20052218 Ver 1_Complete File_20060403

-2 Y
ry ? C-)?
filftwg
APR p 3 !rZ?#
2006
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA SS??B
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ,
Michael F. Easley P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 Lyndo Tippett
GOVERNOR Secretary
March 28, 2006
CONTRACT NO: C201562
WBS ELEMENT: 37017
COUNTY: Wake
DESCRIPTION: Bridge over Richland Creek and Approaches on SR 1930
(Stadium Drive)
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Ellis Powell, PE
STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER
FROM: Chad Hinnant
Assistant Reside Pt Engineer
SUBJECT: Preconstruction Conference
The Pre-Environmental/Pre-Construction conference for the above mentioned project was held at the
Youngsville Resident engineers Office on March 24, 2006 at 2:00 PM.
Representing the Department were T. N. Parrott, Chad Hinnant, David Moore, Bryan Bennett, Alan
Rowland, Rick Nelson, Heather Montague, Katie Simmons, Mike Summers. Also in attendance from
Wetherell Engineering, the firm that performed the design work, were Eddie Wetherill, Frank Price, and
John Dillworth
Representing the contractor, Balfour Beatty Construction, Inc. were Tim Daniels Jay Boyd, Mark
Johnnie, Walter McDaniel.
Representing SEPI Engineering Group (Subcontractor) was Jimmy Dennis and Vic lowery.
Representing the North Carolina Division of Water Quality Nikki Thomson.
Representing utilities for The City of Raleigh were Ed Huff and Dustin Trip, for Progress Energy were
Jamie Loy, Michael Bray, and Jay Walker, for Sprint were Russell O'Berry and Sherry Perry.
P. O. BOX 1018 YOuNGSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 27596
The Resident Engineer for this office is currently vacant. All correspondence should be directed to Chad
Hinnant as follows:
Chad Hinnant
Assistant Resident Engineer NCDOT
P. 0. Box 1018
Youngsville, NC 27596-1018
For the Department, the Project Engineer will be Chad Hinnant and the Project Inspector will be Bryan
Bennett.
Topics of Discussion:
Introduction:
Introductions were made of all that were in attendance and the Balfour Beatty was given contact
information sheet With the Phone numbers and the mailing address for the Youngsville Residents office.
Contract Time And Liquidated Damages:
The date of availability for this contract is April3, 2006. Except for work in jurisdictional waters and
wetlands, until an environmental preconstruction meeting is conducted between the Department, Regulatory
Agencies, and the Contractor. This meeting is being conducted the same day as the pre-construction
conference.
Completion date for this contract is August 24, 2006
The liquidated damages for this contract time is Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) per calendar day.
Environmental Permits:
Heather Montague from the Division Environmental Office conducted the Environmental Pre-Construction
part of this meeting. Heather gave Chad Hinnant (Asst. Resident) a copy of the permit application that was
submitted. She then proceeded to review the permits for this project. Heather stated that the Army Corps
of Engineers within the 45-day period required, therefore the Department had automatic issuance of the
permit: She reviewed the permitted site for the project, which are Site 1(Bridge site) and Site 2 (relocated
Channel. At site 1 it was stated that the impacts were temporary rock causeways, and bank stabilization
(20 linear feet was permitted). She also discussed that at Site 2 we were permitted for 205 linear feet of
stream impacts.
Nikki Thomson from the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) reviewed the permits from her office.
She then stated that she had received two Emails from Chris Murray the Division Environmental Officer
regarding relocating a water line through the Buffer with the use of bore and jack and also the need of
relocating a sanitary sewer system through the buffer. Nikki approved both of these issues.
Tracy Parrott the Division Construction Engineer wanted to highlight two of the NCDWQ permit
conditions. Permit condition 5 talks about no dredging out of the channel. Tracy stated that Balfour
Beatty need to be careful when removing the temporary rock causeway and suggested the fabric under the
rock to help define a barrier. Permit condition 6 talks about having the permits on site at all times, Balfour
Beatty said that they would post the permits on their site bulletin board. Tracy also talked about the care to
be taken in the demo of the old bridge so that nothing fell into Richland Creek.
Chad Hinnant stated that the NCDOT survey party would stake the placement of the orange fence, and the
limits of the rock causeway. After these items are staked Chris Murray or Heather Montague will be call
to verify that the are correct per the permit drawings.
Dewatering of the side stream relocation during the relocation construction was discussed. Heather stated
that this stream was not subject to the Buffer rules. There was talk as to how the contractor would perform
the dewatering, either to build it completing in the dry if possible or to use sand bags or sheet piles to block
the flow and utilize a pump around. Chad Hinnant reminded the contractor that whatever method of
dewatering that they used they were follow the BMP manual. Katie Simmons from the Department
roadside Environmental Unit noted that the check dam that was shown on the on the erosion control plans
was shown just outside the impact area and would need to be relocated. Katie said that she would be glad
to come and help with the location of this check.
The Contractor brought up the issue of access to the causeways. The Erosion control plans silt fence well
in front of the causeways, limiting the access to the work site. They asked if the fence could be moved
closer to the stream bank giving the room that they need to work. It was decide with approval from Nikki
Thomson that a second of special sediment control fence (hardware cloth and no. 57 stone) would be
allowed as long as it was not placed in the creek.
There was further conversation as to how the drilled shafts would be pumped out and how the cuttings
would be handled. The contractor is still working with their subcontractor Gemini to formulate a plan.
Tracey stated that this would need to be part of their drill plan. The use of a silt bag is allowed but shall
not be placed inside the Buffer but rather in an upland area. Chad Hinnant Stated that there is to be a pre-
drill meeting held on site prior to any drilling activities. This meeting will be scheduled at a later date.
The contractor asked if there was a need to hold monthly walk through on the project for permit issue, to
help prevent any surprises. Chad Hinnant Stated that Bryan Bennett and Katie Simmons would be
conducting weekly and monthly erosion reports. Both of them along with Chris Murray would be available
to answer any questions that may arise. .
Erosion Control:
Katie Simmons reviewed the roles and responsibilities of the contractors certified supervisor and certified
forman as outlined in the contract. The focus was that the contractor needs to be proactive and is required
to create their on weekly erosion list in conjunction with the inspectors list. The contractor supplied the
name and certification of Jay Boyd who will be the certified supervisor on the project. They were only
planning to use one certified person on this job since it is small in size, but are willing to submit a second
name if needed. Katie stated as outlined in the contract that the level 2 certification can be revoked with the
issuance of an ICA or a NOV. The contractor stated that they want to keep an open line of communication
to prevent any major issues. Katie said that she would be willing to help with any issue.
Seeding and Mulching was discussed and the contractor said that their subcontractor for this would be
Carolina Environmental. Katie reviewed more erosion control issues as follows: All areas need to be
stabilized within 21 days, but also need to be stabilized as soon as possible to prevent any erosion issue.
Some erosion devices may need to be adjusted, but need to coordinate with her. There is to be no tack
placed in the water. The stream detail does not show carrying rip rap to the top of the bank, therefore we
will need to mat the area that is not cover with rip rap. All erosion devices shall be properly maintained.
The contractor feels that this a balance job with possibly a little waste. The contractor is planning on using
a to a certified commercial site for this waste and will provide all documentation needed.
Utilities by Others:
Sprint- Russell O'Berry from Sprint stated that they had a 1500 pair cable that was located outside the
right of way and Time Warner was located with them. Sprint provided the residents' office with drawings
of were their line was located in relationship to the project.
Public Service Gas- There is a gas line located on the south side of the project. The proposed sewer line
will cross the gas line, but Frank price said that they gas line is out of the way of this work. This gas line
is also in close proximity to the bridgework. Frank said that there was cut off valves on either side of the
project and that the line could be shut down during construction.
Town of Wake Forest- Chad Hinnant said that he had talked with the town and that they were going to
remove the two light poles that are in conflict on Monday March 27, 2006. The contractor asked about the
down guys on the pole on the west side of the bridge at End Bent 1. Chad said that he would talk to the
town on Monday and see what could be done.
Progress Energy- Per the contract the contractor is allowed to have the H-frame transmission lines de-
energized twice for a five-day period (Monday-Friday) each time. The de-energizing is only allowed
between the Apri13, 2006 (date of availability) and May 31, 2006. It is the contractors responsibility to
notify Progress Energy one week prior to the need of de-energizing. Michael Bray senior lineman for
progress energy, said that him or his supervisor Jimmy Bowden is the ones that need to be contacted. He
will supply Chad Hinnant with the contact information and Chad will submit it to the contract. Progress
Energy will notify Wake Electric, who also share power on these lines. Progress Energy stated that there
would not need to be anybody from his or her office present during construction, although if the need to get
closer than fifteen feet to the energized lines was need they would require a progress energy representative
on site. The contractor stated that they will want to see were the de-energized line is ground for assurance
before they will conduct any work under or around the lines. Progress energy said that they would show
proof that the line is de-energized the Monday after the request. The Contractor said that they are
tentatively looking at wanting the first de-energizing the first week in May. The contractor explained that
they are going to remove the old bridge with out the need of de-energizing, and that they will use the de-
energizing-for driving piles and drilling shafts. He plans on setting the cored slabs with out the need of de-
energizing. The contractor also asked Progress Energy for an emergency contact number; Michael bray
gave out his home phone number.
Utility construction:
This contract calls for relocating an 8-inch sewer line on the south side of the side of the project. There is
plan revision for this that will decrease the amount of manholes and sewer line and also eliminate the need
of jack and bore across Richland Creek. The contractor and the City of Raleigh were given these revisions
and the contractor will be sent a letter as a formal revision. The City said that do not need to be present
during construction, but will be in the area conducting drive by inspection and could be on site with a 24-
hour notice. The City requested that a pump around plan be submitted to Aaron Bower with the city of
Raleigh for approval prior to beginning any pump around. Also required that the contractor have someone
on site to monitor the pump around at all times. As noted on the plans there will be no Dog house style
manholes allowed the contractor must cut the existing terra cotta pipe and slide a solid manhole in place.
There was also a revision to the water line construction adding only an Engineers seal to the drawing.
Chad Hinnant mention the concerns with the placement of the jack and bore pit for the water line. The pit
will need to be placed far enough away from the existing banks so that it does not sluff off into the creek or
cause any erosion or permit issue. Pit location is to be determined and approved prior to digging.
Chad also stated that for all trenching and shoring activities the contractor shall have a competent person
on site at all times, and shall also use a trench box or lay back the slopes of the trench as needed.
The City of Raleigh asked that the drive that they have to access there easement (located Lt. -L- around
station 15+00) at all times.
Major Contract Items: No questions.
Specialty Items: No questions.
Fuel Adjustment: No questions.
Minority and Women Business: The MBE goal was 5.0% and the WBE goal was 5.0%. The contractor
achieved 0% for his MBE and achieved 7% for his WBE. The Contractor stated that they have submitted a
Good Faith Letter.
Prompt Payment:
Contractor was reminded of the contractual requirement to pay all subcontractors and suppliers within
seven days of receipt of monies from the Department.
Partial Payments:
All monthly estimates will be paid at the end of each month.
Domestic Steel and Iron Products:
The contractor was reminded that before any steel or iron product is incorporated into this project he shall
furnish the Resident Engineers office a notarized certification certifying that the product conforms with the
requirements of the special provision.
Contractor Borrow and Waste Sites:
The contract was informed that if he obtain a non-commercial site he would need to submit a reclamation
plan.
Plant Pest Quarantines: the contractor was made aware of the web site were the quarantine areas are
listed. He was also reminded that it was his responsibility to certify.all his equipment if needed.
Safety Vests: All Contractors' personnel, all subcontractors and their personnel, any material suppliers and
their personnel must wear an OSHA approved reflective vest or outer garment at all times while on the
project. The contractor has a company policy that requires their people to wear hard hats at all times, and
has asked that the department do the same for this project.
Traffic Control:
The Department will be responsible for the erection and maintenance of all traffic control devices for the
traffic barricades at the immediate site, which shall be, erected by the department and maintained by the
contractor. Chad Hinnant will notify the schools, emergency services, and the Town of Wake Forest of the
detour and detour route.
Clearing And Grubbing:
Method III, Std. 200.03 of the Roadway Standards will be used for Clearing and Grubbing on this project.
Shoulder and Fill Slope Material: Chad Hinnant stated that proper pH level for shoulder material was
critical to ensure proper vegetative growth. He asked that the contractor follow the specification out lined
in contract.
Drainage Structures:
There are two new drainage structures to be constructed on this project. Tracy Parrott reminded the
contractor to assure that the line and grade on the boxes was correct to eliminate the need of corbeling the
boxes. The contractor stated that they were planning on using precast boxes.
Asphalt Pavements - Superpave:
The contractor stated that they were using Raleigh as their subcontractor for paving. Tracy Parrott
reminded the contractor to make sure that their subcontractor was familiar with the specifications and
special provision of this job and that they would need to a QMS technician on the job. The contractor was
also reminded of the care in the placement, density requirements, surface requirements, and acceptance of
all asphalt, which is outlined in pages 50 -53 of the contract. Also will need to get a State approved Job
Mix Formula for all asphalt used on the project.
Asphalt Binder for Asphalt Concrete:
There will be no separate measurement or payment for asphalt binder required for asphalt concrete.
Payment for various types of asphalt concrete will be full compensation for the asphalt binder required for
each mix type.
Guardrail Posts and Offset Blocks: No questions.
Steel Beam Guardrail and Guardrail Anchor Units, Type 350:
Contractor is reminded to perform installation in accordance with the details in the plans, and assembly
instruction furnished by the manufacturer. Also the need to keep the assembly instruction for anchor units
on the project.
Construction of-Y]-:
-Yl- is the only entrance to Pascal Golf Course, which is an active business and possibly has a residence
on their facility. Contractor is reminded that the access to this business/residence will need to be
maintained throughout the life of the project. It was discussed that the barricades on this end of the job
need to be staggered to allow access to -YI-
Prestressed Core Slab Bridge Construction:
Drilled Piers - Contractor is reminded to handle the disposal of waste from the drilled shafts appropriately.
Rick Nelson said that 3-day cylinders on shafts could be made if they are good the CSL tube could be
grouted. Rick also mentioned that permanent steel casing might be needed, contractor will need to submit a
price since there is no line item for this. The determination for the permanent casing will be when the shaft
is drilled; there is a possibility that it will not be needed. Temporary steel casing may be an option but to
careful with concrete overflow.
Piles and Pile Hammer - the contractor submitted his pile hammer for approval. He plans on driving short
lengths of pile to avoid contact with de-energized power lines.
Reinforced Bridge Approach Fills - Bags of 78m stone are to be used around the drain tubes. Follow the
Structure Plans during the construction of this Item.
Cored Slabs - Contractor stated that they plan to set span 1 the conventionally and possibly launch the
remainder of the spans.
Construction Surveyi -
Chad Hinnant stated that he had been informed that Balfour Beatty was planing on using SEPI Engineering
Group to perform stakeout on the entire project. It was noted that there is not a pay item for construction
surveying in this contract. Tim Daniels said that he had bid the project with the intent to use them for stake
out and had combined it into the price for Line Item No. 2 Generic Grading. Tim also stated that SEPI was
part of their WBE percentage. It was noted that the Department will conduct a 100% check on the
structure stakeout and will stakeout the limits of the temporary rock causeway and were to place the highly
visible fence for permit compliance.
General Notes:
Frank Price said that the Town of Wake Forest was planing on a sidewalk project to be constructed at the
same time as this project. The Town of Wake Forest will need to seek permission for Balfour Beatty to
come inside the construction limits of this project.
This concluded the meeting. These minutes were prepared with the writer's understandnig and any errors
or omissions in these minutes should be reported to the Resident Engineers Office for consideration.
cc:
T. N. Parrott, PE
Balfour Beatty
Rick Nelson, PE
Katie Simmons
Heather Montague
Chris Murray
Mike Summers
Nikki Thomson, NCDWQ
Jimmy Dennis, SEPI Engineering Group
Eddie Wetherill, Wetherill Engineering
Eric Keavouri, Town of Wake Forest
Aaron Bower, City of Raleigh Utilities
Michael Bray, Progress Energy
Jamie Loy, Progress Energy
Russell O'Berry, Sprint
Inspector
File
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ?4? uE /!//f
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION , <006'
Michael F. Easley P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 L?F tppett
GOVERNOR SecretaW11VCi9
March 16, 2006
CONTRACT NO.: C201562
WBS ELEMENT: 37017
COUNTY: Wake
DESCRIPTION: Bridge over Richland Creek and Approaches on SR 1930
(Stadium Dr)
SUBJECT: Preconstruction Meeting
Mr. Mark Johnnie
Balfour Beatty
765 S. Kerr Ave.
Wilmington NC, 28403
Dear Mr. Johnnie:
This is to confirtwour telephone conversation scheduling a pre-environmental/pre-construction
meeting. The meeting will be held on March 24, 2006 at 2:00 PM at the Youngsville Resident Engineer's
Office located at:
5221A NC 96 Highway West
Youngsville, NC 27596
Please provide a list of material suppliers, a letter of those authorized to sign supplemental
agreements, and your proposed progress schedule at this meeting.
If you have any questions, please advise.
Sincerely
Chad ant
ASSITANT RESIDENT ENGINEER
Cc:
Ellis Powell; PE Jan Womble Aaron Bower, City of Raleigh Utilities
J. G. Nance, PE Ron Moore .. Jamie Loy, Progress Energ ?
T. N. Parrott, PE Joe Lockamy Don Gressydick, Time Warner
Rick Nelson, PE Eric Alsmyer, USACE
Dennis Jernigan, PE Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife
Joey Hopkins, PE Nichole Thomson, Div. of Water Quality
Chris Murray Eddie Wetherill, Wetherill Engineering
Donald Pearson Mike Barton, Town of Wake Forest
P. O. BOX 1018 YOUNGS VILLE, NORTH CARoLiNA 27596
Page 1 of 2
Nicole Thomson
From: "Chad D Hinnant" <[e-mail]>
To: "Nicole Thomson" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Alsmeyer, Eric C SAW" <[e-mail]>; "Wilson, Travis W."
<[e-mail]>; "Chris Murray" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:39 PM
Attach: cdhinnant.vcf
Subject: Re: Bridge No. 133 over Richland Creek on SR 1930 in Wake County
We can have the environmental precon in the beginning. As far as the length of
the meeting I would think that we could finish by three. Directions to our
office from Raleigh are to take US 1 North to the intersection of Hwy. 96, turn
right onto Hwy. 96, office is less than a mile on the right.
Chad
Nicole Thomson wrote:
> How long is this meeting proposed for? I have to be on the road by 3pm the
> absolute latest (earlier if possible). I would also need directions from my
> office in Raleigh, if possible.
> Thanks.
> Nikki
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chad D Hinnant" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Alsmeyer, Eric C SAW" <[e-mail]>; "Wilson,
> Travis W." <travis.wilson@?ncwildlife.orq>; "Nicole Thomson"
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "Chris Murray" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:20 PM
> Subject: Bridge No. 133 over Richland Creek on SR 1930 in Wake County
> > Good Afternoon,
> > The above mention project is the bridge replacement over Richland
> > Creek on Stadium Dr. in Wake Forest. Our contract on this
> > project requires that we have an environmental pre-con before
> > construction begins. The date of availability for this project
> > is April 3, 2006. With this date in mind we are planning on
> > having our pre-con on March 24, 2006 at 2:00 pm in the
> > Youngsville Residents office. We would like to have our
> > environmental pre-con at the same time. Please confirm if you
3/24/2006
Page 2 of 2
> > can make the this meeting on March 24, 2006. Thanks for your
> > assistance.
> > Chad Hinnant
> > Asst. Resident Engineer
3/24/2006

