-_ ~ ~ ~, ~ o ~
- . .. .~ o
~~ ~~~ ~~Wm~~~m~~ ~o ~,~ o
_ .w.~mm~ ~W ~ z
@~ /
~°
:.,..~~ ~1~~ 1
I
1 g
y ~
y /IV =
v
~ ~ ~ ~ ~,
:- \
~~,~~ ~o~g~~ T~ `.
~oNQ~~~~~~ ~~~ , \ i
~~~~~o~-
~~~_~ H~
~~~ ~~g ~o
~ ~ ~~
~ AU/,y
s_-- ~~'9EEk
J ~~
~`
o=
I I O \
® ~ `1
//
~ 1 ~ /i \
,~~
~ ~ ,,
,„
~ ~ ~, ,
~ ,~~
a ~ ~~ - ~`
,~ \~ \~ ~\
~ ~ ~, ,~ ~
vx ~~ ` ~
~ m m \\~~~
vo , \
~ ~ ~~ Za a
"~ C w ;n
~~ ~ ~~+ p
Z ODD O ~ ~
J~ s
~-~ ~j
`~ ~ _~
c -lo- ~ ,- o - - ~
a [~ ~~
~ Z ' j - ~ I~ o,~
~, _ j J~ _
~ ~ _ _ IN o
^' I~ a la I° .p ~
O ~ ~~ o
AO
a
O ~
~ O bd
N ~ ry
O ~ wy
H ~ O ~ n
o n w Q
~ O O
Z ~~~y
b
~ ~~ o
Z ~~Q'h
~~ ~ ~
C~
~ y
Z ~' ~ [~
>° ~ 'y
o~
m !~
N 6
A '
O ~O
a
-~AD 83'95

22-DEC-2006 11;57
z
0
m
m
z
1
m
v
0
w
r
0
w
m
T C
r
(A
l4
2
O
f
0
1
2
m
E
N
rA
m
v
D
t/!
S
~,
m
O
a
0
O
a
m
m

D
r
H
T
O
Z
Z
0
A
N
~ ~ ~
Z ~
~ z
v O
~ w
i
f~
?T
Nw
~8
8
i+ 0
Z~
0
N
0
,.,1 +
pV,
O
It
?~ ,
N
$~ I
g~ .
.~
~~
.~
i

_ A

~ C -1 N i W N j
m
m
-imD77
Dv
mDv
rD'v
Dv
D Dm-Ip zo m-1 <~ i
o
7 O O O
~ ~ z~DV D~ ~DV mD~ Dv
x z m• z• az• z•
z •-~ mD y N
oD<
~ aD oD< DD DD
o D m<D Dv m<D <w <v
~ ~ -~ =vma o•o vma my my

< m
'
° ~o•
zo ms
o a• as
° as
m ,. z
v a
x zoo o
x vX
v ; D
~ rmm
m D• mm m• m•
m
i
D m
z
-~ y9~
~<Dx
~m mrn

l~ Dam
1Dx aN
D
i~ s~
D~
1

~ 1
xamD 0
71 = m-~
amD -1
m = ..1a
.
m c
~
• m
i m
V
o
Z71x mD
Nm O
2712 oD
71N OD
71N <
O
~ V = O
r
i
~ --I~ ~ ..= R1
-+-1 rD
mAO ami-r-I o°n v~ ~~ 171
mro ro to rn Z
"nmio vo xtmno ro ro -1
-~• a mz n• a mz mz
Dv~ "s mv-m•1 m~ ~a fn
zmm oom
vam
1
m C7
01am pT 0o 'n
mm mm =
~m ~Oa afA a m
~-• ~~ fp
°~ c C
{o m D
Mtc~ O s
71 O7o C
vvo
m• zvm D j r
c o
O {o om
m
i77~ C ilyO
r Cm
x9m ma 'omc n p
o
• m =aa
m ..o
z
C O
C
-{
a-
< ~ S a
°
m < ,- ^ m
ao vi n!
~
D
m m m <
vv x
-I -
-•
I n
i
m
o< 1
~_~ N =
'I m v
m ~ v,
r i m
-i
O- p o
~ D ~ T
m
of On
1 D D
4
s
m
O
~ ~~ P
~ ~ f
I
N
rn g
N-rs, O ~
~, Z ~
Z
o L
t
N
t
g
1O
F
N
•O
0
$I
~~
~•
\\••~~ LL
\iCT
® ~
~ ~
T
T
N-.~ ~ -+
~` Z ~
~ obi
~I
I ~ ~ ~ Z 4
-----.^yIL / ~~~ N
/~}~
~~''~'
~h
m ~
~ N /
.. '~- S _~
A ~ ~v tr
~ ~~
3 .NO w.
1-Z y Z ~N O 8 T
'~ ~ Ox oo g
NO tO tc O O Z
N
pN $m t•Vn~ ~ 7 O
$O $ ~ $ ?`~' ty'
O~ O~ ~ o ~ Y
+ +
~~ ~~ ~' S 8 a ~~
O~ O~ t N
S 8 8 s
~-;~,

~lPJ4tiM~4i •xs .a . ~- ..~ ....oi. amp
7/14/`3`i
1
I~ ~
~
I
~ ~

~" rn
I° ~
c
~ o ~_,
r ~ N
irn °

I
I L
I
I
o
I o
I
0 c

r
~ I y ~ ~

~ I
~ o

~ ~
~ I
~ ~
D oo ~
r I ~ ~ ~ ~ N
z ~ ~ ? o
oo ~ g

m N ~

^
l 1
~
~~
~ ~~
~
~
H ~, ~o

~ ~
y
no ~y
~ o '~

/ oo --- -- ----- -
/ ~
/
'
~ --- --
-
---- -

0 2

C
,;o ~ w i
o ~ ~ ~-
r
~
~ ~
1 O
nl
o
~ y ~
, z
~ n o
m ~
5

o ° ~
'~ ~ o
°
~
m

I
9~
~ P~ ..
f a.
I
~~R
~ ~~
! 1~~
t
i
~jy_ •~~
~V~tlO~
H ~ ~

r' D -{
-iH H Z ~ m O
I --I

pC7 00 p0
m Z ~
~ D Nn
--I H --I
~')r2 m
~
D 2
a m D ;0
--~ m --i vi ....i D
-a
m H r,-i
C m m
~

m~ m H m~
~~ p ~
to
G7 Z

O
O~
~7 ~7 p H ~ ~
omm
NL
O
~~ N Nf HD ~
n"O D C7
ZQH
~W NZ N~
fA r H Zlr
co f po
0 0 o H b
~ O
~D ~ ~-o
m ~ ~ ~
`~ ~ oN H
m m0
z
~
r~ ~
DH ~ ~
NH
~r "7 Z •' p H
D m O
~. G7 d Z
m !" ~

o ~
T
n
v v
~ u, A

~ ~ ~
~ oZ A~

m
fl ~
ON r- ~
o
G7 7J
O 7C
~ ~ _ W N
~
m -1
~ -<
~ n ~
Z r
4
D ~ ~~ o ~ pn
-a
rD omn cZi ~
~~
~
°i ~ o
A
,y
r- .~
~ ~
- o

w
C-2066 IL•57
o~noge\d~tc h_ detai 1.64298.dgn
T7
m
(D
7
-+
N
O
m
7
-h
1
n
3
m
7
.+
7
Tt
j N
W
+_ +
V .Wp
~- ~
1
N U N
NN"~
~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~'~' y
. ~
e ~ ~
~ s
~~~ ~~ Co
p Cy1
_ • .

~~
J
~
~ y
}
~ ~
~ J
i .~
~ggR ~ ; ~l
° 4 ~ ~
!
2 ~ ~

p

r _
D

y D ~ ^

p l7

~ !~
e
i
C Q
~a
•<
Q~
a: om

\
- a - m
~ o ~ o
~ y Y + ~~
m
a
5
V
~e t Z N; p~
7VT N' N'
yC~p+ ~~ ~N
~Tg• wg ^+
m
O ao aj g
N ~ N ~
WN K~<O
d Q
v+i o~ou~
5 ; ; C
I y
~ }
~~ I
y

r
o ~
I ~
I N D
om-
I ~ ~
g
N

M I
N
$ y ~ 0.5' Mln.
Q
g LO' Mox.
7
N~ N~
~r ~r
a0 WN
+ wp
~~ -.+
N ~$8
a
~~ o
N~~
K? Ny
rp KT
'~ + T O
., D. ~ +
W `P
yb ~'
3 }
~~p
y ~
3
N
W
a+
O
O
t
+
8
5
H~~t
N
W-I +q.~.p
i ~ W
N a
',~ ~ N
O K -I
;,~o~
~W~a
+ c
g +
b L~
~ 5
-~
O 9~
r ~ A
7 ~
\ ~ ~
N o o D
L `~'-r
•~ ? Z
c Ox °~ ~
x m
n
a
0
~ ~T
~ pp~
~J~
"i
~
°m
o

r

m G

o
„ ~
~
~~ a•ti
a°
a ..~

~

~

m
~
' n

m o
~, ~
~"

D

D
~I T
g s

n ~ ~
_

!9 ~ Z
`"
j1
~'P N
O
0
NT
~~
z N
~' m
1 f7
r
~ m
F~ o D
L o
n
w
.~? „a
Nt
m = ~X 1 m
ro ? o^ g
~° n
~+ r =
rtN
y ~
~ ~T
g
8 "
~
o ~
T
r ~ d n
O ~
° ~
o
N y ~ -1
O D
I-