WATER
QG
7
r
mill ~i
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
January 6, 2006
Wake County
DWQ Project No. 052218
MA05001B
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and NEUSE RIVER RIPARIAN BUFFER AUTHORIZATION
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
You have our approval, in accordance with the conditions listed below, for the following impacts for the purpose of
replacement of Bridge No. 133 over Richland Creek on SR 1930 (Stadium Drive) in Wake County.
Stream Impact Table
Site Stream Impacts - Temporary
(linear feet) Stream Impacts - Permanent Fill
(linear feet)
Site 1 77 (fill) 60
Site 2 205 (dewatering) 205
Buffer Impact Table
Site Allowable
Zone 1 (s q. ft.) Zone 2 (s q. ft.)
Site 1 4,893 2,884
Totals 7,777
The project shall be constructed in accordance with your application dated received on December 20, 2005. After
reviewing your application, we have decided that the stream impacts and riparian buffer impacts described are
covered by General Water Quality Certification Numbers 3495, 3404 and 3366. This certification corresponds to
the Nationwide Permit 13, Nationwide Permit 14 and Nationwide 33 issued by the Corps of Engineers. This
approval is also valid for the Neuse Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). In addition, you should acquire any other
federal, state or local permits before you proceed with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and
Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire with the
accompanying 404 permit, unless otherwise specified in the Water Quality Certification.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified below).
Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the property is sold, the
new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying
with all the conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, or of total
impacts to streams (now or in the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you must adhere to the
conditions listed in the attached certification.
No
C Caro ne T;n
Transportation Permitting Unit N?/VlltllCltI
?1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Pnuol Onnndnnihi/Affirmotiva Antinn Fmnlnvar_ Fin% Rarvc1ar1/1n0/^ PoO r:nmimAr PAnP.r
l.) Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form" to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been completed. The
responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the Division of
Water Quality upon completion of the project.
2.) All stormwater runoff shall be directed to sheetflow through stream buffers at nonerosive velocities, unless
approved otherwise by this certification.
3.) During the construction of the project, no staging of equipment of any kind is permitted in waters of the U.S., or
riparian buffers.
4.) Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing
season following completion of construction.
5.) The dimension, pattern and profile of the stream above and below the crossing should not be modified by
widening the stream channel or reducing the depth of the stream. Disturbed floodplains and streams should be
restored to natural geomorphic conditions.
6.) Any riprap used must not interfere with thalweg performance and aquatic life passage during low flow
conditions.
7.) All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters must be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
8.) Discharging hydroseed mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment in or adjacent to surface
waters is prohibited.
9.) The outside buffer, wetland or water boundary located. within the construction corridor approved by this
authorization shall be clearly marked by highly visible fencing prior to any land disturbing activities. Impacts
to areas within the fencing are prohibited unless otherwise authorized by this certification.
10.) There shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated with this
permit without appropriate modification of this permit. Should waste or borrow sites be located in wetlands or.
stream, compensatory mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities.
11.) Heavy equipment must be operated from the banks rather than in the stream channel in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream.
12.) No live or fresh concrete shall come into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has hardened
13.) The presence of equipment in the channels must be minimized. Under no circumstances must rock, sand or
other materials be dredged from the wetted stream channel under authorization of this permit, except in the
immediate vicinity of the culverts.
14.) All work shall be performed during low or normal flow conditions.
15.) A copy of this Water Quality Certification shall be posted on the construction site at all times. In addition, the
Water Quality Certification and all subsequent modifications, if any, shall be maintained with the Division
Engineer and the on-site project manager.
w
I
if
16.) All riparian buffers impacted by the placement of temporary fill or clearing activities shall be restored-to the
preconstruction contours and revegetated with native woody species upon completion of the project
construction. A post-construction as-built with the restoration activities included shall be submitted to, the
DWQ no later than 60 days after the project is closed out by the Department of Transportation.
17.) Pursuant to NCAC15A 2B.0233(6) sediment and erosion control devices shall not be placed in Zone 1 of any
Neuse Buffer without prior approval by the NCDWQ. At this time, the NCDWQ has approved no sediment and
erosion control devices in Zone 1, outside of the approved project impacts, anywhere on this project. Moreover,
sediment and erosion control devices shall be allowed in Zone 2 of the buffers provided that Zone 1 is not
compromised and that discharge is released as diffuse flow.
18.) Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper
design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to protect
surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control measures
must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most recent version of the
North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices shall be maintained on all
construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including contractor-owned or leased
borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed, operated,
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Surface Mining
Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in accordance with
the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
19.) The post-construction removal of any temporary bridge structures will need to return the project site to its
preconstruction contours and elevations. The revegetation of the impacted areas with appropriate native species
is required.
20.) If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is preferred. Strict adherence
the Corps of Engineers guidelines for bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality
Certification.
21.) This approval will expire with the accompanying 404 federal permit. This condition supercedes condition No.
15 in the General Certification 3495, condition No. 19 in the General Certification 3404 and condition No. 12 in
the General Certification 3366.
'VI
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that conforms
to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please contact Nicole Thomson at [phone].
' cere y,
?f G
an W. Klimek, P.E.
JH/njt
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. Jon Nance, Division 5 Engineer, 2612 N. Duke Street, Durham, NC 27704
Mr. Chris Murray, Division 5 Environmental Officer, 2612 N. Duke Street, Durham, NC 27704
NC DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
c:\Correspondence\2005BridgeProjects\DWQ052218\010306wgc.doc
N
Page 1 of 3
Nicole Thomson ocwe,
- CD
From: "Chris Murray" <[e-mail]> - $51
To: "Nicole Thomson" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Tracy N. Parrott" <[e-mail]>; "Michael Summers" <[e-mail]>; "Michael
J. Kneis" <[e-mail]>; "Chad D Hinnant" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:51 AM
Attach: defang-l.binary
Subject: Re: Bridge No. 133 over Richland Creek on SR 1930 in Wake Co. T'
Nikki,
I wanted to thank you very much for the prompt reply .... I unfortunately forgot to
mention one other utility issue at the site. Part of this new project involves the removal
of a portion of the existing roadway fill near the creek (i.e. we are expanding the
hydrologic opening underneath the bridge deck by making the new spanning structure
longer than the existing structure). The Department has to tie into the existing sewer
line in the southwest quadrant, and we propose to do some excavation within this portion
of the existing roadway fill that is going being removed.
Please note, as stated above, that this work is being conducted within the fill limits of
our existing transportation facility, and would therefore be viewed as "exempt" from the
buffer rules. The attached drawing depicts the limits of the existing transportation
facility (in green) that is to be removed as part of the new project. The centerline for
the sewer line in this footprint is highlighted in yellow. As you can see, this work is.
contained within the footprint of our existing transportation facility that will be removed
during construction of this project. The work outlined in this email will not result in
additional impacts to streams, wetlands or riparian buffers. I wanted to make sure that
your agency is made aware of all utility issues on this project.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Chris Murray
Nicole Thomson wrote:
Provided that the area impacted is revegetated after the work and that there are no
jurisdictional impacts beyond what DOT is approved for, I don't see the need for a
modification. Consider this email authorization to continue the activities as proposed. As
always, please be sure that this change is reflected in the final as-builts submitted to this
office once the project is closed. Thanks for the chance to comment.Nikki
- Original Message -----
From: Chris Murray
2/27/2006
Page 2 of 3 r
To: Nicole Thomson
Cc: Tracy N. Parrott ; Michael Summers ; Michael J. Kneis ; Chad 0 Hinnant
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 3:49 PM
Subject: Bridge No. 133 over Richland Creek on SR 1930 in Wake Co.
Nikki,
Reference: DWQ Project No. 052218 (WQC dated 1/6/06)
The Department is in the process of letting this project, and a utility line
issue has recently become evident on the project. A water line has to be
relocated on the north side of the project, just outside of the toe of fill.
This relocation will involve excavation in the buffer to install the water line.
The water line will be installed underneath Richland Creek utilizing typical
bore and jack method.
The excavation in the riparian buffer for the above-mentioned water line
is entirely within our previously permitted riparian buffer footprint (see
Sheet 1 of 3 in the NCDOT permit application dated 12/19/05).
Therefore, this activity will not result in additional impacts to riparian
buffers, streams or wetlands. Since this activity will not result in
additional impacts, it does not seem that this will require a permit
modification from your agency. I have attached a drawing that depicts the
water line through the riparian buffer (note the yellow highlighted area on
the drawing). Please let me know if you agree with my assessment of the
issue outlined in this email.
Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Chris Murray
WARNING: This e-mail has been altered by MIMEDefang. Following this
paragraph are indications of the actual changes made. For more
information about your site's MIMEDefang policy, contact
MIMEDefang Administrator <[e-mail]>. For more information about MIMEDefang, see:
http://www.roaringnenguin.com/mimedefang/enduser.phn3
An attachment named ' Image-02. JPG' was converted to ' defang-1. binary' .
To recover the file, click on the attachment and Save As
' Image-02. JPG' in order to access it.
WARNING!! IF THE BINARY YOU RECOVER IS A VIRUS, YOU MAY INFECT YOUR SYSTEM.
2/27/2006

Page 3 of 3
WARNING: This e-mail has been altered by MIMEDefang. Following this
paragraph are indications of the actual changes made. For more
information about your site's MIMEDefang policy, contact
MIMEDefang Administrator <[e-mail]>. For more information about MIMEDefang, see:
http://www.roaringpenguin.com/mimedefang/enduser.php3
An attachment named ' Image-03. JPG' was converted to ' defang-1. binary' .
To recover the file, click on the attachment and Save As
' Image-03. JPG' in order to access it.
WARNING!! IF THE BINARY YOU RECOVER IS A VIRUS, YOU MAY INFECT YOUR SYSTEM.
2/27/2006
image-03.jpg (JPEG Image, 700x962 pixels)
file:///C:/temp/image-03. jpg
PP{sPGSF 0 pry'
y t f t I -PROGIRESS ENERGY
R" ?'3 ! nW TRANSMISSION L€NES
r' 11 ? i?Er ??
?I Y

PD I
47
W4
F
MANHOLE 'A*
RIM =. 10a L3
_0
`-
IlV.IN = 84
INV. OUT 89,74
1 f '? ,1' f ?` t
1RIM
T ?a.45 r FOU=` RATION FOR M
RANSMISSON
NV. IN 89.23
Wes. NO, . 37017
WAKE COUNTY
STATION- 14+04.00 °L=
REPLACES BRIDGE NO, 133
. - QES'A6t74fHT ? 7Rdf75PpgYAt3Ca1
., . 7 u - . ADDITIONAL IMPACT TO
SUFFER DUE TO
2; 0 SEWER RELOCAIION
SCALE I, . S,.„
1 of 2 2/27/2006 11:58 AM
Nicole Thomson
Page 1 of 1
V v vLU--
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
Nikki,
"Chris Murray" <[e-mail]>
"Nicole Thomson" <[e-mail]>
"Tracy N. Parrott" <[e-mail]>; "Michael Summers" <[e-mail]>; "Michael
J. Kneis" <[e-mail]>; "Chad D Hinnant" <[e-mail]>
Friday, February 24, 2006 3:49 PM
defang- l.binary
Bridge No. 133 over Richland Creek on SR 1930 in Wake Co.
Reference. DWQ Project No. 052218 (WQC dated 1/6/06)
1419
ti
The Department is in the process of letting this project, and a utility line issue has
recently become evident on the project. A water line has to be relocated on the north
side of the project, just outside of the toe of fill. This relocation will involve excavation
in the buffer to install the waterline. The waterline will be installed underneath
Richland Creek utilizing typical bore and jack method.
The excavation in the riparian buffer for the above-mentioned water line is entirely
within our previously permitted riparian buffer footprint (see Sheet 1 of 3 in the
NCDOT permit application dated 12/19/05). Therefore, this activity will not result
in additional impacts to riparian buffers, streams or wetlands. Since this activity will
not result in additional impacts, it does not seem that this will require a permit
modification from your agency. I have attached a drawing that depicts the water line
through the riparian buffer (note the yellow highlighted area on the drawing). Please let
me know if you agree with my assessment of the issue outlined in this email.
Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Chris Murray
WARNING: This e-mail has been altered by MIMEDefang. Following this
paragraph are indications of the actual changes made. For more
information about your site's MIMEDefang policy, contact
MIMEDefang Administrator <[e-mail]>. For more information about MIMEDefang, see:
http://www.roaringpenguin.com/mimedefang/enduser.php3
An attachment named 'Image-02.JPG' was converted to 'defang-l.binary'.
To recover the file, click on the attachment and Save As
' Image-02. JPG' in order to access it.
WARNING!! IF THE BINARY YOU RECOVER IS A VIRUS, YOU MAY INFECT YOUR SYSTEM.
2/27/2006
image-02.jpg (JPEG Image, 700x962 pixels) file:///C:/temp/image-02.jpg
IPPOSED
1V'L
-DROGRESS ENERGY
TPANSM6SSION LINES
I