°
V ~
r r
o g ~
m^
vo
o ~'
M
y ~
FAO;
as ST7
1
g "
3
y
D
ZZ ~
~w
Aa
t v ~ o' D
°o ~ g4 ~
o
{" ;
m
~ 3
v
ti 1
i
Q ~~,I
wl
a
r
~.
O
O
n
W
3
m

v
~vlsloHs
l0/O2/Q6 R/W REV: PARCEL 2 - ADDED DRIVE AND TG£: PARCEL 4 - REDUCED PROPOSED R/W AT -ORI-.s/s
22-DEC-2006 11:57
r:\roadwa \ ro \b4298_rdy_psh 4.dgn
`,
,g 11
1 1, :~
1 1
1`
1 ~'~
'.u,,,~,,,~ ~ I I11
1 `4 I
I I!
I
U~ I I~
N I Y
I
II
~'
aro
~~
__~___~ D ! 9b
M.SI, O.b N
• s
.~ + k ~
+ ~ ~ g
~~In oD\
a-I~op~ a ~~ o ~
II II II 11 MVf 11 II II II Vf ryc1
~~~~~a ~~A~~
ao y~~ '°°
~~ I
II II U II ~~ II II q II Ilv, .~
N~ O a N ^ ;o~
~aawtryi,~ ~~• N~~ s
~~~p~~-cU ~`~~w~A I ~
'Yy_~~ ~}$~$ z~ +
Y Z~
N ~~¢i~\\\11
~~I`OD~
uulluu~ +
o ~~~~ N~ u
M M II II II Vf n1 ab1 ~
~~ ~. ~
$~~V~o I I~IQ
~~~~~ ~ ~ \
WN~ ~
~_ ~~~
`~
_ , ~ ~ ~ a
~~ ,r
L
s
P
`` ~~
~~v
~ IIZ~~R' (~,J~ \~\
~I= W~ ~~~
y v
v;

O~
~ I~r
I I i~ O

~n
O
~~
0 ~ ZZ
~~
~
~~~

_~
cn
C
~~~ 1
~ O
n
O
Z
~'s~z ~~
66 .Z N
/~~
~~6roMy
P ~~O
stz~ i
~; ~~ m' Z _
yxi y T O = o
mo
>N 0 N ~
m~ m
y m
on m
r
en ~
;A ~~ A+~ ~
:" stu• ~
10
4
H
~~~
m ~ I
~ F
H ^'
r A ,V
y I
4
x
v
C
Q t~p
=~ D
CAN ~
mT~
$R'
~~r
y
Leo
~o
~\
Nqp 8~
V
6Z
m~
m~
~~
ZZ

8
'~ T[
sr ~
~z
a
8~
;~ y ~
B/17/99
z
0

R/W REV. PARCEL 6 - REOilCED PDE
22-DEC-2006 IL•57
r m\~roadwa~\~ro~~'b4298_rdy_psh5.dgn

~ ~~
~ _
A
~ ~ ~
~
o+vi rn
~+

2
~ ~ ~

0
~i
2
~ ~
r (.~
2
~
o
~ 'o '
s A~
~ ~~
i
,

\ ~\
~. ~~ ~o
~~
~ ~ ~ ~~
--~~. ~~i
O
~O
2
6j
m~
nn
00
zz
4
r
))
III
~~ a
\ N
~~\
\ ~S
~\ ~~9
~9~ e SB' q.
~ 3o~~.w
'0~
~ ~~\
3 .90 ,ZO ,LI~
3 .F6 ,[F.OZ~
r~W \~~
~~ ~ r
~'
_\ ~ sp ~9
~ ~ • tNir ` 1
~ ~ .~
\ \ ~
~ \ = u
\ \ \L
\ ~.
\ __ ~.
\ \
~ ~
~cda.
_ _ _ 3Nda
~~ -~
~'' - _ '~
__
O ~

N
~~~
.~mm

m
mm
m
m
y ~ y
N ~ V
' ~o
'~ m~
oz
~
~o ~ o~
~~r
nl~ ~~

~1 O ~

m~~ y c~~
o~
2
~y
~ ~ o~
c
m ~
~
a
m
y
r
N
t ~ R v Zl~ ~
I~ LT' ~ T
~~ 1 m m ~`^" ^~~??~~
~l \ ` = Z ~ 2S ~~
,, ~~ ~ s
~ r O ""Y
y H V
~+ '° ~ v/ ~~~oD~
8 ~ o
i ~~ ~ M M~ ~ ~ lr
-~~ ~~ ~ V' ~ lAf~l~;~0
~ $ `~
d~~6 ~ ~~ t \ \ z `:N
~~~ ~9 ~ ~ ~ ~ pb~~4c„'+
~ ~Nd ~'~w~' V A \ \ Z 4~A
i b
~. __ / / 8} ~ ~ ~
i fig. ~ n
~ ~• _, ~ P~ 5 0 a~ ~~~oD~ ~
~ i / .oa A N ~ Y A V,2
r
~~da0pl - ' ~ (~ r~ 1~7Q1lnfj(.,~liN
~yrYi ~~~p~~~ 0; ~~Cj ~~T~
ov
~i ,~~ ~,oss,

..
sr ~~ ~ ~
~z
a ~
~ ~
a
,~
~
~
~~
z ~
~ ~
`" "_
~

0
0
N
N

N
Z
O ~

F~

2 Zm
a
W
~ ~ r"
O
O
Z
~
Q2 U
O`
~
rn F
~O
O
wr
i
OOZ Z~ O1=
F-y >U ~

~~ O
U ~
a
Z

H
Z
W
~ y
W
m
Q ~
U
Z Z
H ~
N ~
X ~
w
z

Q
z O
~o ~
U

W ~ ~
W (7 Z
H ~ J_
O ~
F Q Q
Zz a
~ O Y
H
LL
O
Z
J
J
_
3
LL
W
}
m ~
~ Z
J F
~X °
a
Z W ~
W LL W
F-
Z
O
U
O
~ a a F'
z w> ~
~ ~ V ~
Q
J W W O
U Z
O m U
N
~
Q d'

F-
w
w O
w ~
~ ro ~ U

F- N
_
Z~
W
N O o
W W

~
g
ma
Z '~
f7
M
~ O °v c

J
~
N
r
~
O N ~ O O ~

W
J
CO

Q N
W
Z `~

O

O

O

O

O

O

O

O
F- O
~ N
Z~ N O ~
N ~ O O ~
N
J
~
O
O
O
O
O O O h N
Q w
J ~ n ~ N
C
G U m N
~ `~
a o o
N
J
J
Q
W
`~
O
O
O
O
O O N
~
L
r Q
N
c
N ~
cD
U

a J~

a
~a x x x x x
a~

W w ~
a X X
~ ~ d'
~ m
M
W Q

O~
~
~
U
~ O F O F„ O F„ O F, O ~ O ~
O C J a0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

H~ (O
O ~ 'J + J + J ~
t J f0
t O
t
F Q ~ N ^ O ^ O N -~ N J
O LL ~ Q t ~
t ~
t ~
+ O W
~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ LO ~ N ~ + ~

y
N
N
(7
N
O
N
O N
N
w
N
N
~ a
a
g a
~
~
H ~
Z
Z
- g
Z o
U ~ ~ m m

F

O
Z J
W N th v v~ cc n Q
~ ~
O 0
F-

z

b
a
U

0
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ® ~
~~~
~~®
~~~

z

W ~
z
z ,~
z ~
~
x ~
~ ,
U W~

I
i
I
~I
U
w
w
F
a
w
U
~ ~, ~ c
~..~ Z ^! U
Z ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~
~ x~ ~ ~x
H ~~ M mz~~
A c ~ a® ® ~
U U x
z

0
0
~~
a

r
a
H
H a
z ~
~ ~
~ ~
® ~,
w ~
H
~ ~
~ a
U
W
a
9
"-~
~ ~
~ ~

•
~~4'.
- t
'~
i~.
0
.~
V
w
0
V
W

O

OI
v
w
~I
`~
w
v
r~
V
'~
+~
r
U
1~?
KI
w
'N
U~
~~ .
w
O
U
m ~
~ o
4~
.a
o
'v
~ C°
a
N
w
~,
V
h
i
Q
d
~~
.y
~ \ y
~ y ~
a ~ •y
r
v
~ .
~ .
~ .
~ ,
~ ~ ,
~ ~ ~ ,
~ ,
~ ,
C
L C
G c
C C
L C
C C
L c
L C
L C
C c
L CC
C CC
C

d d d d ~ d d v d d d d

~ ~ d d d v d ~ d d d ~
U U U U U U U U U U U U
a; v a m` a~ a~ `w a`r a`r `w a`> `m
v a~i d w a~i w w a~i a~i m v a~i
J J J J J J J J J J J J
M M M M M M M M M M M M
O O O O O O O O O O O O
a
a a a a a a a a a a a
C C C C C C C C C C C C
O O O O O O O O O O O O
Ol ~ Ol m ~ ~ m m 01 m Ol ~
C C
.` C C C C C C C C C C
f0 f0 l0 l0 f0 lO N 10 l0 l0 l0 f0
N d N N N N N N N d N d
LL lL LL lL lL LL LL lL LL lL LL LL
N N N N N N N N N N N N

m io m m m m m m m iu m m
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(O f0 f0 (O (O M M M M (O f0
In In U1 In to N In N N lf) l!1 1!')
n n n n n n n n n n n n
N N N N N N N N N N N N
U U U U U U U U U U U U
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

'O
V
'O
'O
~
V C
~ C
N C
N C
tl01
-O
~
O
T[ O O O
~ O
` O
~
-

~ x
~ X
~ c
~ x
~ x
~
d v
d v
d o
N x
~ x
~
_ _ _ _

~
.~ :