PE)E I

w? W -
?. R
MANHOLE aA'
?? J` ??
FR11V = 105,00
a k s
INV. IN = 89.94
fJ ?
INV, OUT 89.74
rpoposFo 8* SS
olum = 1E00.72 ,?+ !p Ott { f 4 '
PE?-V. IN 89 Lim tNV. f1UT 89'45 4 FOUNDATION FOR
+??Pi?1C?LE 0' _. - TRANSMISSION T
1?d = =32 TOWER
I'-IV.IN = 89.23
0 25 sc
SCAU- :?O'

WBS. NO. 37017
WAKg COLINTY
STAY 1()N.__14-604.00 -L-
REPLACES BRIOC tf
DMOT-04t ac iit?it?, +aqt ty
ADDITTONAL IMPACT TO
BUFFER DUE TO
SEWER RELOCATION
?l+tf?^•san.1P+VF?bNr F.: k

1 of 2 2/27/2006 8:05 AM

.?
/ d,.a SiATfo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
December 19, 2005
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27609
Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
?os2zls
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY

D&
Subject: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 133 over Richland Creek on SR 1930
Stadium Drive in Wake County; NC Moving Ahead Bridge Replacement
Program, NCDOT Project No. MA05001B; WBS element 37017.
Reference: USACE Action ID. 200421121
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 133 over Richland Creek on SR 1930 (Stadium Drive) in Wake County with a new
bridge structure (see Photographs 1 - 4, Figures 1-2, Permit Drawings Sheets 1-3). The
referenced USACE Action ID. 200421121, was given for a Jurisdictional Determination
dated 01/28/05 (see Appendix One for copy of notification of JD).
The length of existing Bridge No. 133 is approximately 62 feet long and 30 feet wide.
The existing bridge has vertical concrete abutments with wing walls and also five timber
piers positioned along the eastern edge of the stream bank. One timber pier has a concrete
footing. The project proposes to remove the existing bridge and replace it with a 130 feet
bridge that is 54 feet wide, in the same location. The abutments will be removed and the
old timber piers will be removed or sawed off at the mud line. The proposed bents for the
new bridge will be out of the stream line at the top of the banks. However, due to the
proximity of the new pilings to the stream edge, a temporary causeway will be necessary
for the construction of bents 1 and 2. Additionally permanent rip rap armoring for bank
stabilization will be necessary surrounding three of the proposed piles. The project also
involves roadway approach improvements that will involve temporary and permanent
impacts to a side channel (an unnamed tributary to Richland Creek). The total length of
project improvements along SR 1930 are approximately 975 feet. ,

Division 5, 2612 N. Duke Street, Durham, NC 27704
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
2

The purpose of the project is to replace the structurally deficient bridge and to improve
safety on SR 1930 as,it crosses Richland Creek. The proposed project will reduce the
potential for accidents 'since the proposed replacement bridge will be of greater structural
integrity than the existing bridge structure. Currently, Bridge No. 133 has a sufficiency
rating of 42.3 out of 100.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Site 1- Waters of the U.S.: Since the replacement structure is a spanning structure, minimal
impacts are proposed to Richland Creek (NCDENR-DWQ Index No. 27-21, Best Usage
Classification CNSW, HUC 03020201) in the Neuse River Basin. The construction of the
bridge will require the use of temporary rock causeways consisting of Class II Rip Rap (see
permit drawing sheet 2 of 3). The resulting temporary surface water fill will be 300 ft'- (0.07
acre) for the western causeway and 500 ft'` (0.011 ac) for the eastern causeway. The
temporary surface water fill resulting from the construction of the causeways will probably
be in place for less than twelve (10) months. After the temporary causeways are no longer
needed, the contractor will use excavating equipment to remove all material within
jurisdictional areas. Additionally permanent rip rap armoring for bank stabilization will be
necessary at 3 of the new bridge piles due to the proximity of these piles to the stream
edge (see permit drawing 2 of 3). Permanent impacts associated with this bank
stabilization totals 20 ft at each of 3 piles, 60 ft (0.001 ac) of surface water impacts.
Site 2 - Waters of the U.S.: Roadway approach improvements within the northeastern
quadrant of the project will necessitate the realignment of 205 ft of a side channel-an
unnamed tributary to Richland Creek (see permit drawing 3 of 3). A natural stream
design is not being used in this instance since it was determined by an onsite meeting
with the USACE that this side channel was too degraded to use as a restoration site.
Therefore, a base channel is proposed with a 5 ft berm between the top of bank and toe of
fill from the proposed road. The proposed channel would have a slope of about 2% to
3% with about 60 acres of downtown Wake Forest draining to it. The 10-yr velocity is
about 6 ft/sec, which is too fast for a grassed-lined channel. The existing channel is
incised about 10 - 15 ft and is contributing heavy sediment loads to Richland Creek.
Therefore, the NCDOT proposes to rip rap the relocated channel to dissipate some of the
energy that is moving the sediment. Please note that the lateral base ditch detail on the
plan sheets of the attached drawings represents where the full typical is used, -L- STA.
16+50 LT to 17+50 LT. The 5 ft berm and entire ditch will be built as the stations say,
with the transition from the existing channel to the detail involving additional impacts of
55 ft on the western end and 50 ft on the eastern end of this realigned channel. The entire
work is being counted in the stream impact of 205 ft reported in the attached pre-
construction notification form. Additionally, the Site 2 work zone will be temporarily
dewatered during the construction of the base ditch. This will involve the temporary
placement of sheet piling and/or sandbags at the upstream and downstream construction
limits of the channel realignment. Once the stream has been dewatered, the base ditch
will be constructed. To maintain water flow during construction, water upstream of the
realigned channel will be temporarily pumped out and conveyed around downstream of
the realigned channel. Temporary concurrent impacts to the side channel from this
activity will result in dewatering 205 linear feet of stream. The material used for used for
dewatering will be removed after construction.

3
Riparian Buffer
Site 1 - Buffers: The maintenance activities at this sites involve a bridge crossing of a
stream that is subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules (see permit drawing sheet 1 of 3).
Richland Creek is depicted on the most recent version of the Wake Forest (USGS
1967/1987) topographic quadrangle (Figure 1) and the Soil Survey of Wake County
(USDA-SCS, 1970) (Figure 2). [Please note that the unnamed tributary to Richland Creek
within the northeastern quadrant of the project is not depicted on either of these maps.]
Buffer impacts related to the bridge replacement activities adjacent to Richland Creek
total 4,892.9 ft'- in Zone 1 and 2,883.6 ft in Zone 2 [totaling 7,776.5 ft2 (0.18 acres)]. All
practicable measures to minimize impacts within buffer zones were followed. Measures
used to minimize impacts to the buffer zone include using the current alignment.
According to the buffer rules, impacts associated with bridges are ALLOWABLE.
Temporary erosion control measures will be placed within the permitted footprint of this
project.
Waters of the U.S. Mitigation
Avoidance:
The existing bridge will be replaced in place with a longer bridge. SR 1930 will be closed
during construction eliminating the need for an onsite detour. No bents will be placed in
the water and no deck drains are proposed over the creek or riparian buffers. Additionally
two items were considered for avoiding impacts to the side channel. The first
consideration was an alignment shift south of the existing alignment to avoid this
tributary. This shift would impact transmission lines and a tower. Costs to raise and
relocate the tower and power lines have been estimated between $75,000 and $100,000.
This shift would also increase the project length and lead to more land disturbance. The
second item considered was the use of a retaining wall along the existing tributary. This
would cost approximately $240,000. The wall would be about 200 ft long and 15 ft high.
Because of the cost of these considerations, it was determined to utilize a channel change
of 205 ft.
Minimization:
The construction of this project has minimized the extent of the built-upon area by using
the existing alignment for new construction. The proposed replacement structure over
Richland Creek will not have piers, bents, or footings in the stream and will not have
deck drains over the creek or over the riparian buffers.
Compensatory MVof Surface water imft to the tributary to Richland Creek is proposed w ith this
project. Howevemeeting between consultant engineers (Sungate Design
Group, P.A.) and confirmed that this channel is highly degraded and did nothave significant refore, no compensatory mitigation is proposed for these
impacts.
4
, Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the ESA. As of January 29, 2003, there are four federally protected species
listed for Wake County. They include bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),
red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), and
dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterdon). Stadium Drive is not adjacent to nor is it
surrounded by open water suitable of supporting foraging habitat for the bald eagle. The
combination of dense stands of mixed hardwood and the cleared area for the powerline right-
of-way surrounding this roadway does not offer suitable forging or nesting habitat for red-
cockaded woodpecker. Also, the roadway shoulders of Stadium Drive are heavily
maintained, eliminating the possibility for Michaux's sumac to exist in the project area.
Additionally, a review of the Natural Heritage Program database (last updated November
2005) revealed no occurrences of Michaux's sumac, red-cockaded woodpecker, or bald
:eagle within the project area. Therefore, based on lack of suitable habitat observed during
the site visits and the NHP database review, biological conclusions of No -Effect have
been rendered for each of these species. Richland Creek was surveyed for dwarf
wedgemussel by the Catena Group on 10/17/03. Biologists found the habitat within the
project area degraded by high sediment loading. Their survey report documented that it was
apparent that mussel fauna, including dwarf wedgemussel does not occur within the reach of
Richland Creek. Therefore, based on lack of suitable habitat observed during the survey, a
biological conclusion of May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect has been rendered for
the dwarf wedgemussel. NCDOT received concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service on this conclusion dated December 8, 2005 (see Appendix Two for survey report and
USFWS concurrence letter).
Historical Compliance
This project has been screened by all pertinent parties to ensure historic compliance.
Summary
The NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 133 over Richland Creek on SR 1930
(Stadium Drive) in Wake County with new bridge structure on the same alignment.
SR 1930 will be closed during construction. Temporary impacts of 0.081 ac are proposed
to Richland Creek associated with the use of temporary rock causeways. The material
used for the causeway will be removed they are no longer needed. Additionally
permanent impacts associated with bank stabilization total 60 ft (0.001 ac) to Richland
Creek. Also permanent impacts of 205 ft are proposed to a tributary to Richland Creek
are proposed, as well as temporary concurrent dewatering impacts. Since this side
channel is degraded and has not significant function, no compensatory mitigation is
proposed for these impacts. Additionally, impacts to adjacent riparian buffers of Richland
Creek are proposed. According to the buffer rules, impacts associated with bridges are
ALLOWABLE.

fi
5
r Application is hereby made for a Department of the Army Section 404 Nationwide
Permit (NWP) 14 (roadway crossing), NWP 33 (temporary causeways in the mainstem
and dewatering at the side channel), and NWP 13 (bank stabilization); and NCDENR-
DWQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) No. 3404, WQC No. 3366, and
WQC No. 3495 for above-described activities. An automated payment procedure has
been implemented between the NCDOT and NCDWQ. This procedure will enable the
Division to apply for the 401 WQC without submitting a check for this permit
application. This procedure will provide payment to the NCDWQ by charging the permit
application fee of V directly to the appropriate NCDOT WBS element 37017. A
pre-construction notification (pages 1-9) and permit drawings (sheets 1-3) are attached
with this request. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
Mr. Chris Murray at [phone].
Sincerely,
. gar,
Jbon G. Nance, P.E.
Division Engineer
cc: Ms. Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Tracy Parrott, NCDOT
Mr. Chris Murray, NCDOT
Ms. Katie Simmons, NCDOT
Mr. Dallie Bagwell, NCDOT
Mr. Mike Summers, NCDOT
Mr. Mike Kneis, NCDOT

Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 2 0 0 5 2 2 1 8
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. 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: NWP 14, 33, and 13
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: NCDOT Division 5 Jon G. Nance
Mailing Address: 2612 N. Duke St. Durham NC 27704
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: JNance(a dot.state.nc.us
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:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 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 may be 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: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 133 over Richland Creek on SR 1930
(Stadium Drive) in Wake County.
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
NCDOT Project No. MA0500113: WBS element 37017.
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: Wake Forest
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Raleigh_ take
Capital Blvd north to Wake Forest. Make a right off US 1 (Capital Blvd) onto SR 1930
(Stadium Drive) and travel east approximately 0.7 miles to project site.
5. 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):
Site 1, at Br. No. 133 over Richland Creek 35.9846 ON 78.5199 °W
Site 2, at side channel UT to Richland Creek 35.9846 °N 78.5196 °W
6. Property size (acres): approximately 2.2 acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Richland Creek
8. River Basin: Neuse
(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/.)
Page 2 of 9
N,
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Existing land uses along SR 1930 are primarily urban and
residential.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 133
over Richland Creek on SR 1930 in Wake County with a new bridge structure. The existing
bridge is approximately 62 ft x 30 ft. The project proposes to remove the existing bridge and
replace it with a 130 ft x 54 ft bridge in the same location. The proposed bents for the new
bridge will be out of the stream line at the top of the banks. However, due to the proximity
of the new pilings to the stream edge, a temporary causeway will be necessary for
construction of each bent. Additionally permanent rip rap armoring for bank stabilization
will be necessary surrounding three of the proposed piles. Improvements to the roadway
approaches will require the realignment of a 205 ft section of a tributary to Richland Creek
into a rip rap lined base ditch. Temporary dewatering will be necessary here so that the
realignment can be performed with dry working conditions. The total project improvement
length along SR 1930 is approximately 975 feet. This section of SR 1930 will be closed
during construction. Equipment may include excavator, backhoe, bulldozer, grader, and
crane.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the project is to improve safety on
SR 1930 as it crosses Richland Creek in Wake County. The proposed project will reduce the
potential for accidents since the proposed replacement bridge will be of greater structural
integrity than the existing bridge structure.
IV. Prior Project History
V. 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 USACE 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.
Action ID. 200421121, Jurisdictional Determination dated 01/28/05 (see attached for copy of
notification of JD).
VI. 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.
Page 3 of 9

VII. 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 may be 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.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Permanent Impacts: Construction of the
replacement bridge -will -have 60 ft (0.001 ac) of permanent impacts to Richland Creek
Additionally, improvements to the approaches at Site 2 will result in 205 feet of realignment to a
side channel (an unnamed tributary to Richland Creek). Temporary Imapcts: Construction of
the new bridge piles will require the use of temporary rock causeways at Site 1. Additionally,
the Site 2 work zone will be temporarily dewatered for during the construction of the base ditch
This will involve the temporary _placement of sheet piling and/or sandbags upstream and
downstream of the channel realignment. Once the stream has been dewatered the base ditch will
be constructed. To maintain water flow during construction water upstream of the realigned
channel will be temporarily pumped out and conveyed around downstream of the realigned
channel. Temporary concurrent impacts to the side channel from this activity will result in
dewatering 205 linear feet of stream. All material used for used for causeways and for
dewatering will be removed after construction.
1. 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 Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year Nearest Impact
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) Floodplain Stream (acres)
(yes/no) linear feet)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total Wetland Impact (acres) N/A
2. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:
NONE
3. 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,
Page 4 of 9
Dec-20-2005 10:49 From-DIV 5 919-560-3371 T-019 P.002/003 F-061

plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for
must be included. To calculate acreage, multi 1 lent
Stream Impact Percnnial or
Number Stream Name Type of Impact lutermittent?
ndicate on map)
both the original and relocated streams
;th X width, then divide by 43,560.
Average impact Length Area of
Stream Width impact
Before impact (linear feet) (acres)

Site 1
Richland Crk za
stabilization perennial
2.0 60
(20ft at 3 piles) 0.001
2
0 77 -temp
Temporary fill erennial
p . (2?It for W CW 0.081
Site 1 Richland Crk for causeways and 50fl for s CW)

Site
UT
Fill/realignment
intermittent 2.0
205 0.01
Richland Crk
E 0
2 205 -tem 01
0
E { Temp . p .

iand Crk
dewaterittg intermittent concurrent

342 concurrent

0092
Total Stream Im pact (by length and acreage)
4, 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, fl drainage, bulkheads etc.
Bred in , oodin ,
O en Water Impact Type of Waterbody Area of
p Name p Waterbody Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
Site Number (?f applicable)
ocean, etc. acres
(indicate on ma ) N/A NIA
N/A N/A N/A
NIA N/A NIA N/A
NIA
Total Open Water Impact (acres) ILIA
5. :(,ist the cumiStrem impact all Waters of the U.S. resultin from the pro'
Streal0.092
Wetl: NONE
en re NONE
Total of the U.S. acres) 0.042
Total inear feet): 342
b. Isolated Waters
Do any isola ted 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.
NiA
7, fond 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
page 5 of 9
DEC-E0-2005 TUE 10:42 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 2
Dec-20-2005. 10:50 From-DIV 5
919-560-3371 T-019 P.003/003 F-061
Describe the method of construction darn /embankment, excavation, installation of
n
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area. N/A
VillL. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be 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.
Avoidance,
The existin bride will be re. laced in lace with a lon er bzid e. SR 1930 will be closed
durin construction eliminatin the need for an onsite detour. No bents will be laced iu the
water and no deck drains are ro osed over the creek or riparian buffers. Also two items were
considered fox avoidin im acts to the side channel. The first consideration was an a1i 7nrnent
shift south of the existing ali meat to avoid this tribute, This shift would impact transmission
lines and a tower. Costs to raise and relocate the tower and ower lines have been estimated
between 75 000 and 100 000. This shift would also increase the ro'ect len th and lead to
wall alon, the
more land disturbance. The second item considered was the use of a retaining
existing tributary. This would cost approximate) 2.40 000. The wall would be about 200 ft lon r
and 1 S ft hi h. Because 'the cost of these considerations it was determined to utilize a channel
change of 205. ft.
Minimization:
The construction of this project has minimized the extent of the built-u on area b usin the
existin a1i rnent for new construction. The TO osed r lacement structure over Richland
Creek will not have iers bents or footin s in the stream and will not have deck drains over the
creek or over the riparian buffers. NCDOT will implement best mane ement ractices for the
protection of surface waters in accordance with the most recent version of the 'North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Plannin and Desi Manual" durin desi n and construction
phases of theproj_ect.
Page 6 of Q
DEC-20-2005 TUE 10:42 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS
IX. 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
hLtp:Hh2o.enr.state.nc.us/newetlands/strmgide.html.
1. 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.
Surface water impacts of 205 ft to the tributary to Richland Creek is proposed with this
project However, an onsite meeting between consultant engineers (from Sungate Design
Group P.A.) and the USACE confirmed that this channel is highly degraded and did not
have significant function Therefore no compensatory mitigation is proposed for these
impacts No compensatory mitigation is offered for the temporary impacts associated with
the rip rap causeways.
1. 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/w!p/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Page 7 of 9
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
X. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. 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 ?
XI. 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 213 .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. V 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.
Site 1- Br. 133 (Richland Creek)
Zone* (s uarpe feet) Multiplier Mitig ton
1 4,892.9 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 2,883.6 1.5
Total 7,776.5
* Zone I 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.
Page 8 of 9
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. N/A
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. There is approximately 0.44 acre existing
impervious surface within the 2.2 acres project site.
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.
This project will not generate wastewater.
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 an after-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 nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina 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:
This maintenance project will not result in additional development.
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).
tLw0 17 l9- os-
Q Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