E~ Ev Ev E-o E-o E-o Ev E'o
Od' Od' J J J J Od' O~ Off' O~ Off' Off'
U N U N ~ ~ ~ ~ U y U y U y U y U y U y
N O N O In In O O Ili O ~ O N O U O 11D O N 7
~S ADS U uMi ~ ~ ~2 ~2 ~2 ~S ~_ ~_
C7 C~ ? ? oty ~ oty ~ a7 2 atl = a7 S ai5 S ~ Q
?~ ~. J J J
~ O J
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ -'j ~ ~ ~ N y
C C ~ ~ O N N N N C C
~ pp
O~~ T ~ ~ T
~ ~ N N N 5 Q1 O
~~ O
~ O O
~ ~ O
~ O ~ ~'
m m m m
C C yN - -
O O N f/1 fA fA C ~ ~ C N N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ C c C C C C
U U = _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ a d
O O .O
~i
~~
'~A
m N
d
^c
"V
b
O
N
b
N
4
'~
m

Vance County
Bridge No. 3 on SR 1107
Over Ruin Creek
Federal Aid Project.No. BRZ-1107(8)
State Project No. 8.2390801
WBS No. 33635.1.1
T.LP. No. B-4298
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Approved:
AT ~ Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Environmental Management Director
Project Develoment and Environmental Analysis Branch (PDEA)
s~ -
D~ John F. Sullivan, III, PE, i ion Administrator
~; ~ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Vance County
Bridge No. 3 on SR 1107
Uver Ruin Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1107(8)
State Project No. 8.2390801
WBS No. 33635.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4298
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
Janurary 2005
1
_,o ,
Karen B. Capps, PE
Project Planning Engineer
r
vV L
William T. Goodwin Jr., PE, U ' ead
Bridge Replacement Planning nit

-PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Vance County
Bridge No. 3 on SR 1107
over Ruin Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1107(8)
State Project No: 8.2390801
WBS No. 33635.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4298
Structure Design Unit, Hydraulics Unit
No proposed bents will be allowed in Ruin Creek. Where possible, the proposed bents
will be pulled back from the edge of the stream bank ten feet.
Due to erosion concerns, temporary access roads for conveying construction equipment
into the floodplain will be stabilized with either rock or timber matting. Rock work pads
or timber matting will also be used in the floodplain for construction equipment. No
construction equipment will be allowed in Ruin Creek under any circumstances.
No deck drains will be allowed to dischazge into Ruin Creek.
Hydraulics Unit, Roadway Design .Unit
Storm water runoff will not be channeled from the road directly into the stream. The
runoff from the roadway should be allowed to continue to dissipate and sheet flow over
the natural vegetation before reaching Ruin Creek. The exception will be in the
southwest quadrant with the existing intermittent stream.
Roadside Environmental Unit, Division S
Special sediment control fence will be used along the toe of slope that runs parallel to
Ruin Creek to minimize the risk of adding sediment into the stream. Standazd silt fence
or temporazy silt ditch will be used along the toe of slopes that aze perpendiculaz to Ruin
Creek.
Due to the proximity of a federally protected species, all unstabilized azeas of the project
located within the fifty foot riparian buffer azea will be temporarily stabilized during
active grading utilizing erosion control blankets, fabric, plastic, or other material(s),
approved by the Roadside Environmental Unit, prior to any rain event, as directed by the
Engineer on site. The temporary stabilization should be adequately anchored and utilized
to prevent the loss of sediment into the water course unless runofffrom~these azeas can be
divereted to an adequately designed sediment basin or until the area is stabilized with
vegetation.
Greensheet Sheetl/2
Categorical Exclusion, ,
PDEA .
r,.,,,,,,«.- inn;

~ ~
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Division S, Structure
Design -Unit, Hydraulics Unit, Roadway Design Unit
The projecf'lies within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and will adhere to all applicable
riparian buffer rules..
NCDOT will be required to conduct a mussel survey before construction begins for dwarf
wedgemussel. If any individuals of this endangered species found, they will be relocated
out of the- footprint of the project before construction begins.
Greensheet Sheet2/2
Categorical Exclusion,
PDEA -
T,.,_..,.,..,. ~~n~

Vance County
Bridge No. 3 on SR 1107
over Ruin Creek
Federal Aid. Project No. BRZ-1107(8)
State Project No. 8.2390801
WBS No. 33635.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4298
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 3 is included in the 2004-2010 approved North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and is eligible for
the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The location is shown in
Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a
Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 32.7 out of a
.possible 100 for a new structure. The structural appraisal for the existing bridge is two out of a
possible nine and the deck geometry appraisal is two out of a possible nine. Therefore, the
structure is considered to be structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. The replacement of
this inadequate structure will result in safer traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located approximately 1.2 miles west of Floytan Crossroads and 6.5 miles
southwest of Henderson, N.C. The surrounding area is spazsely developed with residential
homes and is lazgely wooded.
SR 1107 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System and
it is not a National Highway System Route. This route is not a designated bicycle route and there
is no indication that an unusual number of bicyclists use this roadway.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1107 has a 17-foot pavement width with 6.0-foot grass
shoulders. The roadway grade is in a sag vertical curve through the project area. The existing
bridge is on a tangent alignment with curves on each approach. The roadway is situated
approximately 20.0 feet above the creek bed.
Bridge No. 3 is a four-span structure that consists of timber decking with an asphalt wearing
surface on steel I-beams. The end bents and bents consist of reinforced abutments that have been
widened with reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. The existing bridge (see Figures 3A and
3B) was constructed in 1953. The overall length of the structure is 137 feet. The cleaz roadway
width is 19.2 feet. The posted weight limit on this bridge is 14 tons for single vehicles and 19
tons for TTST's.
There are no utilities visible in the immediate area. Overhead power lines are located on the
north side of SR 1107 but terminate approximately 500 feet from the west end of the bridge. A

telephone pedestal is located on the north side of SR 1107 approximately 200 feet west of the
bridge. There are no indications that the underground telephone line crosses Ruin Creek.
The current traffic volume of 600 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 1200 VPD by
the year 2025. The projected volume includes one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and
two percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is posted at 45 mph in the project vicinity.
The bridge marks the boundary between two school zones. Currently, three school buses cross
the bridge on their morning and afternoon routes. Two of the buses cross the bridge to safely
turn azound and one is a through bus. Bus turnazounds will need to be provided during the
construction of the project.
One accident was reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 3 involving a single vehicle during a
recent three-yeaz period. Alcohol use and reckless driving aze attributed to the cause of the
accident.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will consist of a bridge approximately 170-feet in length. The bridge
will be of sufficient width to provide for two 11-foot travel lanes with a minimum required offset
of three feet. The actual offsets to the bridge rail will be fmalized based on hydraulic
recommendations for accommodating the hydraulic spread.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be higher than the existing grade at this location to
accommodate the deeper superstructure depth.
The existing roadway will'be widened to a 22-foot pavement width to provide two 11-foot travel
lanes. Six-foot grass shoulders will be provided on each side, widened to nine feet where
guazdrail is required. This roadway will continue to be designed as a rural local route.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
The two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 3 that were studied aze described below.
Alternative 1 involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment.
Improvements to the approach roadways would be required for a distance of approximately 600
feet to the west and 760 feet to the east of the structure. Traffic will be detoured offsite (see
Figure 1) during the construction period. The unnamed tributary located southwest of the
existing bridge would be impacted as well as the wetlands located at the junction of the tributary
and Ruin Creek.
Alternative 2 (Preferred) involves replacement of the structure on a new alignment to the north of
the existing bridge. Improvements to the approach roadways would be required for a distance of
approximately 1170 feet to the west and 1115 feet to the east of the structure. The additional
approach work is required to maintain a safe, horizontal alignment. Traffic will be detoured

offsite during construction. There are two potential relocatees on the project due to interference
with the septic fields.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1107.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not practical due to its age and deteriorated condition. The
existing structure is composed of timber decking, timber rails and steel I-beams. The steel I-
beams have significant rusting on the top flanges.
D. Preferred Alternative
Bridge No. 3 will be replaced on new alignment as shown by Alternative 2 in Figure 2.
Alternative 2 avoids impacts to the wetlands southwest of the roadway and the tributary adjacent
to the roadway that feeds into the wetlands. This alternate has potentially two relocatees.. Four
residents aze located northeast of the bridge and the proposed alignment impacts the septic field
of two of these residents. The property impacted is rental property and the landowner has
property located on both sides of the road east of the existing bridge. Therefore, the potential
exists for either relocating the mobile homes in the immediate project vicinity on another section
of the owner's property or relocating the septic fields. .
Alternative 1 impacts the tributary and wetlands adjacent to the roadway. Normally, relocating
the stream and performing bank restoration mitigates impacts to the buffer areas. However, both
the NCDOT Hydraulics Unit and the NCDOT Office of Natural Environment stated that the very
hilly topography at this location makes relocating the stream not practical.
NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for Bridge Replacement Projects considers
multiple project variables beginning with the additional time traveled by the average road user
resulting from the offsite detour. The offsite detour for this project would include SR 1101,
SR 1103, SR 1613 (Granville Co.), SR 1615 (Granville Co.)-and SR 1110. The detour for the
average road user would result in 13 minutes additional travel time (9.3 miles additional travel).
The additional travel time for the assumed length of road closure of one year justifies the use of
the existing bridge as an onsite detour at this location. Vance County Emergency Management
Systems and Vance County School Transportation both stated that the use of an offsite detour
would not negatively impact their operations.. Using the existing bridge during construction
would require that the proposed alignment be shifted further north in order to provide adequate
distance for construction between the two structures. This shifted alignment would cause further
impacts to the residents on the northeast side and additional environmental impacts due to the
loss of mature vegetation. Therefore, the use of an offsite detour is acceptable and will be
utilized for the proposed project.
The NCDOT Division 5 Engineer concurs with the selection of Alternative 2 as the preferred
alternative.

IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the preferred alternative is as follows:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
(Preferred)
Structure $ 430,500 $ 430,500
Roadwa A roaches $ 187,010 $ 461,625
Structure Removal $ 21,600 $ 21,600
Misc. & Mob. $ 150,890 $ 276,275
En . & Contin encies $ 110,000 $ 210,000
Total Construction Cost $ 900,000 $ 1,400,000
Ri ht-of-wa Costs $ 48,750 $ 109,325
Total Pro'ect Cost $ 948,750 $ 1,509,325
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Introduction
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of biological resources in the azea of the
proposed project. The proposed project is located within the Lower Piedmont physiographic
province of North Cazolina, with elevations in the project azea ranging from 260 to 320 feet. The
project azea is predominantly forested land with spazse residental development. The hydric soil
within the project study area is Chewacla silt loam.
B. Physical Characteristics
Soils
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects.
The two soils found within the project study azea aze Chewacla silt loam and Cecil sandy clay
loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded. The report titled Important Farmlands of North Carolina
indicate that the Chewacle silt loam is only considered prime farmland if it is located in an area
that is either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season. None
of these conditions exist. Cecil sandy clay loam is not considered prime farmland. Therefore,
the proposed project does not affect any prime farmland and is in compliance with the Farmland
Protection Act.
Water Resources
The project azea is located within sub-basin 03-03-01 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin~(DWQ
1999). This azea is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020101 of the South-Atlantic/Gulf Region.

In this area, Ruin Creek has been assigned a Stream Index Number 28-17-2-(2) by the N.C.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ 1997). A best usage classification of C NSW has been
assigned to Ruin Creek. No designated High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters,
Water Supply I, Water Supply II, watershed Critical Area waters occur within one (1.0) mile of
the project azea.
Ruin Creek is a well-defined, low-order, perennial, Lower Piedmont stream with low to moderate
flow over a sandy to cobble substrate. At Bridge No. 3, Ruin Creek is approximately 25 wide
from waters edge to waters edge, with moderately steep banks that average 3 feet high. The
stream channel is moderately entrenched, has low sinuosity, and swell-defined riffle/pool
sequence. The streambed is composed of sand with some gravel and rock, and some large
cobbles neaz the bridge. Ruin Creek is not rated for ambient water quality.
The neazest named tributary to Ruin Creek is Little Ruin Creek (according to USGS mapping),
which joins Ruin Creek approximately 0.6 mile upstream (north) of the project area. A small,
unnamed intermittent tributary joins Ruin Creek 175 feet downstream of the bridge, with a small
length of it flowing through the southwest sector of the project azea.
Terrestrial Resources
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the project azea: PiedmontJLow
Mountain Alluvial Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, and roadside/disturbed land. Plant
community areas aze estimated based on the amount of each plant community present within the
project azea. A summary of plant communities contained within the project azea is presented in
Table 1.
Table 1: Project Area Plant Communities
Areas are given in acres.
Plant Community Area
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest 1.45
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest 1.00
Roadside/Disturbed Land 0.55
Total 3.00
C. Jurisdictional Topics
Surface waters within the embankments of Ruin Creek aze subject to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR Section
328.3). NWI mapping depicts Ruin Creek as a palustrine, forested, broad-leaved, deciduous,
temporarily flooded wetland (PFOlA; Cowazdin et al. 1979).

The Tar-Pamlico River Basin Rule applies to 50-foot wide riparian buffers directly adjacent to
surface waters in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. This rule does not apply to portions of the
riparian buffer where a use is existing and ongoing. Any change in land use within the riparian
buffer is chazacterized as an impact. The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy for the
Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers (15A NCAC 02B.0259) provides a
designation for uses that cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Taz-Pamlico River Basin.
Bridge No. 3 is a four-span structure that consists of timber decking with an asphalt wearing
surface on steel I-beams. The bents consist of reinforced abutments that have been widened with
reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. The end bents aze a combination of timber bulkhead
wing walls and reinforced concrete abutments that have been widened with reinforced concrete
caps on timber piles. Only one bent is located adjacent to Ruin Creek. If the demolition is
conducted during low flow periods, the bent can be removed without dropping any concrete into
Ruin Creek. Therefore, based on approved bridge demolition methods and low-flow conditions,
there is no anticipated fill associated with the removal of Bridge No. 3 in Ruin Creek. NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal must be applied for the removal
of this bridge.
~D. Permits
Nationwide Permit #23 (Approved Categorical Exclusions) applies to the impacts to
jurisdictional streams in the project study area. Nationwide Permit #33 (Temporary Construction
Access, and Dewatering) may be needed for temporary construciton access.
In the event that NWP No. 23 will not suffice, impacts attributed to bridge replacement and
associated approach improvements may qualify under General Bridge Permit (GP) 031 issued by
the Wilmington COE District. DWQ has made available a Genera1401 Water Quality
Certification for GP 031. Notification to the Wilmington COE office is required if this general
permit is utilized. The COE may exert discretionary authority and require an Individual Permit if
avoidance and minimization have not been adequately addressed, or if mitigation is inadequate
(assuming mitigation may be required).
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is also required for any activity that may
result in a discharge into waters of the United States. Certifications are administered throught the
NCDWQ. .
The Tar-Pamlico River Basin Rule applies to 50-foot wide riparian buffers directly adjacent to
surface waters of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Tar-Pamlico Buffer Certification will be needed
in addition to a COE permit and DWQ Water Quality Certification.
E. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, Threatened due to Similarity
of Appearance, Proposed De-listed, or officially Proposed for such listing aze protected under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Federally
protected species listed for Vance County (February 5, 2003 FWS list) aze presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Federally Protected Species listed for Vance County
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T (PD)
Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon E
Bald Eagle Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near open water. Eagles
forage over large bodies of water and utilize adjacent trees for perching (Hamel 1992).
Disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 750 to 1500 feet from a nest tree aze
considered to result in unacceptable conditions for eagles (FWS 1987).
Plant communities within the.project area aze PiedmontlLow Mountain Alluvial Forest, Dry-
Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, and roadside/disturbed land. Although the forested communities
may be suitable to bald eagle nesting and foraging, no lazge bodies of water exist within the
project area, and no lazge bodies of water occur within 2.5 miles of the project area. Therefore,
no habitat for bald eagle occurs within or adjacent to the project azea.
North Cazolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records indicate that bald eagle has
not been documented to_occur within 1.0 mile of the project area, and the project area
contains no suitable habitat for this species. Based on analysis of NCNHP records and
habitat types within the project area, this project will not affect the bald eagle.
Dwarf wedgemussel Biological Conclusion: May Affect-
Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The dwarf wedgemussel typically inhabits streams with moderate flow velocities and substrates
varying in texture from gravel and coazse sand to mud with little silt deposition (Moser 1993).
The preferred habitats aze streams with moderate flow velocities and bottoms varying in texture
from gravel and coarse sand to mud, especially just downstream of debris and on banks of
accreting sediment.
Ruin Creek is a moderately entrenched, perennial stream, characterized by low to moderate flow.
The streambed is primarily composed of sand, with scattered gravel and cobble near the bridge.
During the mussel survey conducted on Apri120, 2004, it was observed that the habitat is
becoming significantly degraded with a lot of sediment and eroded banks.

NCNHP records indicate that dwarf wedgemussel has been documented to occur within
1.0 mile of the project area. However, no dwarf wedgemussel species were found during
the survey. Based on NCNHP records and the recent mussel survey, the biological
conclusion for the dwarf wedgemussel is "May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect."
This biological conclusion is valid only if appropriate conservation measures are
implemented (see USFWS concurrence letter in appendix).
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
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 Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded,
licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture and Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject project. There aze no known
azchitectural or historic sites within the proposed project area. The SHPO concurs that the
project is not likely to affect any resources of historical significance (see letter dated Mazch 22,
2002).
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Cazolina Department of Transportation. standards
and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in
land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the azea.

The proposed project will not require right-of--way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) ofthe Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. 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.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation
(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 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.
Vance County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. There are no practical
alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result in an impact area of
about the same magnitude. The proposed project is not anticipated to increase the level or extent
of upstream flood potential.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.

Studied Offsite Detour
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
VANCE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.3 ON SR 1107
OVER RUIN CREEK
B-4298
Figure 1 I

1 s
r~~~ ~ .~
° y ~ f ~~,. sue.. ;
€ER 1. ~
i ~ ~. ` t
~ ' ~~'
i L
:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~
6 `` r ~ aj, 4~ ,~~ ''~ a~'~ 's ~°''
~ t.
~' '^ '~'~3j 4 a
f "' ... ~.
_ iiAAi ~~MM~' ~s...rr .
i
L
t
F'[ar ~y ~ 4~ 4-
~,. h tiy~.
._ o- r
~M'cQ~-w r'.~
~~~~~R
e .,
_. ___ _. 5

~ x
-'.
}::
u
~,~f y`

}A '' ~
- n' r ~ a ~ ~. ~ e
lR `V ~ t_` M 4~~~3_'
~f r
~ ~ ~,~, ' ~~ ~~P
~ ti ~
x ~ ~ , f.. cyw . '- r
~~ ~ ~~s ~~ ~~ t~i~+ D M f 1 .,.
~~ ,, t F ~ ~
.Y ~ ?~ T~„
r ~ ;~ i
~~' ~.~

h r~ tK r r ~, ~,t.~ ,r ,r. a
~ - ._
-•..

__ _ -
r .- ,,-
~4
.:::_» ~ -
.yy~
~.~ n~
f ~
r ~~~J.~~~js ~ -ti ~
~_. ~ .. r ..m ~
''.~' cy'"Z. '~. t ~
M •,~,, !
'~ A
i
~ 'S~. i
'~, .s
~t~ ~~
v ~, x

~I ichael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans. Secretary
Jeffrey J. Cmw, Deputy Secretary
Otlicc of Archives and History
March ??, ?01)?
~IE:~IOR~~NDt`~[
TO: ~t~'illiam D. Gilmore, ~.Ianager
Project Development and En~-ironmental Analysis Branch
Dirision of Highways
Department of Ttanspor""ration -
FROM: Da~•id Brook ~
~~~ ~~~
.~
St'BiECT: Replace Bridge No. 3 and SR 1 10~ o~-ez Ruin Creek, B-298,
"ance Countt~, ER 02-85 ~ 0 _