1*4
?y
xi/
Photograph 1. View from downstream of bridge.
.3-
1 -
f
J J
q'.r

A
Photograph 2. View from underneath the bridge, looking west.
Bridge # 133 over Richland Creek on SR 1930 (Stadium Drive) in Wake County.
ApD 1 CeB2
?- CeC2 , '? ? r
28, pc?
82 eD)
AICZ
CeK
` Ca_ 4 CeC /?
cec
Vi A 'N" e
-
IUfM?
ccs
1 ? ? C
Cec2 i kF \ \ Cm?'-?
?? U A V A ApC
Apcz \ u CED
ApB2CeB2
?j qne Ld62 C2 / ?/ C
J/ Cd82? pC2' CeF b^ I / ? ?f °
! °CeC2'. ?? Gz ?/ ?^ j , 4z
CIC3 ?z
J ; . C-92 _.. I
A E2 A C2 ?. - D2 CeC2\ ?w . CiE3
CeC2
LOB ryx _ 5? \ i-' F"-C 4c zrB`? ,; Cz
v o
CeF
LdC2
L r EnC2 f \
CeC 1 u <' J n ?` ??
CeC2 • / / i ?/
- V I . ' -- --' - - i
\ i Ce52
Ce82 v',e c \ \ I `Y
1
:,EnC SITE 2
2 SITE 1 ) , ?ubu s ?-?
? Cm Cr•
\ 4 CeC2
4 CeC2
CaB2
I
}
'?A Ma
CeC2 `,. \ CeC2 l\ ??
.'•_ ? / CeC' ?,? V ? A
CeB2 ?AP62 I 5
ApC l i - I f?1
C m
AKE F&E51
4P ` AvC2 aC
CeC2
?pl
f CeC_.
Va CeD' A
c;l `.NwE CeB2\ ?`? '? `•?,`'i
? I /? I mot- ? J / /'?
Ma i \ CeC2
?AOC2 /
APR
rl,e} I C.zC2?
NqZ ?J ? '
Ap62 n NFL Cz62 / C
E N
Csca -- - cecz \.^ro? Nn?
--`-A?3 lJ?i?: Sce' ??
i
1
. .. ..r,t ?t i / ,mom. ? - •,t ?.? IL\?, 1 i '\ s _C,.,t ,t?? ?. .."f.
• 7
r . -? / ?i ?? ' I , Y ? e fii 4Y t
\t • „? '? ` ?r,? r`-?? lad ? -?,r p r
? `?\t. , t :?? t ,' j: Y?• ?- o.sntjt??,,--P]]?`t??,-tz,,,.? ?Y' •?L ?/ ? ?,.`.•?` 'jt?( ,
,(' ' ? _ ?? \ ? t \ •. r?r?? Sr.7yc r, ) ? y,.?.;( IA f+3LC i.` ??? b /? :,, I ? i' ?E : '? ' ?.,
? . V v t t I t _ } f t of ??/s tt } ti ! ` ake P6 @St
SITE 1 t SITE 2
• ?\?y?? ,?f`cturs / ;,y ,,,?? r ir' ?:, 7' ?'t. t ?I < <. .?
i y
t \t?t\.. t \ ` ". ? If Yr. ? T[,1}Ic r / ?E?, ? ?. .T I
• ! ?;::?p i? `ti/"1?1eWTr4ticwl?Sehtitia!yJ';, ;, j? ?r ,?SM? 1 . '_ "_? a.}
r 1 ? /
7, 1
!7l?y ?;7 t• !. ? ?' ' ?? i?..,,, v?.? ?_?i' ? w/ C_T'1t4FrJ 11.??-,? ?c t, (+ A?? ,7 ? A ? ? .t {• .??., ? ?, ?
VI 1
tit r\?.. `'? t ?a ?a?{? L ?.. ? t t ?? u?`• t _. ? t .rl?rrfl
ky"
1' {{'k?.... 1 ?r /, }? 7 t . r''_ ? / ? t? I d $ rr'' 6'1J>Crlalf '.; J4
a
,, 1 ?? ?? ??'?_, _ rvk ; '?? .'? ? ? .. ? '?..k` `n a l` ;. •? i? 1'^ s. 'v 7 ?i/? _? rt t,
k
Iy ?t?' ?? ?. ?•, .,i, Sv: ; v_./ t1•, l c 1.; J( 25
f
?} ?\ , ? i 2 L ,,, ..?'c•? tc?[ ? /`. ?ta?:- 1 . ??Lr,'r { ?? \ ?- 1 ??\ 1 )1,' t t?l
t.? / '_;cpl%•?'?, r\? i / ... \ ',?..- 299
3"C \?? ?? 1 1
.Tangy
f ?
Project Study Area
SR 1930 Stadium Drive
Wake County
`Fake Forest-
-? USGS Topo NIap (1967/1987)
i ((( ^v f ' ' Figure 1 1:24,000
f 4Jtl `/?L?/rl` f rl \ 7
Co ri ht (C) 1998 Ma tech Inc - - --
I PY 9 P .
y ?
7

• g
? K

r
mm
JS ? . n
O L V
8

FPO 8
?Ry i 4
J
N ? S
Z
W

19
?NM

.L

gil
a
E
pU ?
m
s? e
H
S
.r ,

A o .? c o
2
3 z?? o
? °? do v? ? II

M
4"
O
rA
? >-
w W
LL Z LL z
0 o°
J W LL,
uo
LL o
zzz H
Z
M
t
T '- c4 o
~ Q z q a o a1 o
=
H LL F H f.
o Q Y Q D I M

U
Q U 21-
C H LL
y
1... Z~ H
z L.J
L
I 1
y
U
K H Z d W _ LL W
O
O
LL
V
L) W M V <
Z
V) H
Z> 2
= W O h W U Z m
m 0 7 1....
H W
"' 1 H
J V- w?
d' J O
In
w ('L
CL %
d K d
IL
H
N
w
m Z H

Z
W Y
~ 0:
20 J x OLL
>
Q
O <
W co 2
O, Od
a: u O
H H
U N
J
U
U f..
Q 3 LL.
Z w
Q
W X L n
w
v Z H
?
Q Q
' I H H
1
S ZU 221..1 J
W
x W m
!.7 2
O

N x0 co
-IxU
Q1-
Nyo

co w
N Z LL F-
V LL
O
~
O HJ
~ 0 3 H 000
Q <-d
7
O O O m
1"'t z
V N z a Ln H
a
W IVi It
a ui w O H
d Q<-Z m r} r io po
1?y O Q
Z UH Ox W Ox N LL~ O m ?U O m O W HZ 1 LL WWW
a
a O p
°
Z OJ S~ FHH ~HW
a V ?U
~U LL OZ
° = J SOWm
1
m ?
¢ +

V W '?
Z 1.- 3H
Qi
W r W W } N
Hmw H
~ ??
W Op
M 1-
W J
1' ?
a
,
co 1 "iaoa
jNNN ?? o,
N?
N J Y LL 0
W H J W H W ti O m W:, m J x H O w
M
J a
LL LL W T N C;
Z J Z J
O
F- F- ll
Q N?
--,
ZQ? QQ 1-NN QH d' CC O
L Q
HQUp M N Z Zp.
00 O
z D L" Fn V aB ,L W= Z ?O LLO r . 3Z
T
= z0
L'i
>
U O G
mN
OU= OU O
mr LL
ON
O
W 1 I
-
U
H V H
Y
H
UO UQI
C, 0

H

C3 z

O
?
w D

O O 1
-
L)

N
N
O
W O H O
co >O LL O
4' T Hr ZH~
Z
W m m _w D= } w
W LL Z H
O NO
L 2 7
W
0 O
W O W V
H m m p = O
~ J tG
O
Q+ Q+
CD w O
d D H X W O x W co
W
m U O
S!2
? ~ N m W m d N Z
O O W U?, U Q
" 1-4
J
V =
Z
Z J to
Q H ZQ
U' LL
H W
mZ J
Jp.H Jp.z N
Z O
N

O N W
UU H
O H
O
d H
O
z W SHSr
m 3~ <V O
zz x n.
Q aQ
rr
r
F- 1"

N
1,4
X
N
W
N V
W
J Q H H
2~?_
2~
O
F-
HH
Lj
0M
z
2
O
S" z
HpOH
O y N
w
W

N u
u
O
00 O
NOD
NO
QN
w
aO J
Q K N
`" W d
H
m
W r
.Z
N~ l
I
?J jJ

O
d
W N W
w 1. • 1
N
. -. Q Q N CL N
u
W Z S
O
W
O N
N
F
p
Z
H
d
V i a> H
00
Q O" l CO OUS O J .-+
t
'
i S
~
N
p
N
x
U i

Z
O
W
O
O

H
.w
W M

3 o U
O
Z H Q
¦ F- J

3 N ?

?r W
•
1? Sr
?/ ~ i••1 .i w
c ° ty.Qr
?c
3 z? o
? J••1
CC
p111 ? ? ?
I LL ?
.•? CO)

C%1
en T
0
N
d••1
Pr•1
W w Z Z LC 0- 4 L.3
Q W W W m Iz- f- HQ JwO x S p H V OS J ..
..., N ?? m W OU W OY W mLL a. 0 HH Z W a U ti 11 li x
N W W m co W 0 m W U J W 1- F•- p y 24 1' Q H U U
OZ? Z W j 1QQ U ?Ia -I ISW-HH Q C:, < 1-
Z J¢ Q W d Qd W ?S. 1-?S V LLQ
W= 1"'I W S xH1-i Q W V W H ? a'O U NW J LL 2Z m.yzo O
W f-LL r = Z H y xp 1-W Z1_„ N 7 Zly W O CJO
mU p- H L W
N T yrH MU WN Hf A W d S O
Q a. .A H YH a ~r~ cw
O W 0 a H z 0¢ D: 1.1 ? Z H >- H pIy C W H a
H ZZ
Z Z Si W - W W W W T W r H U. Z y 1 U w Q J N 1._ 0 N H O i U ¢ W W y
W y 1"t W HLL Hz> HLL ?' H LL ZZ1"Ix ZH Q 2 U W N Hy3 Q
Z N J RO dH awW dN? 7O ?"IC ~ Fa WU U dJ Zt-.ZQOIVF Hmm F-
..-0 0 1 H O LL 0 O m n r LL 0 W O H LL N O mW N H W Z Q J W H Z Q z 0 O
W W W V W 1•. U/-yp W W O LL } Z¢ Z W O--j W O J w w W
O M W H Q
N L r) O J 1- J c r J J N I n J N N Q m 1- J 1- -' N H O V m 0 a. H U a 0
( i w v z J J J J Ln J M > W J K 2 2 W F-
W w H W H W Q H O H p W w W ILL F- H J W O 0 W K D W U U l r W Z LL 1--' a 0 3 W 0 I- O f-t2i1 O Q O O Q O FS- W 0 J ILL /1 V Ili i N N H a s {- X<UWM
W Q U
U II
Z N M P Ifl D I OD CT O N. M. a
m
Q
w
1 /

F

H N
p +
/
N d

Y
Z

a OWF
J e wmN
O _
O \
a
O ?In

+ Qe
N `
C

~ 11
N e W
L4
1_ - _ - _ _ _ __-_--__----

0-
L)
N
w
0
w
?f N co f
Q
J
z
Z N
m UO
J
Q 1
V
N
Om
W r- m
M LL
CO
F-?Ln V LL
.4 +

O
HUtD OQ
0
S
V
O
U..
J Wtn
Y J W
_
H
V
D
O
I
-
3I LL N (.i
1
J
1 y
1.1.1•
?
??
?
___
...
?
c
Z
co LL
H
N
D
N
.
xr
a: z
3mV~f
X
w

Y
N U
S O
O
J N
In
d F +

y
Qo-
11
X
O
N JJ K
W r H fV
U. 1- N
x
SNW
u
H
H

m
/-
\?
N ?
N
Q

W
?
U 3

0
H
-- r o
m V)
Z tD
14
2 W
I ,
N
•
N
ti
z
Z ap
H N

(L -.M
J •
? K
Q
. ZQ
3: co V)

C +
N Q
+
-' Q
MOW
w
• < 2
HJU
T
Q W > ? m
N
J
O z
e
@ boo
Zw1 Q
HU1+'1O
da+
aLL?w
w
Qa
r
N <J
n:
w
?w
H
za
0
J J
O D
l 1 p
M tD
H
Z
WE ?
Y
?U
H
0-
m O
n- N
H
N U
W 1 1 H
H N H m
rn
y a 11
txJJ In Q LL
w ~ U 3
a0 w
x
X
LL
Q
J
N 1
= J
Q ~
O tD
w q
tO
a
Q+
zto
H
L, .i
W F-
m N
z
O
O
LLJ
H
L>_
0/?
IL
CL
.1.1
CD
42
0
fl
.r
H
O
O
.N., r
>'m
l0 t? tD tD tD to W m
m co r- tD
nd WWI 900.7/91/071
u6ppl N3WAig\sajnpnjjS\g10050VAVOI 6\°d
31 ae J?
' g
? e
IM
0.
J 1 1 • I J
?? y 00 m 8
1 ? t ? 7lpnif
y4 ? F
W
4
00,
17/
fi
po
a

t
3 n® to t-@
?i
o ,
Y
?l
F
fa
E
o?
9
m
a?

W
V
CtS
Q
?
?
• 7r
?
? ?"'? q fir" ?
° °o.

0 U
u C/1 r.,
II

C% 0 ON
r"
I p" G?
N ?

M
4.r
O
M
??y

Appendix One
(USACE - Jurisdictional Determination)
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 200421121 County: Wake U.S.G.S. Quad:
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATI
Property Owner/Agent: NCDOT - Division of Highwavs
Address: Attn: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Dir., PDEA
1548 Mail Service Center ' 11~
Raleigh, NC 27699 q
Telephone No.: [phone], ext. *237c?
Property description:
r.?
Size acres n/a Nearest Town Wake Forest
Nearest Waterway Richland Creek River Basin Neuse
USGS HUC 03020201 Coordinates N 35.984565 W 78.51987
Location description Study area for bridge replacement of BR 133 (MA05001B) as shown on the attached drawings.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your project area delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters of the U.S. including wetland on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We•strcreste??-live t#is dpliueat}on>> "4-[J rvey
r Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the. date of this
notification.
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Wilmington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
Page 1 of 2
REDEI'IED
FEB 3 2005
GI`JlS?04 OF 41GHWAYS
PDR-OFFICE GF PiATUM' EN E
Action ID. 200421421
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311): If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Eric Alsmeyer at [phone], ext. 23.
Basis For Determination: The study area contains stream channels of Richland Creek and an unnamed tributary,
tributaries of the Neuse River, with indicators of ordinary high water marks
Remarks:
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date 01/28/2005 Expiration Date 01/28/2010
Corps Regulatory Official (Initial):
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
• A plat or sketch of the property and the wetland data form must be attached to the file copy of this form.
• A copy of the "Notification Of Administrative Appeal Options And Process And Request For Appeal" form must be
transmitted with the property owner/agent copy of this form.
• If the property contains isolated wetlands/waters, please indicate in "Remarks" section and attach the
"Isolated Determination Information Sheet" to the file copy of this form.
Copy furnished (with drawings): Mr. Charles Musser, Jr.
Sungate Design Group, PA
915 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
Page 2 of 2
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: NCDOT BR 133 ( 50010 File Number: 200421121 Date: 01/28/2005
At tached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above
decision. Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return
the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of
the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your
letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your
concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having
determined that. the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the
district engineer will send you a proffered permit for our reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and
conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal
Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must
be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form
must be received b the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact:
Eric Alsmeyer Mr. Michael Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office CESAD-ET-CO-R
US Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation,. and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent..
DIVISION ENGINEER:
Commander
U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3490
i n oq v [( K•-tJ v j 4,
wkita
i IN.
arm.
tlV
^vQlf Course •? Wake 11111"n, It Chi'
,,? ? •??? - ? tom, L'I9? ` '9 ? ,• ??? ? :?, , -
'? i , ?\\?a ? + ; S ?? ?a\ ??? ?• ' it ? ' ?- ? ,v.' ? • ?/ ..,, a `v?.
,'.` ` `\\ •? \1i??e %isp _ ._.. ? ?.• P 4 \?p i'??:? 1 X r• 's•e?s4-. :-.•
.1//'?,?'ir?, _?f?-=? - ?y?y'?. ? j ? •;?? ; I fir- ? '?:_f"?- 5
?I ??????/?? ? iii ? , ??`•.??%? "`1",'1 J' ?% :? `- .i•ak-
n 1 j ? y. I?
' ?''\+• . ?, •,,?? ?%?'?l` I? 7 ?F? - Cry. :rl ?.!J? ? .1•• ,) •••,•i •, ? .O`' t
1919' JI/ -^J / ?,, r•, ??L? • ••..--,??.'• .-,::5< .:•._
1 /iii -?/'? _ _``: x •\• ?, ?t?43_ n•i,
'.;5? ; may) I ?,i ? •.y . , ? .? i ? ?y` ?? i- r? ? ',;1 a ?:, ? 1 3 ? ? ? ? ? "' ' .1? ?,?
1f 1
/? i • t' ? ? - _?1 _ ?? • it ? J `?? ?\???_>??' 't'I."/ //d Jj '\; t ,- /'. %r : r,?.
c k 4 ? ? JG h? ti.
e , o o I ?Y
•? /? ? ?` ?• l /ti • ; ? , - ? i I •<.%??='=-' ;/,-.fin:
\" \X
00+EL
00+
00+ LL
- t= I t
F

O
I
N
' N 4a
+
I
^
a- v\?\d
Q -
YN

. Q W I

LL.
OO+OL
OO+b
00+8 co,
\1 \ \ \
in
z II
?
0
W J
i
z
A
I•
t„
1

\ ? I
? i
A
,JI
I?
I
z? z x r
5% Oz L) g W I
SO=IL ZW x Z
06 LLJ
m
W o I
x I
~ J W W Z -+ I
Y co
Z 2 O V I
Z0
zW O I
wV HZ -j X40
lJJF pW„= 3C X I I
E W I
Z Z A ill
? I
N
?o N
I
Z II I
3 0 I
o
N
LLJ
p m
N V 14?
Z W 0 I h1
Ky N? z i R
i
S uE j l
?z?
z
0
? U

0
V W
J
O a
r `
O >
W W
F- V J

O

O
tv ? O a
OO` ZN W
v C
zre
?W
J
i ? W
O
J
0
\ H Z
>O
LL
I titi?
I
I
I
I
I

-r
I a
I
_S' V
n?
0
co N O
.e U-
?:-z W 0
W p, II
boo
Z + Q
Y Q J
CL ?.. W
N N
CZ Lu
N
1m°MQ
N
O
0
Y
V
o?C
W
LD
z
N
R
N
zQ?
03
YZ
W
,no
O '??'
ZO
z
CJ
G
w cr
W
z U.
00?
V?N
W Y
z W
QQZ
W V)
LU Z CC
N3>
Up0
? W
C7
m
ca
N 0`
W^
U..ON
r?
r'
A
W
U
w

Y?`y`'t Cx7

Appendix Two
(Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
with USFWS concurrence
The
Catena
Group
Freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 1930 over Richland Creek
Wake County
North Carolina
Prepared For:
Earth Tech
701 Corporate Center, Suite 475
Raleigh, NC 27607
Prepared By:
The Catena Group
Hillsborough, North Carolina
February 25, 2004
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone]
s INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace the bridge
over Richland Creek on SR 1930 (West Stadium Drive) in northern Wake County, North
Carolina (Figure 1). Richland Creek occurs within the Neuse River Basin. The federally
endangered dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) is listed by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) as occurring in Wake County. In addition to the dwarf-wedge
mussel, there are several other rare freshwater mussel species known to occur in the
Neuse River Basin. These include the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), yellow lance
(Elliptio lanceolata), yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), the green floater
(Lasmigona subviridis), triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), creeper (Strophitus
undulatus), eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio
roanokensis) and the notched rainbow (Villosa constricta). The Atlantic pigtoe, yellow
lance, yellow lampmussel, and green floater are Federal Species of Concern and are
considered Endangered in North Carolina. The triangle floater, creeper, eastern
lampmussel and Roanoke slabshell are considered Threatened in North Carolina and the
notched rainbow is considered Special Concern.
WATERS IMPACTED: Richland Creek
The proposed project will impact Richland Creek, which arises approximately 4
miles upstream of the crossing southwest of Youngsville, NC. Richland Creek flows
southwest into the Neuse River approximately 4 miles downstream of the project
crossing.
The stream channel in the surveyed area is approximately 5 meters (15 feet) in
width, with 2.5 meter (7.5 foot) high streambanks. The streambanks show signs of
significant erosion and undercutting throughout the surveyed reach. The substrate within
the stream is predominately composed of unconsolidated sand.
SPECIES DESCRIPTION
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf-wedge mussel)
Status: Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Listed: March-14-1990
Characteristics
The dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) (DWM) was originally
described as Unio heterodon (Lea 1829). Simpson (1914) subsequently placed it in the
genus Alasmidonta. Ortmann (1914) placed it in a monotypic subgenus Prolasmidonta,
based on the unique soft-tissue anatomy and conchology. Fuller (1977) believed the
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 1930 over Richland Creek, FFrankifin-bounty, NC
W`.. '

IU6

, c
f
}
r f ?/
L
rj

r
1

• Y
y :r ,.,,,,, i of 1..,s r- , n ??.:" ''ti,.- c? ..?.. d ? -
t

' ? r ?
Al
,ti, f .
} ? .,r?4{ ? ?
?
??
i
-
i ?
-
<.
-
? '
x
r
l L
V ?l 1 r
i f
??
-
, r 4 !
c t

y ?
•
}-
r
',
`r?
;~ - / ?
'
f '`
.. ?
?? ?- ?
, •
;
~
•
,
-
?
•
Aim '
_
{
C,
r 1 ? ? f

? FI ? ,r t
f
??
r I
11

01

The
Project Location () Date:
March 2004 Figure
Catena SR 1930 (West Stadium Drive) over scale:
G C O up Richland Creek As Shown