Division of Historical Resources
David 1. Olson. Director
Thank ~~ou for ~~our memorandum of September ?5, ?001, concerning the abo~-e project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the project~area. Based on our kno~cledge of the area, it is
unlikely chat amp archaeological resources that may be eligible for conclusion in the National_Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project. ~~G'e, therefore, recommend that no archaeological
im-estigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Because the Department of Transportation is in the process of surveying and e~-aluating the National
Register eligibilin- of all of its concrete bridges, we are unable ro comment on the National Register
eligibilin• of the subject bridge. Please contact ~Ian• Pope Fun, in the .-lrchitectural History Section, to
determine if further study of the bride is needed.
The above comments are made pursuant co Section 106 of the ~iational Historic Preservation pct and the
.\drison~ 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 r-ou have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733--1'63. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
3~ ~~ __
~'~ ~4.
•~ ~~r,,.
lYorth Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook. Administrator
Location :Nailin[; ,Address Telephone/F~z
~dministratina ~!)7 V Bl~iun( SL Ralri~~h. NC 361' Mail Scrvi~c Crntrr, Ralci¢h'_7699-.3617 IN191733-3763 •133-8653
-.. .. gin, -.-_~;1-.'!~-1Rl11

a
Subject: Eligibility question on CFY 005 bridges
Date:. Mon, 10 Jun ?002 14:39:09 -0400
From: "Bill T. Goodwin" <bgoodwin~a dot.state.nc.us>
O banization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: "Bill T. Goodwin" <bQoodwin~u.dot.state.nc.us> ,
Joel Johnson <joeljohnson@,dot.state.nc.us> .
Robin Young <[e-mail]> .Dennis Pipkin <dpipkin~iudot.state.nc.us> ,
"John L. Williams" <jlwilliams@.dot.state.nc.us> ,
Karen Capps PE <kcapps~u,dot.state.nc.us> .Davis Moore <dmoore~dot.state.nc.us> ,
Stacy Harris <stacyharris@.dot.state.nc.us> .
Theresa Ellerby <TEllerby@.dot.state.nc.us> .
Derrick Weaver <dweaver@.dot.state.nc.us> .
Missy Dickens <mdickens@.dot.state.nc.us>
CC: Mary Pope Furr <miurr@,dot.state.nc.us>
'_'he 3Ltac7ed table shows _~?arv ?ope'3 .eV;dw „_ ..ie 1iS%Or_..
~r_CQe Survey ~dtd =0r C:le .. ,:D OS ~c"Y _:,%~ C" -8CL5 ~..n~ ..~C
asked us to _eTer co she sur--z~_,- .or or. ~e e. - .,---~•,•. __ ;o~
::aye ~_etter =rom 3°0 on ~~cu_ ro-ec~ ---_~ _avs :ee Ma_• c oe
~'~=- =or br= ae al_oib=__ ~ ~ - =.._s- __ _ _ - - -
Sr._y o ~rojec~s appear =„ eec
„_:ev are
3-~?'_CS Davidson
3-~!' ~' :?arnetc /ale /~dcf,~~~anq ~ surYtYS
3-s_~3 =reae__
7-u~.b~ SamDSCn
3_~C -.^,a~e :c"-,'~C~~ O. .e - :'1C'/ ,.CTS ~-. .3 ;. _-_ -ii'.~ -= _ _'- _
=~.5 ..=C11~ _.= oro=~•C=~ _~...
?nv .:uestiors, _e~ -.~e :<__^.c~.~.
_.,ar K. r
nii_;_am ''' . Goodwin, . ~ r . ,
-J.^.i. lead - Bridge <.epiaceme::_ _ _sr_^' ~ _ --_
?ro j ecr Deveiopmenc and Sn-; __ ~:::~en~a~ ._..~-_ --_ -- _r<c::
~Tor~h Sarolina Debar=menL of _:anspc=-a..=.-
Name: HPOstatus61002.doc
rr,,HPOstatus61002.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (applicationimsword)~
u Encoding: base64
!Download Status: blot downloaded with messa~~e

RE~ElVED
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Feld otr«
Poat OBce Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3T16
February 23, 2005
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Cazolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
FEB ~5 2005
0!'!!S!C~l 0~ HlGNiNAYS
POEkOFi:1CE OF NAT11AAi. ENYIRON6SEI~T
This letter is in response to your letter of February 9, 200 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 3 on SR 1107 over Ruin Creek in
Vance County (TIP No. B-4298) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally
endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta Izeterodon). In addition, NCDOT has determined
that the project will have no effect on the bald eagle. These comments are provided in
accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
131-1543).
According to information provided, a mussel survey was conducted at the project site on April
20, 2004. Although no specimens of dwarf wedgemussel were observed in the 2004 survey, the
mussel was observed in surveys conducted in 1998. The recent survey report indicated that the
habitat was becoming degraded, which is supported by the fact that only one valve of the
normally common Elliptio complanata was found.
iVlr. Gary Jordan and Mr. Dale Suiter of my staff met on site with NCDOT staff on November
18.2002. During the field meeting, several conservation measures were discussed which would
lessen the potential for effects to the dwarf wedgemussel. Subsequently, NCDOT and the
Service have refined those conservation measures as stated in your current letter. Those
conservation measures are as follows:
• No proposed bents will be allowed in Ruin Creek. Where possible, the proposed bents
will be pulled back from the edge of the stream bank ten feet.
• Due to erosion concerns, temporary access roads for conveying construction equipment
into the floodplain will be stabilized with either rock or timber matting. Rock work pads
or timber matting will be used in the floodplain for construction equipment. No
construction equipment will be allowed in Ruin Creek under any circumstances.
• No deck drains will be allowed to discharge into Ruin Creek.
• Storm water runoff will not be channeled from the road directly into the stream. The
runoff from the roadway should be allowed to continue to dissipate and sheet flow over
,the natural vegetation before reaching Ruin Creek. The exception will be in the
southwest quadrant with the existing intermittent stream.

• Special sediment control fence will be used along the toe of the slope that runs parallel to
Ruin Creek to minimize the risk of adding sediment into the stream. Standard silt fence
or temporary silt ditch will be used along the toe of the slopes that are perpendicular to
Ruin Creek.
• All unvegetated fill slopes will be stabilized at the end of each day with an acceptable
erosion control cloth, blanket or matting as construction progresses until the fill is ready
to be permanently stabilized.
• The project lies within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and will adhere to all applicable
riparian buffer rules.
• NCDOT will be required to conduct a mussel survey before construction begins for dwarf
wedgemussel. If any individuals of this endangered species are found, they will be
relocated out of the footprint of the project before construction begins.
With regard to the last conservation measure, a formal section 7 consultation would be required
to relocate any federally listed mussels out of the project footprint. Relocation of a federally
listed mussel constitutes a "take" of that species and would require an incidental take statement
provided in a biological opinion. A formal consultation requires up to 135 days to complete
once a complete biological assessment is received. Therefore, it will be prudent for NCDOT to
conduct the next survey early enough prior to project let in order that a formal consultation could
be completed in the event that the survey reveals the presence of dwarf wedgemussel within the
survey area.
Based on the mussel survey results and the commitment to the conservation measures listed
above, the Service concurs with your determination that the proposed bridge replacement may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the dwarf wedgemussel. Due to the lack of habitat, the
Service concurs with your determination that the project will have no effect on the bald eagle.
We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied to date.
Again, it is understood that another mussel survey will be conducted prior to project
construction. We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered
if (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (?) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
S' cere ,
w
Pete Be min
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher. USEP.4. Ralei~`h. NC`

.~

e??' ~ -
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Ot= COMMEgCE
~~~ Natlnnel Oceen~c end Atmoaphe~ic Administration
,•
• ~ ,~ NATIONAI n4NL^~! • ~ .'d ~7it`•. tir.wlCF
'w'~,.,. n• ~
Habitat Conscr~•atuu~ Oi~~ltitc+ti
101 Fivers Island It<~ad
Reaufon, North (•arc~lina 2hSlt,-0722
May 30, 2UU2
SEC EI i~
Mr 1~Villiam 'i'. Goodwin, 1r., PE
Head, Bride Replacement Unit R, MaR ~ a 2ppz
Project Development and Cnvironmental Analysis Branch ~~°o
154E Mail Service Center ~°oyc~~,r ~ ,
Ralei~lt, North Carolina 27699-154£ ~F..~fvr~ ~vd,E'~
Dear Mr Gc~<id~~'in
This National Marine Fisheries Service (NMI~S) has reviewed the Natural Systems '1•echnical
Reports (N.S'1'R) -Group 1, far the t~~~elvc bride replacement projects included ~~rith your February
18, 2002, letter \~l~e understand that these projects are scheduled for construction in fiscal year 2005
1~Vc o11er the following conuncnts~
Section I -Green Light Projects (GLI's)
The brid~c replacement projects listed belo~+~ arc located in areas that do Wert sulrhort NMFS trust
fishery resources. Otherwise, they have normal environmental concerns and are ctassitied`as GLPs.
Qr•idgc Number ~ ~ Project Number
Bride No. 5 B - 41 10
Bridge No. 35 B - 4137
Bridge No l t0 B --A21i8
Bridge No ~ B _ 4298
Bridge No. 189 B - 4305
Bridge No. 52 B - 4327
Bridge No. ~ B - 4328
Section ll - 1'ello~A~ Li~,ht Projects (YLPs)
L,UCAl10I1
Durham County
Harnett County
Sampson County
\~ance County
Wake County
Wilson County
Wilson County
The brid,_c replacement projects lisicd belo~~~ are located in Cape Fear and Tar River Basins. These
basins are likeiv to support N1~11~5 trust fishery resources and the proiccts are classified as YLPs
1'l.Ps are those projects that ha~'c issues fir ~~~hich there arc existin~~ c~+cndinalion mechanisms or
~,.~.,
~~ ~~~~;.

processes through which issues can be resolved
E3ridge Number Project Number Location
Bridge No. 8S B - 4091 Cumberland ('aunty
Bridge No. 11 B - 4133 • Halifax County
Bridge No. 56 - B - 421 I - Nash County
Bridge No. 1 ~ B - 4113 Franklin County
Bridge No. 84 B - 4124 Granville County
Spawning and nursery habitat for anadromous fishes may be adversely impacted by these projects
unless measures to avoid and minimize impacts to waters and wetlands are included in the project
plans. Therefore, the NMFS may recommend against Department ofthe Army authorization oftl~ese
projects under Nationwide Permit 23, unless the following recommendations are incorporated as
project features:
1. Follo~~~ing impact avoidance and minimization, unavoidable wetland losses shall be offset
through implementation of a compensatory mitigation plan that has been approved by the Corps
of L-ngineers, in consultation with tlie NMFS.
2. All construction related activities in waters and associated wetlands shall utilize techniques that .
avoid and minimize adverse impacts to those systems and their associated flora and fauna.
3. In order to protect anadromous fishery resources that may utilize the project areas as spawnint;
or nursery Habitat, work that is located witf~in aquatic sites shall be restricted to the period
October 1 and March 1 of any year, unless prior approval is granted by the Corps of L-ngitteers
following consultation with the NMFS.
Finally, tl~e shorinose sturgeon, a Federally protecteli species under under the purview of tl~e 1\~~IFS
is know to occur in the Cape Fear River. These comments do not satisfy Federal agency consultation
responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.. if any
activity(ies) "may effect".listed species and, habitats under NMFS purview, consultation should be
initiated with our Protected Resources Division at 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St.
Petersburg, Florida 33702.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the early review of these bridge replacement projects.
Please contact me at the letterhead address, or at [phone], if 1 may be of further assistance.

t.~.a.
cc:
COC, Wilinin5ton, NC
USFWS, Ralc;igh, NC
NCDMF, Raleigh

Sinccrcl~~. i
O-'1
Ron Sechlcr
Fishery I3iolos,is~
-- ',',

a
a -!
., y :,
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ~-
Charles R Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement & Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project~Co diva r-
Habitat Conservation Program
~~
DATE: May 22, 2002
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements:
Beaufort County -Bridge No. 77, NC 99, Panteao Creek, B-3611
Beaufort County - fridge No. 136, SR 1626, Canal, B-4024
Bertie County -Bridge No. 45, SR 1110, Choowatic Creek, B-4026
Brunswick County -Bridge No. 72, NC 179, Jinnys Branch, B-4u31
Chatham County -Bridge No. 142, SR 2170, Meadow Creek, B-4065
Craven County -Bridge No. 10, SR 1111, Brices Creek, B-4086
Cumberland County - Bride No. 85, I-95 Business, Cape Fear River, B-4091
Durham County -Bridge No. 5, SR 1616, Mountain Creek, B-4110
Edgecombe County -Bridge No. 19, SR 1135, Cokey Swamp, B-4111
Franklin County -Bridge No. 15, SR 1106, Little River, B-4113
Granville County -Bridge No. 84, SR 1141, Tar River, B-4124
Greene County -Bridge No. 46, SR 1091, Wheat Swamp Creek, B-4125
Greene/Lenoir Cos. -Bridge No. 49, SR 1434, Wheat Swamp Creek, B-4126
Greene County -Bridge No. 43, SR 1438, Rainbow Creek, B-4127
Halifax County -Bridge No. 11, SR 1001, Jacket Swamp, B-4133
Harnett County -Bridge No. 35, NC 42, Norfollc and Southern Raii~vay, B-4137
Hertford County -Bridge No. 67, SR 1118, Ahoskie Creek, B-4150
Hyde County -Bridge No. 108, SR 1340, Old State Canal, B-4154
Jones County -Bridge No. 7, SR 1129, Big Chinquapin Branch, B-4169
Lee County -Bridge No. 4, SR 1423, Gum Fork, B-4171
Martin County -Bridge No. 5, SR 1417, Conoho Creek, B-4187
Nash County -Bridge No. 56, SR 1544, Taz River, B-4211
Onslow County - Bndge No. 24, US 17, New River, B-4214
Onslow County.- Bridge No. 19, NC 210, Stones Creek, B-4215
Pamlico County -Bridge No. 65, SR 1304, UT to Neuse River, B-4219
Pamlico County -Bridge No. 4, SR 1344, South Prong Bay River, B-4221
Perquimans County -Bridge No. 69, SR 1222, Mill Creek, B-4227
Pitt County -Bridge No. 98, SR 1407, Conetoe Creek, B-4234
Pitt County -Bridge No. 118, SR 1538, Grindle Creek, B-4235
Randolph County -Bridge No. 34, SR 1304, Second Creek, B-4242
~~'1^!~11 ~> ~. t~C1f. S~' n~•.. , v~ ,!I ~~..... ,~~ 1., :.. • ~^'71 \~~.,:~ ~:.. .." (~, ... ' ~1..:~, ..'I. ~; ~~ ?'(~ci~1_ ~~!

Randolph County -Bridge No. 257, SR 2824, Vestal Creek, B-4245
Richmond County -Bridge No. 129, SR 1321; Big vlountain Creek, B-4247
Sampson County -Bridge No. 150, SR 1006, Little Coharie Creek, B-4268
Sampson County -Bridge No. 191, SR 1845, Great Coharie Creek, B-4272
Vance County -Bridge No. 3, ~SR 1107, Ruin Creek, B,_,~?
Wake County -Bridge No. 189, SR 2333, Little River, B-4305
Washington County -Bridge No. 29, SR 1163, Maul Creek, B-4314
Wilson County -Bridge No. 52, SR 1131, Turkey Creek, B-4327
Wilson County -Bridge No. 3, SR 1634, Great Swamp, B- 4328
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Our standazd recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by '
canoeists and boaters.
' 2. Bridge deck drains sho~,:ld not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'~c10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the azea should be cleazed but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and min;mi~es disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) azea of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.

Br::ge l~[emo ~ iV1ay ??, ?00
9. In streams that aze used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
4"'°" 10. In azeas with sigaificant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
1?. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide loner term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimise sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams. _ V
1 ~. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should ~be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similaz to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet,, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places.for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.

Bride Memo 4 Nlay ~~, .uv:.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel•widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, m;n;mi~e the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and~the approach fills removed from the 100-yeaz floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The azea should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successful, the site maybe utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. Beaufort County -Bridge No. 77, NC 99, Pantego Creek, B-3611
YELLOW LIGHT. Biologists indicate that a bridge is prefen-ed. There is potential for
wetland impacts at this location due to the width of stream and site elevation. Due to the
potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes.a moratorium on
work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to June 15.
2. Beaufort County -Bridge No. 136, SR 1626, Canal, B-4024
GREEN LIGHT. No concerns indicated by biologists.' Standard conditions should be
appropriate.
3. Beaufort County- Bridge No. 136, SR 1626, Canal, B-4024
GREEN LIGHT. No concerns indicated by biologists. Standard conditions should be
appropriate.
4. Bertie County -Bridge No. 45, SR 1110, Choowatic Creek, B-4026
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
This includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to
June 15.
5. Brunswick County -Bridge No. 72, NC 179, Jinnys Branch, B-4031 .
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
This includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to
June 15. There is also the potential for impacts to high quality coastal wetlands at this
location. NCDOT should employ all measures necessary to avoid impacts to these
resources.

..
~~a~~e _vtemo
way __ _w::
6. Chatham County -Bridge No. 142, SR 2170, Meadow Creek, B-4065
YELLOW LIGHT. If aquatic surveys indicate the potential for impacts to the Cape Fear
Shiner, NCDOT should contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for an on-site meeting
to discuss special measures to reduce potential adverse effects. Standard
recommendations apply.
7. Craven County -Bridge No. 10, SR 1111, Brices Creek, B-4086
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
This includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 1~ to
June 15. Biologists indicate that a bridge is preferred. There is also the potential for
impacts to high quality wetlands at this site. NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts
to these wetlands. Other standazd recommendations apply.
8. Cumberland County -Bridge No. 85, I-95 Business, Cape Fear River, B-4091
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
This includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 1 ~ to
June 1~. Other standard recommendations apply.
9. Durham County -Bridge No. 5, SR 1616, Mountain Creek, B-4110
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the DWQ water quality classification, we recommend High
Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used. Other standard "
recommendations apply.
. 10. Edgecombe County-Bridge No. 19, SR l I35, Cokey Swamp, B-4111
YELLOW LIGHT. If aquatic surveys indicate the potential for impacts to listed mussels,
NCDOT should contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for an on-site meeting to
discuss special measures to reduce potential adverse effects. -Standard recommendations
apply.
11. Franklin County -Bridge No. 15, SR 1106, Little River, B-4113
RED LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT should
closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This
includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to June 15.
There are records of state and federally listed mussels in the project vicinity. Therefore,
due to the potential for impacts to listed species we request that NCDOT perform a
mussel survey prior to the construction of this bridge. An on-site meeting should be held
with NCWRC and USFWS biologists, prior to the `404' permit application, to discuss
bridge design and construction. We request NCDOT incorporate High Quality
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures into the design of this project. Other
standard recommendations apply.
12. Granville County -Bridge No. 84, SR 1141, Tar River, B-4124
RED LIGHT. The Tar River supports a good fishery for sunfish, therefore, we
recommend a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from April 1 to June 15.
There are records of state and federally listed mussels in the project vicinity. Therefore,
due to the~~potential for impacts to listed species we request that NCDOT perform a
mussel survey prior to the construction of this bridge. An on-site meeting should be held
with NCWRC and USFWS biologists, prior to the `404' permit application, to discuss
bridge design and construction. We request NCDOT incorporate High Quality
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures into the design of this project. Other
standazd recommendations apply.

,.
Brid~7e Memo

13. Greene County -Bridge No. 46, SR 1091, Wheat Swamp Creek, B-412~
YELLOW LIGHT. There is the potential for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site.
NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts to these wetlands: Standard recommendations
apply.
14. Greene/Lenoir Cos. -Bridge No. 49, SR 1434, Wheat Swamp Creek, B-4126
YELLOW LIGHT. There is the potential for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site.
NCDOT should avoid or m;n;mi7e impacts to these wetlands. Standard recommendations
apply.
15. Greene County -Bridge No. 43, SR 1438, Rainbow Creek, B-4127
YELLOW LIGHT. There is the potential for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site.
NCDOT should avoid or m;n;rn;7e impacts to these wetlands. Standard recommendations.
apply.
16. Halifax County -Bridge No. 11, SR 1001, Jacket Swamp, B-4133
YELLOW LIGHT. If aquatic surveys indicate the potential for impacts to listed mussels,
NCDOT should contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for an on-site meeting to
discuss special measures to reduce potential adverse effects. Standard recommendations
apply. ~ .
17. Harnett County -Bridge No. 35, NC 42, Norfolk and Southern Railway, B-4137
GREEN LIGHT. No comment.
18. Hertford County -Bridge No. 67, SR 1118, Ahoskie Creek, B-4150
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
This includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 1~ to
June 15. Other standard comments apply. .
19. Hyde County- Bridge No. 108, SR 1340, Old State Canal, B-4154
GREEN LIGHT. Standard comments apply.
20. Jones County -Bridge No. 7, SR 1129, Big Chinquapin Branch, B-4169
YELLOW LIGHT. Big Chinquapin Branch supports a good fishery for sunfish;
therefore, we recommend a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from April
to June 15. There is also the potential for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site.
NCDOT should avoid or min,m;~e impacts to these wetlands. Other standard
recommendations apply.
21. Lee County -Bridge No. 4, SR 1423, Gum Fork, B-4171
GREEN LIGHT. Standazd comments apply.
22. Martin County -Bridge No. 5, SR 1417, Conoho Creek, B-4187
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
This includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to
June 15. Biologists indicate that a bridge is preferred. There is also the potential for
impacts to high quality wetlands at this site. NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts
to these wetlands. Other standard comments apply. .
23. Nash County -Bridge No. 56, SR 1544, Tar River, B-4211

L.11V~C :V1Cii1V
lYl$y _~ .UV.:
YELLOW LIGHT. The Tar River supports a good fishery for sunfish; therefore, we
recommend a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from April 1 to June 1 ~.
If aquatic surveys indicate the potential for impacts to listed mussels, NCDOT should
contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for an on-site meeting to discuss special
measures to reduce potential adverse effects. Other standard recommendations apply.
24. Onslow County -Bridge No. 24, US 17, New River, B-4214
YELLOW LIGHT. The New River is designated as a Primary Nursery Area on the
downstream side of the e.cisting US 17 bridge. Due to the potential for adult and larval
stages of anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes a moratorium on
work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to September 30. Other standard
recommendations apply.
25. Onslow County -Bridge No. 19, NC 210, Stones Creek, B-4215
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
This includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to
June 15. Biologists indicate that a bridge is preferred. There is also the potential for
impacts to high quality wetlands at this site. NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts
to these wetlands. Other standard comments apply.
26. Pamlico County -Bridge No. 6~, SR 1304,. UT to Neuse River, B-4219
YELLOW LIGHT. There is the potential for impacts to high quality coastal wetlands at
this location. NCDOT should employ all measures necessary to avoid impacts to these
resources. Other standard comments apply.
27. Pamlico County -Bridge No. 4, SR 1344, South Prong Bay River, B-4221
YELLOW LIGHT. There is the potential for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site
NCDOT should avoid or m;nimi~e impacts to these wetlands. Other standazd comments
apply.
28. Pender County -Bridge No. 21, NC 210, NE Cape Fear River, B-4223
RED LIGHT. There are records of•the federally listed Shortnose sturgeon in the NE
Cape Fear in the project azea. Due to the potential for anadromous fish and Shortnose
sturgeon at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines
for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes a moratorium on work within
jurisdictional waters from February 1 to June 15. Biologists indicate that a bridge is
preferred. There is also the potential for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site.
NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts to these wetlands. Other standard comments
apply. •
29. Perquimans County -Bridge No. 69, SR 1222, UT to Mill Creek, B-4227
YELL' OW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
This includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to
June 15. There is also the potential for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site.
NCDOT should avoid or muumize impacts to these wetlands. Other standard comments
apply.
30. Pitt County -Bridge No. 98, SR 1407, Conetoe Creek, B-4234
GREEN LIGHT. Standard comments apply.
31. Pitt County -Bridge No. 118, SR 1538, Grindle Creek, B-4235

u
Bridge Memo
J iviay ~!, ~UU:
YELLOW LIGHT. If aquatic surveys indicate the potential for impacts to listed mussels,
NCDOT should contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for an on-site meeting to
discuss special measures to reduce potential adverse effects. There is also the potential
for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site. NCDOT should avoid or minimize
impacts to these wetlands. Other standard comments apply.
32. Randolph County -Bridge No. 34, SR 1304, Second Creek, B-4242
GREEN LIGHT. Standard comments apply.
33. Randolph County -Bridge No. 257, SR 2824, Vestal Creek, B-4245
YELLOW LIGHT. If aquatic surveys indicate the potential for impacts to listed mussels,
NCDOT should contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for an on-site meeting to
discuss special measures to reduce potential adverse effects. Other standard comments
apply.
34. Richmond County- Bridge No. 129, SR 1321, Big Mountain Creek, B-4247
YELLOW LIGHT. If aquatic surveys indicate the potential for impacts to listed mussels,
NCDOT should contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for an on-site meeting to
discuss special measures to reduce potential adverse effects. Other standard comments
apply.
35. Sampson County-Bridge No. 1~0, SR 1006, Little Coharie Creek, B-4268
YELLOW LIGHT. Little Coharie Creek supports a good fishery for sunfish; therefore,
we recommend a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from April 1 to June
15. There is also the potential for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site. NCDOT
should avoid or minim;~e impacts to these wetlands. Other standard comments apply.
36. Sampson County -Bridge No. 191, SR 1845, Great Coharie Creek, B-4272
YELLOW LIGHT. Great Coharie Creek supports a good fishery for sunfish; therefore,
we recommend a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from April 1 to. June
1~. Biologists indicate that a bridge is preferred. Tliere is also the potential for impacts
to high quality wetlands at this site. NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts to these
wetlands. Other standard comments apply.
37. Vance County -Bridge No. 3, SR 1107, Ruin Creek, B-4298
RED LIGHT. There are records of state and federally listed mussels in the project
vicinity. Therefore, due to the potential for impacts to listed species we request that
NCDOT perform a mussel survey prior to the construction of this bridge. An on-site
meeting should be held with NCWRC and USFWS biologists, prior to the `404' permit
application, to discuss bridge design and construction. We request NCDOT incorporate
High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures into the design of this project.
Other standard recommendations apply.
38. Wake County -Bridge No. 189, SR 2333, Little River, B-4305
RED LIGHT. The Little River supports a good fishery for sunfish, therefore, we
recommend a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from April 1 to June 15.
There are records of state and federally listed mussels in the project vicinity. Therefore,
due to the potential for impacts to listed species we request that NCDOT perform a
mussel survey prior to the construction of this bridge. An on-site meeting should be held
with NCWRC and USFWS biologists, prior to the `404' permit application, to discuss
bridge design and construction. We request NCDOT incorporate High Quality
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures into the design of this project. Other
standard recommendations apply.

V
Bridge.l~iemo
day =_, -JU_
39. Washington County -Bridge No. 29, SR 1163, Maul Creek, B-4314
GREEN LIGHT. Standard comments apply.
40. Wilson County -Bridge No. ~2, SR 1131, Turkey Creek, B-4327 .
RED LIGHT. Turkey Creek supports a good fishery for sunfish, therefore, we
recommend a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from April 1 to June 15.
There are records of state and federally listed mussels in the project vicinity. Therefore,
due to the potential for impacts to listed species we request that NCDOT perform a
mussel survey prior to the construction of this bridge. An on-site meeting should be held
with NCWRC and USFWS biologists, prior to the `404' permit application, to discuss
bridge design and construction. We request NCDOT incorporate High Quality
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures into the design of this project. Other
standard recommendations apply.
41. Wilson County -Bridge No. 3, SR 1634, Great Swamp, B- 4323
YELLOW LIGHT. If aquatic surveys indicate the potential for impacts to listed mussels,
NCDOT should contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for an on-site meeting to
discuss special measures to reduce potential adverse effects. Other standard
recommendations apply.
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shallowed during initial bridge installation.
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project andprevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCV~RC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects. ~ .
cc: USFWS, Raleigh

v
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Feld Office
Posi Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 2763tr3726
May 22, 2002
Mr. William T. Goodwin, Jr.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Unit Head, Bridge Replacement Planning
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, ?north Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Goodwin:
This responds to your letter of February 18, 2002, requesting comments from the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) on 14 bridge replacement projects scheduled for construction in CFY
2005. Your letter provided a Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) or Natural Systems
Report (NSR) for each project. These comments are provided in accordance with, provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;.16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 131 et seq.).
Based on information in the project report, five projects are not likely to adversely effect any
federally-protected species and entail normal concerns for water quality and lost or degradation
offish and wildlife habitat. These projects appear to fall into the category which you propose to
designate as "green light" projects. These projects are:
B-4091 (I-95, Bridge No. 85 over the Cape Fear River, Cumberland County);
B-4110 (SR 16 i 6, Bridge No. 5 over Mountain Creek, Durham County);
B-4137 (NC 42, Bridge No. 35 over the Norfolk and Southern Railway, Harnett County);
B-4268 (SR 1006, Bridge 150 over Little Coharie Creek, Sampson County); and,
B-4314 (SR 1163, Bridge No. 29 over Maul Creek, Washington County).
For the projects listed above, we believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been
satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if:
(1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in
a manner that was not considered in this review; (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by the identified action.

~, v
The remaining nine projects have unresolved issues regarding federally-protected species and/or
more `significant issues of habitat loss or degradation. These projects appear to fall into the
category which you propose to designate as '`yellow light" projects. These projects are:
B-4111 (SR 1135, Bridge No. 19 over Cokey Swamp, Edgecombe County) =The NSR notes
(P. 6) that "patches of rooted aquatic vegetation" occur in the project area. Project
design and construction should avoid or minimize impacts to these areas. The Service
concurs that additional surveys are required to determine impacts on the tar spinvmussel
(Elliptio steinstansa~ta) that has suitable habitat in the project area (p. 15).
B-4113 (SR 4113, Bridge No. 15 over Little River, Franklin County) -The Service concurs that
anadromous fish passage should be considered in the timing of any in-stream activities
associated with bridge replacement (,o. 12). This may require seasonal work restrictions.
The Service concurs that additional surveys are required to determine impacts on the tar
spinymussel and dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmido~:ta heterodon) that may occur in the
project area.
B-4124 (SR 1141, Bridge No. 84 over the Tar River, Granville County) -Based on information
in the NSR, the Service concurs that the project is not likely to adversely affect the bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephala~s), harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum), or smooth
coneflower (Echinachea laevigata). The Service concurs that additional surveys are
required to determine impacts on the tar spinvmussel and dwarf wedge mussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon) that may occur in the project azea.
B- 4133 (SR 1001, Bridge No. 11 over Jacket Swamp, Halifax County) -The NSR of November
2001 states that potential impacts to dwarf wedge mussel are "unsolved." The Service
concurs that additional field observations will be necessary. The Service supports the
commitment to schedule this project to avoid impacts to migratory fish (p. 12).
B-421 T (SR 1544, Bridge No. 56 over the Tar River, Nash County) -Our records indicate that
the green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), a state endangered mussel, has been found near
the project site. The subsequent surveys for both the tar spinvmussel and dwarf wedge
mussel should also determine the status of the green floater in the project area.
B_ -429$(SR 1107, Bridge No. 3 over Ruin Creek, Vance County) - We concur with the NSR that
indicates that the dwarf wedge mussel could occur in the project azea and that surveys
should be conducted for the species.
B-4305 (SR 2333, Bridge No. 189 over the Little River, Wake County) -While our records
indicate that the dwarf wedge mussel has not been found near the project site, it has been
found both up and down stream from Bridge-189. The Service supports the surveys
proposed by the NCDOT to determine the status of this mussel in the project area. The
title page states that SR 2333 is Glory Road while page one of the NSR calls it Smithfield
Road. We believe the latter is correct.

B-4327 (SR 113 1, Bridge No. 52 over Turkey Creek, Wilson County) -Design features and
construction methods should minimize impacts to the tieshwater marsh in the project
area. The project is not likely to adversely effect the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW)
or Michaux's sumac, but additional surveys, as proposed by the NCDOT, should be
performed for the dwarf wedge mussel and tar spinymussel.
B-4328 (SR 1634, Bridge No. 3 over Great Swamp, Wilson County) -While available
information indicates that Federally protected species do not occur in the project area, the
Service supports the proposal in the NSR to conduct field surveys for the dwarf wedge
mussel.
For each project, we recommend the following conservation measures to avoid or minimize
adverse environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. In waterways that may serve as travel. corridors for fish, in-water work should be avoided
during moratorium periods associated with migration, spawning, and sensitive pre-adult
life stages. The general moratorium period for anadromous fish is February 15 -June 1 ~;
2. Complete implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of
Surface Waters;
3. If temporary impacts to wetlands or open water are necessary, all temporary fill should be
removed at the completion of construction and the impacted areas should be planted with
endemic vegetation, including trees, if necessary. For projects requiring a temporary on-
site detour in wetlands, the entire detour area, including any previous detour from past
construction activities, should be entirely•removed and planted with appropriate
vegetation;
4. Activities. within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized;
5. Surveys for mussels should extend 100 meters (328 feet) upstream and 300 meters (984
feet) downstream from the project site; and,
6. In waterways serving as migration routes for anadromous fish, the NCDOT should avoid
in-stream work during the moratorium period of February 15 to June 15;
7. If subsequent survey for federally-protected species should determine that a given project
would adversely affect the species, a biological assessment (BA) may be prepared to
fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and in determining whether formal consultation
with the Service is necessary. Please notify this office with the results of the surveys for
the listed species discussed above. Please include survey methodologies and an analysis
of the effects of the action, including consideration of direct, indireet,.and cumulative
effects.

~ ~
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. Please continue to advise us
on.planning for this important project. If you have any questions regarding the comments of the
Service, please contact Howard Hall at (919) 3~6-520, (Ext. ?7) or at the above address.
Sincerely,
f~ ~ ~,~
~i~ Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: E. David Franklin, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, NC
Chris Militscher USEPA, Raleigh, NC
David Cox, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Creedmore, NC
John Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
Cathy Brittingham, NC Division of Coastal Management, Raleigh, NC
4

.~
~.;aa
v
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael Easley, Governor
Bill Ross, Secretary
Gregory Thorpe, Director
May 17, 2002
~,;t ,;.
•
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Memorandum To: William T. Goodwin. Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Through: John Dorne d'S
NC Divisio f Water lily, 401 Unit
From: Robert Ridings
NC Division of Water Quality, 4 1 Unit
Subject: Review of Natural Systems Technical Reports for bridge
replacement projects scheduled for construction in CFY 2005:
"Yellow Light" Projects: B=4124, B-4211. B-=1298_ & B-4171.
In future reports. an Executive Summary Paragraph would be helpful. This should include brief
description of the work intended (i.e.. replace bridge with another bridge or with a culvert). the
amount of impact to wetlands and streams. and types of possible permits needed.
C-n all projects. use of proper sediment and erosion control will be needed. Sediment and erosion
control measures should not be placed in wetlands. Sediment should be removed from any water
pumped from behind a cofferdam before the water is returned to the stream. Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Guidelines for Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 4B .0024) must be
implemented prior to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts tc ciawnstream
aquatic resources. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation must be planted on all bare
soil within IO days of ground-disturbing activities to provide long term zrosion control.
This office would prefer bridges to be replaced with new bridges. However if the bridge must be
replaced by a culvert and 150 linear feet or more of stream is impacted, a stream mitigation plan
will be needed prior to the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. While the NCDWQ
realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring
mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification.
Any proposed culverts shall be installed in such a manner that the original stream profile is not
altered (i.e. the depth of the channel must not be reduced by a widening of the streambed).
Existing stream dimensions are to be maintained above and below locations ot` culvert
extensions.
Wedand~/401 Unit 2321 (:rantrec E31vt1. Suite 250 RaleiLh. North Carolina 276(kt
'T'elephone 919-733-17SG FAX ~ 73?-639?

.~,~~ Y'
For permitting, any project that falls under the Curps of Engineers' Nationwide Permits ~'.i ur 33
do not require written concurrence by the NC Division of Water Quality. Notification and
courtesy copies of materials sent to the Corps. including mitigation plans, are required. For
projects that fall under the Coops of En~~ineers Nationwide Permit 14 or Regional General Bridge
Permit 3l, the formal 401 application process ~-~ill be required including appropriate Fees and
mitigation plans.
Do not use any machinery in the stream channels unless absolutely necessary.:~dditionally.
vegetation should not be removed from the stream bank unless it is absolutely necessary.
NCDOT should especially avoid removing large trees and undercut banks. If large. undercut
trees must be removed, then the trunks should be cut and the stumps and root systems left in
place to minimize damage to stream banks.
Use of rip-rap for bank stabilization must be minimized; rather, native vegetation should be
planted when practical. If necessary, rip-rap must be limited to the stream bank below the high
water mark. and vegetation must be used for stabilization above high water.
Rules regarding stormwater as described in ~ 1~A NCAC 2b.0216 (3) (G)) shall be followed for
these projects. These activities shall minimize built-upon surface area. divert runoff away from
surface waters and maximize utilization of B;V1Ps. Existing vegetated buffers shall not be mowed
in order to allow it to be most effectively utilized for storm water sheet flow.
Please note that B-4124, B-4211. and B--I?9~ are located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. .~11
activity should comply with the Riparian. Buffer Rules for those basins.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a-101
Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water
quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost.

~
t
b
_

~° i,
i
~

r

.
} i ,
4
I
I
,~
~ f

f
',
t

~ ~ I :
i s
I

k ~ ~
` i
~~ ~ ,.