Wake County, North Carolina
Job No.:
19
30

e ?
characters of Prolasmidonta warranted elevation to full generic rank and renamed the
species Prolasmidonta heterodon. Clarke (1981) retained the genus name Alasmidonta
and considered Prolasmidonta to be a subjective synonym of the subgenus Pressodonta
(Simpson 1900).
The specific epithet heterodon, refers to the chief distinguishing characteristic of
this species, which is the only North American freshwater mussel that consistently has
two lateral teeth on the right valve and only one on the left (Fuller 1977). All other
laterally dentate freshwater mussels in North America normally have two lateral teeth on
the left valve and one on the right. The DWM is generally small, with a shell length
ranging between 25 mm and 38 mm. The largest specimen ever recorded was 56.5 mm
long, taken from the Ashuelot River in New Hampshire (Clarke 1981). The periostracum
is generally olive green to dark brown; nacre bluish to silvery white, turning to cream or
salmon colored towards the umbonal cavities. Sexual dimorphism occurs in DWM, with
the females having a swollen region on the posterior slope, and the males are generally
flattened. Clarke (1981) provides a detailed description of the species.
Little is known about the reproductive biology of the DWM; however nearly all
freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies, which involves a larval
stage (glochidium), that becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish. Many mussel
species have specific fish hosts, which must be present to complete their life cycle. Based
upon laboratory infestation experiments, Michaelson (1993) determined that potential
fish hosts for the DWM in North Carolina include the tesselated darter (Etheostoma
olmstedi) and the Johnny darter (E. nigrum). Pennak (1989) should be consulted for a
general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The historic range of the DWM was confined to Atlantic slope drainages from the
Peticodiac River in New Brunswick, Canada, south to the Neuse River, North Carolina.
Occurrence records exist from at least 70 locations, encompassing 15 major drainages, in
11 states and 1 Canadian Province (USFWS 1993). It is currently believed to have been
extirpated from all but 36 localities, 14 of them in North Carolina (USFWS 1993).
Strayer et al. (1996) conducted range-wide assessments of remaining DWM populations,
and assigned a population status, to each of the populations. The status rating is based on
range size, number of individuals and evidence of reproduction. Seven of the 20
populations assessed are considered "poor", and two others are considered "poor to fair"
and "fair to poor" respectively. In North Carolina populations are found in portions of the
Neuse and Tar River basins
The DWM inhabits creeks and rivers of varying sizes (down to approximately 6
feet wide), with slow to moderate flow. A variety of preferred substrates have been
described that range from coarse sand, to firm muddy sand to gravel (USFWS 1993). In
North Carolina, they often occur within submerged root mats along stable streambanks.
The wide range of substrate types used by this species suggests that the stability of the
substrate is likely as important as the composition.
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 1930 over Richland Creek, Franklin County, NC
1.,J e ,<.
Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non-
point discharge, stream modifications (impoundments, channelization, etc.) have
contributed to the decline of this species throughout its range. With the exception of the
Neversink River population in New York, which has an estimated population of over
80,000 mussels, all of the other populations are generally small in numbers and restricted
to short reaches of isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted
range of most of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation
from a single catastrophic event or activity (Strayer et al. 1996). Catastrophic events may
consist of natural events such as flooding or drought, as well as human influenced events
such as toxic spills associated with highways or railroads.
Siltation resulting from improper erosion control of various land usage, including
agricultural, forestry and development activities has been recognized as a major
contributing factor to degradation of mussel populations (USFWS 1996). Siltation has
been documented to be extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading
substrate and water quality, increasing potential exposure to other pollutants, and by
direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills 1979). Sediment
accumulations of less than one inch have been shown to cause high mortality in most
mussel species (Ellis 1936). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project decimated a
population of DWM, because of accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981).
. Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the
diversity and abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988)
found that recovery of mussel populations may not occur for up to two miles below
points of chlorinated sewage effluent.
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well-documented
(USFWS 1992a, Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic
habitats, which results in changes with aquatic community composition. The changes
associated with inundation adversely affect both adult and juvenile mussels as well as
fish community structure, which could eliminate possible fish hosts for glochidia.
Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River in northern Alabama, once the richest site for
naiads (mussels) in the world, is now at the bottom of Wilson Reservoir and covered with
19 feet of muck (USFWS 1992b). Large portions of all of the river basins within the
DWM's range have been impounded and this is believed to be a major factor contributing
to the species decline (Master 1986, USFWS 1993).
The introduction of exotic species such as the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea)
and zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats
to native freshwater mussels. The Asiatic clam is now established in most of the major
river systems in the United States (Fuller and Powell 1973), including those streams still
supporting surviving populations of the DWM. Concern has been raised over
competitive interactions for space, food and oxygen with this species and native mussels,
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey 4
SR 1930 over Richland Creek, Franklin County, NC
F f
possibly at the juvenile stages (Neves and Widlak 1987, Alderman 1997). The zebra
mussel, native to the drainage basins of the Black, Caspian and Aral Seas, is an exotic
freshwater mussel that was introduced into the Great Lakes in the 1980s and has rapidly
expanded its range into the surrounding river basins, including those of the South Atlantic
slope (O'Neill and MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food resources and space
with native mussels, and is expected to contribute to the extinction of at least 20
freshwater mussel species if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern United
States (USFWS 1992 b). The zebra mussel is not currently known from any river
supporting DWM populations (USFWS 1993).
SURVEY EFFORTS
Richland Creek is a perennial stream that could provide potential habitat for the
dwarf-wedge mussel, and thus surveys for this and other freshwater mussel species were
conducted for NCDOT.
Pre-survey Investigation
Prior to conducting in-stream surveys, a review of any survey work that had taken
place in the Richland Creek drainage was performed. Sources consulted include the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) systematic inventory (database) of rare
plant and animal species, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. The
pre-survey searches revealed no records of rare freshwater mussel species in Richland
Creek within 1 mile of the existing crossing.
Mussel Surveys for this Project
Tim Savidge and Sarah Luginbuhl of the Catena Group, Inc. and Ron Johnson of
Earth Tech, Inc. visited Richland Creek on October 17, 2003. Mussel surveys were
conducted from a point approximately 400 meters downstream of the project crossing to
a point approximately 100 meters upstream.
Methodology and Results
Visual (using batiscopes) and tactile methods were used to survey for mussels.
Water clarity was good during the site visit. Water level ranged from less than 6 inches
to 4.0 feet, and approximately 50 % of the surveyed reach was less than 2 feet in depth.
No mussels were observed in the entire surveyed reach in 4.5 person-hours. of survey
time.
Discussion
No mussel species were found in Richland Creek during the survey efforts. The
habitat within the surveyed reach is degraded by high sediment loading. It is apparent
that mussel fauna, including the dwarf-wedge mussel does not occur within the surveyed
portion of Richland Creek. It can therefore be concluded that project construction is
"Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the dwarf-wedge mussel.
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 1930 over Richland Creek,-Franklin County, NC
5
LITERATURE CITED
Alderman, J.M. 1997. Monitoring the Swift Creek freshwater mussel community. Pages
98-107 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo, eds. 1997.
Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II Initiatives for the future.
Proceedings of a UMRCC symposium, 16-18 October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island Illinois. 293 pp.
Clarke, A.H. 1981. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias,
Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, (326), 101 pp.
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology. 17:29-42.
Fuller, S.L.H. 1977. Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks. In: J.E. Copper et al., (eds.),
Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of North Carolina. NC State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, NC. pp. 143-194.
Fuller, S.L.H., and C.E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis
(Philippi) in the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Natilus. 87(2):59.
Goudreau, S.E., R.J. Neves, and R.J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of sewage treatment
effluents on mollusks and fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. Final
Rep., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 128 pp.
Lea, I. 1829. Description of new genus of the family of Naiades (etc.). Transactions of
the American Philosophical Society, new series. 3:403-456.
Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on
freshwater mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC
symposium on the Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock Island
IL. 270 pp.
Master, L. 1986. Alasmidonta heterodon: results of a global status survey and proposal
to list as an endangered species. A report submitted to Region 5 of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. 10 pp. and appendices.
Michaelson, D.L. 1993. Life history of the endangered dwarf-wedge mussel,
Alasmidonta heterodon (Lea 1830) (Pelecypoda: Unionidae), in the Tar River, North
Carolina and Aquia Creek, Virginia. MS Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 122 pp.
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C.
Buchanan, and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation
and Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 189 pp.
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 1930 over Richland Creek, Franklin- County, NC

i .1
Neves, R.J., and J.C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat ecology of juvenile freshwater mussels
(Bivalvia: Unionidae) in a headwater stream in Virginia. Amer. Malacol. Bull. 1(5):1-7.
O'Neill, C.R., Jr., and D.B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha):
an unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact Sheet. New
York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp.
Ortmann, A.E. 1914. Studies in najades. Nautilus 28:41-47.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States, protozoa to Mollusca
Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 628 pp.
Simpson, C.T. 1914. A descriptive catalogue of the naiades or pearly freshwater mussels,
Vol. 1-3. Bryant Walker, Detroit.
Simpson, C.T. 1900. Synopsis of the naiads, or pearly freshwater mussels,
Proc. U. S. Natl. Mus., 22: 501-1044.
Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachusetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual. Engineering,
Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp.
Strayer, D.L., S.J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range-wide assessment of
populations of Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel
(Bivalva:Unionidae). J.N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Revised Technical/Agency Draft Carolina
Heelsplitter Recovery Plan. Atlanta GA. 47 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Dwarf-wedge Mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon)
Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 527 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Special report on the status of freshwater
mussels.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species of the
southeast United States (The red book). Prepared by Ecological Services, Div. of
Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Government Printing Office, Wash. D.C. 1,070
PP.
TCG - Freshwater Mussel Survey 7
SR 1930 over Richland Creek, Franklin- County, NC
-'A
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 8, 2005
Heather W. Montague
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division 5
2612 N. Duke Street
Durham, North Carolina 27704
Dear Ms. Montague:
This letter is in response to your letter of December 5, 2005 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation that the replacement of Bridge No. 133 on SR 1930 (Stadium Drive) over Richland
Creek in Wake County may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered
dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon). These comments are provided in accordance with
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to information provided, a mussel survey was conducted at the project site on October 17,
2003. The survey extended 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of SR 1930. No
mussels of any species were observed, and habitat for dwarf wedgemussel was lacking. The
surveyed reach appeared to be degraded by high sediment loading.
Based on the information provided and other information available, the Service concurs with your
determination that the proposed bridge replacement may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
the dwarf wedgemussel. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been
satisfied for this species. 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; (2) 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).
rete eB amin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Christina Breen, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Dec-20-2005 10:49 From-DIV 5 919-560-3371 T-019 P.001/003 F-061
200528
NCDOT - DIVISION FIVE
FAX 9C' 00-
12- ! Z,a 1 o $- -
Date: ?
Number of pages including cover sheet:
To:
l?.S C ' t?J Y v?n5 P "YA
Phone:
Fax hone: -155 (OS9 5
CC:
From:
NCDOT - DIVISION 5
2612 N. DUKE STREET
DURHAM, NC 27704
OrYt ??
Phone: [phone]
Fax phone: [phone]
REMARKS: Q Urgent El For your review ? Reply ASAP Please comment
r' i ,, Dodd c? t a fi
J AWA
L? ?DY T"!Z i 01f Yr J
• ray,`, /a
ARC
1
4 ? ?? a se ,? ?r ?. ?? ??? ?i? ??e s.
A AV $e
Pct
DEC-20-2005 TUE 10:42 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 1
es-z 2
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 8, 2005
Heather W. Montague
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division 5
2612 N. Duke Street
Durham, North Carolina 27704
Dear Ms. Montague:
This letter is in response to your letter of December 5, 2005 whit
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of t' )f
Transportation that the replacement of Bridge No. 133 on SR 1( and
Creek in Wake County may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the
dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon). These comments are provided in accordance with
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to information provided, a mussel survey was conducted at the project site on October 17,
2003. The survey extended 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of SR 1930. No
mussels of any species were observed, and habitat for dwarf wedgemussel was lacking. The
surveyed reach appeared to be degraded by high sediment loading.
Based on the information provided and other information available, the Service concurs with your
determination that the proposed bridge replacement may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
the dwarf wedgemussel. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been
satisfied for this species. 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; (2) 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'n,ce ,
&te ?arnin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Christina Breen, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC