20041738 Ver 1_Complete File_20041028

O.F VVn?4?9
10? QG
0
©4 i-73 S
DWQ Project No.:
County: W 4k?
Applicant: Nc-Z oT-
Project Name: 16 c 3 1'7 6-*-- H kh 1- i< c-, A S 2 ?`( 014
l? - 31 O 3
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification: l 2 1-7 (,)c{
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer Rules, and
any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1621. This form may be
returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer. It is not necessary to
send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I, Svc G . /trap e-t , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence
.?j was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent e 1 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and her su ing materials.
Signature: t, Date: 7 al
Z
Agent's Certification
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence
was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Engineer's Certification
Partial Final
Date:
1, , as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State of North
Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the
Permittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401
Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature
Date
Registration No.
Transportation Permitting Unit
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
micnael r. t--asiey, Govemor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
b4 Division of Water Quality
1 ;5 Um I "OWF,,
D
AUG 2 2 2006
DENR - WATER QUALITY
Ing OD STnRIVIVATER BRANCH
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 500/a Recycled/109/o Post Consumer Paper
\q?a? v V n J ?;4QG
> D.Ua)
0 <
micnaei f-. tasiey, uovemor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality

DWQ Project No.: (D y (1 Z> S County:
Applicant: Ia c-!,?k of
vA kR-
Project Name: $r. 311"7 ovtr M.,AA (t C°_k o n 5 2 Ic( uy ?- 3-7 03
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification: 5-1(S105-
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer Rules, and
any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the 4011Wetlands Unit, North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1621. This form may be
returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer. It is not necessary to
send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I, San G- At an c:P , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence
was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
--9 compliance and intenLefft 491 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and ther su terials.
Signature: f^'l/ Date: ? L' 7
Agent's Certificatio
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence
was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Date:
Engineer's Certification
Partial Final
I, , as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State of North
Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the
Permittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401
Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature
Date
Registration No.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: hfto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 500% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
o
a
0
M
g ?
J
0
a?
?R o
c
I

2
?

a aF
as ?

ti
? v
ms's w ?
W?

GJ. w
°'
2 2 M o ` ,
r,
WE Z
a

? z
O

1q i$ ? ? O
N
?N
a

z
u
P-,
?( I
of
/? o s
c fS
0
3 "
N
O g
? I
Aga\O 5
o : I
u "
a ?
m _
F-
5 h
?i
-
0 0
?(ry ?2
yy N
hA
W' W'
:it
Om Om
WI
2
O ?
?6p•^?+IJJngyeA•COLC%? ??w0
1
a?sz 1
o°
M
? a

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
July 8, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your letter of June 21, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 317 on SR 1404 over Middle Creek
in Wake County (TIP No. B-3703) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally
protected dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii).
In addition, NCDOT has determined that the project will have no effect on the federally
protected red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus). 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 the information you submitted, a mussel survey was conducted at the project site
on October 11, 2000. No specimens of dwarf wedgemussel were observed. However, the
mussel survey is nearly four years old. No information was provided as to the extent of the
survey, the methodology employed or the credentials of the surveyors. The Service cannot
concur with your determination for the dwarf wedgemussel at this time. We recommend a new
survey be conducted and the results be provided to us for further consideration. All aquatic
surveys must extend at least 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of the project
limits. Along with the survey results, please include the methodology, survey extent, description
of habitat present, credentials of surveyors and any conservation measures (i.e. environmental
commitments) that would avoid or minimize effects to the species.
According to the information provided, a survey for Michaux's sumac was conducted at the
project site on July 22, 2003. No specimens of the species were observed. Based on the survey
results, the Service concurs with your determination that the proposed bridge replacement may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Michaux's sumac. Also, due to lack of habitat, the
Service concurs with your determination that the project will have no effect on the bald eagle and
red-cockaded woodpecker.
- Al
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).
Sincerely,
YT?om
V urger
Ecological Services Acting Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 13, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your letter of September 2, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 317 on SR 1404 over Middle Creek in Wake County (TIP
No. B-3703) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally protected dwarf wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). In addition, NCDOT has determined
that the project will have no effect on the federally protected red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis) and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 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).
The Service previously concurred, in a letter dated July 8, 2004, with your determination that the project
may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Michaux's sumac and will have no effect on the red-
cockaded woodpecker and bald eagle. In that letter, we were unable to concur with your determination
for the dwarf wedgemussel. Your most recent letter provides additional information, including the results
of a more recent mussel survey conducted on May 28, 2004 and a list-of environmental commitments.
Based on the information provided, and assuming implementation of the proposed environmental
commitments, the Service concurs with your determination that the project 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. 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).
Sinc 1 ,
Jo n Ellis
Acting Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USAGE, Raleigh, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
e"`SWFv
M.a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 11, 2005
TIP NUMBER:
WBS ELEMENT:
F. A. PROJECT:
COUNTY:
CONTRACT:
DESCRIPTION:
William Henegar
S. T. Wooten Corporation
3801 Black Creek Rd.
P. O. Box 2408
Wilson, NC 27894
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr. Henegar:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
B-3703
33243.3.1
BRZ-1404(8)
Wake
C200863
Bridge over Middle Creek and Approaches on SR 1404.
This is to advise the Preconstruction Conference for the above referenced project is scheduled
for Thursday, May 19, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. The meeting will be held in the Division Office
Conference Room located at 2612 North Duke Street in Durham, NC.
I wish to remind you that you should submit, prior to or at the Preconstruction Conference, the
progress schedule for this project and a list of individuals authorized to sign supplemental
agreements.
By copy of this letter, I am inviting all interested parties to attend this conference. This
invitation is also extended to any subcontractors that wish to attend.
If additional information is needed, please advise.
Sincerely,
ED CRAVER
RESIDENT ENGINEER
WEC/RLB
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] DISTRICT DR.
RESIDENT ENGINEERS OFFICE- DISTRICT DR. FAX: [phone] RALEIGH, NC
1574 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
RALEIGH NC 27699-1574

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA `k'
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
a??U )1`
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 11, 2005
TIP NUMBER:
WBS ELEMENT
F. A. PROJECT:
COUNTY:
CONTRACT:
DESCRIPTION:
William Henegar
S. T. Wooten Corporation
3801 Black Creek Rd.
P. O. Box 2408
Wilson, NC 27894
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr. Henegar:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
0 3243.3.1
BRZ-1404(8)
Wake
C200863
Bridge over Middle Creek and Approaches on SR 1404.
This is to advise the Preconstruction Conference for the above referenced project is scheduled
for Thursday, May 19, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. The meeting will be held in the Division Office
Conference Room located at 2612 North Duke Street in Durham, NC.
I wish to remind you that you should submit, prior to or at the Preconstruction Conference, the
progress schedule for this project and a list of individuals authorized to sign supplemental
agreements.
By copy of this letter, I am inviting all interested parties to attend this conference. This
invitation is also extended to any subcontractors that wish to attend.
If additional information is needed, please advise.
Sincerely,
ED CRAVER
RESIDENT ENGINEER
WEC/RLB
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] DISTRICT DR.
RESIDENT ENGINEERS OFFICE - DISTRICT DR. FAX: [phone] RALEIGH, NC
1574 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH. DOT. STATE. IVC. US
RALEIGH NC 27699-1574

cc: Joe Lockamy
Barry Whitaker
Ron Moore
Ted Naylor
Tinnette Hales
Sammy McFarland
Travis Wilson
Gary Jordan
Nikki Thomson
Eric Alsmeyer
Re: Construction issue: Bridge No. 317 over Middle Creek on SR 140...
LA ? 11 Z100 -
U 1nICr.??.
S b• t• R C t t' Brid e No 317 over Middle Creek on SR 1404 in Wake
LA sec . e. ons c io ru n i ss ue. g
From: Christina Breen <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:57:16 -0400
To: "Alsmeyer, Eric C SAW" <[e-mail]>
CC: Chris Murray <cmurray @dot. state.nc.us>, Nicole Thomson <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], Steve Mallory <smallory @dot. state.nc.us>, "Tracy N. Parrott"
<tparrott @dot. state.nc.us>, William E Craver <wecraver@ dot. state.nc.us>, "Robert L. Billingsley"
<[e-mail]>, Donald Pearson <DRPearson @dot. state.nc.us>, Rachelle Beauregard
<reauregard @ dot. state.nc. us>
I concur with Eric's assesment and no 401 permit modification will be required.
Thanks.
Alsmeyer, Eric C SAW wrote:
Chris: I have no problem with deleting the new structure at 22+25-L-, since the
commitment for it was not in the application, it was not required by the permit,
and correct installation of it involves both direct and probable indirect impacts
to the wetland. Deletion of the structure will not require a 404 permit
modification.
Thank you,
/Eric Alsmeyer/
/Project Manager/
/US Army Corps of Engineers l
/ Raleigh Regulatory Field Office/
/Tel: [phone], ext 23/
/Fax: [phone]/
-----Original Message -----
*From:* Chris Murray [mailto:[e-mail]
*Sent:* Thursday, July 28, 2005 2:22 PM
*To:* Alsmeyer, Eric C SAW; Nicole Thomson
*Cc:* [e-mail]; Steve Mallory; Tracy N. Parrott; William E
Craver; Robert L. Billingsley; Donald Pearson; Rachelle Beauregard
*Subject:* Construction issue: Bridge No. 317 over Middle Creek on SR 1404 in Wake
Reference: NCDOT permit application (October 25, 2004)
USACE 404 Permit (November 11, 2004) Action
ID No. 200120074 and 200520102
NCDENR-DWQ 401 WQC (December 7, 2004) DWQ
Project No. 041738
2005)
Eric and Christina,
NCDOT permit modification application (May 11,
NCDENR-DWQ Modified 401 WQC (May 18, 2005)
The Department is currently constructing Bridge No. 317 over
Middle Creek on SR 1404 in Wake County and have encountered a
construction issue that affects jurisdictional wetlands. The
roadway plan and permit drawing depict the installation of a new
48 inch RCP at 22+25-L- and a replacement 48 inch RCP at
22+48-L-. Please note that these structures are in no way related
to the actual construction of the bridge. It is not listed as an
impact site on the permit drawings or summary sheets. Additionally, the
installation of these structures is not
discussed in the permit application.
1 of 3 8/1/2005 4:01 PM
Re: Construction issue: Bridge No. 317 over Middle Creek on SR 140...
A'review of the green sheet for this project indicates that these
structures were installed to enhance wetland nourishment (as a
condition developed through project development and design). I
initially discussed the commitment to install the structures with
the hydraulics unit. Marshall Clawson indicated that their office
did not recommend any action at this area. I then discussed this
commitment with the permit specialist and the project planning
engineer in an attempt to find the source of the commitment. It
appears that this suggestion was made by personnel from PDEA-ONE
for some reason, and it was not initiated by the USACE, NCDENR-DWQ
or NCWRC. However, as stated above, there are some problems
associated with the installation of the new 48 inch RCP at
22+25-L-. I have attached a copy of the most recent permit
drawing in an effort to convey the information to your office. Information
that summarizes the issues are presented below:
*Replacement structure at 22+48-L-*
-The existing structure is a 30 inch RCP that has been replaced
with a 48 inch RCP.
-The wetland boundary along the western fill slope is located
right at the inlet of the structure.
-The wetland boundary along the eastern fill slope is located 10
feet below the structure.
-The structure conveys a "channel" as noted on the permit
drawing. However, a note on the bottom of the permit drawing
indicates that this is a non-jurisdictional stream.
-The structure was installed without impacts to the adjacent
wetland. The structure tied right into the existing "channel" as
noted on the permit drawing.
-The capacity of the pipe has increased from a 30 inch RCP to a 48
inch RCP.
*Replacement structure at 22+25-L-*
-This activity would require the installation of a new 48 inch RCP
(note: no existing pipe is located at this site).
-The wetland boundary along the western fill slope is located
right at the inlet of the structure.
-The wetland boundary along the eastern fill slope is located 10
feet below the structure.
-There is no existing "channel" through the wetland in this location.
-Installation of a new 48 inch RCP at this site would require
excavation in the adjacent wetland. Headcutting through the
wetland could potentially occur at this site as water starts to
flow through the pipe.
-The existing grade of the roadway is so low here that almost half
of the 48 inch RCP, if installed per BMP procedures, would be
buried below the surrounding natural ground.
Based on the above information, the Division is requesting that
you consider deletion of the installation of the new 48 inch pipe
at 22+25-L-. It seems that the environmental impacts associated
with excavation in the wetland would outweigh the need for an
additional pipe only 23 feet away from the other structure. Additionally,
the increase in pipe size from a 30 inch RCP to a 48
inch RCP at 22+48-L- has increased the carrying capacity of the
pipe by a factor of 2.5.
The deletion of the new structure at 22+25-L- should not require a
permit modification, as there are no currently no permitted
impacts to allow for the installation of the structure at
22+25-L-. It appears that this was only a commitment on the green
sheet and was not even addressed in the permit application.
Thank you in advance of your review. If you have any questions,
please contact me at your convenience.
2 of 3 8/1/2005 4:01 PM
Re: Construction issue: Bridge No. 317 over Middle Creek on SR 140...
Chris Murray
Christina Breen
Environmental Specialist II
NC Division of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
3 of 3 8/1/2005 4:01 PM
QG
y
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
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
May 18, 2005
Wake County
DWQ Project No. 041738
TIP No. B-3703
MODIFICATION of APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and Neuse River Buffer Rules
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Re: Modification to Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act and Neuse Buffer Rules,
Modification to the construction of Bridge No. 317 over Middle Creek on SR 1404, Division 5, TIP No.
B-3703, Federal Aid Project No.BRZ-1404(4), WQC Project N9.041738, Wake County.
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions to impact an additional 963 sq.ft. of Zone d, and
1470 sq.ft. of Zone 2, within the Neuse River Riparian Buffer area, on tine west side of Bridge No. 317 over Middle
Creek on SR 1404 in Wake County. The project shall be constructed in accordance with your application dated
October 25, 2004 (received October 28, 2005) and modified on May 11, 2005. After reviewing your application, we
have decided that this impact is covered by General Water Quality Certification Numbers 3403 a nd 3366. This
certification corresponds to the Nationwide Permit 23 and the Nationwide Permit 33 issued by the Corps of
Engineers. 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 dated, October 25, 2004 and.
May 11, 2005(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).
1.) 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.
NCDW
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 .[phone]
r,-* , e-i- 1 Sinn R0 a_77nu
\N A rF,c,
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
7
0
3.) During the construction of the project, no staging of equipment of *any kind is permitted in waters of the"U.S.; or
protected 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 4nd other equipment in or adjacent to surface
waters is prohibited.
9.) The outside buffer, wetland or water boundary located within the c( instruction 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.) Pursuant to NCACI5A 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.
12.) 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.
13.) No live or fresh concrete shall come into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has hardened
14.) 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 channefunder authorization of this permit, except in the
immediate vicinity of the culverts.
15.) All work shall be performed during low or normal flow conditions.
16.) All fill slopes located in jurisdictional wetlands shall be placed at slopes no flatter than 3:1.
17.) 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.
AO? W AT FRQG
r
o <.
18.) All protected 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. ,
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 Christina Breen at [phone].
cer ly,
an W. Kliriiek, P.E.
JEH/cmb \
Attachment \
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John 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
Ms. Rachelle Beauregard, ONE, 2728-168 Capital Blvd, Parker Lincoln Bldg, Raleigh, NC 27604
NC DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
c:\Correspondence\DWQ04173 8mod\051805wgc
B-3703
Subject: B-3703
From: Rachelle Beauregard <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 08:58:33 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: John Hennessy <[e-mail]>
The constructability issues for B-3703 are as follows:
-mechanized clearing method III will be used which extends 10
feet beyond the fill slope which was not included in the
orignina permit application.
-access required to fully install temporary causeway
-need a footprint to install e/c devices according to the e/c
plans
-constructability concerns require an increase in the buffer
footprint off the toe of slope.
Rachelle
1 of 1 5/18/2005 9:14 AM
e w+a?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
41-
110
OR,
tiiGO ` 9 'P
`V
`Ap'F,p ?l
DEPARTNENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 11, 2005
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Attn: Ms. Nicole Thomson
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Madam:
O `} 17 39-AeD.
Subject: Application for Modification to the Neuse Riparian Buffer
Certification for the replacement of Bridge No. 317 over Middle Creek
on SR 1404, Wake County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1404(4),
State Project No. 8.240780 1, Division 5, T.I.P. No. B-3703:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 317 over Middle Creek [DWQ Index # 27-43-15-(4)] a Division of Water Quality Class "C
NSW" Waters of the State. The project involves replacing the current bridge in its existing
location, while using an off-site detour to maintain traffic during construction. The proposed
bridge will be a 3-span, 147 foot cored slab bridge with a width of 36 feet. The approaches will
be two, 12 ft lanes with eight foot shoulders.
The Division of Water Quality issued a Section 401 and Neuse Buffer Certificate on
December 7, 2004. The purpose of this submittal is to inform the Division of Water Quality of
an increase in buffer impacts due to the construction of the new bridge.
The revised design does not compromise NCDOT's compliance with the existing permit
conditions. The revision has been evaluated for compliance with the avoidance/minimization
criteria and are in compliance with all previous issues, including the following:
• Protected Species
• Aquatic Life passage
• FEMA compliance
• Cultural Resources
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 WEBS/TE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG
Summary of Changes
Permit Drawing 3 of 10
Since the Neuse Riparian Buffer Certificate was issued on December 7, 2005, NCDOT
determined additional buffer impacts would occur at this site due to constructability issues. The
additional impacts will occur to the west side of the bridge. Additional impacts are to 963 sq ft
in Zone 1 and 1470 sq.ft. in Zone 2. Under the Neuse Buffer Rules, impacts to buffers from the
construction of bridges is allowable and no mitigation is required.
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
The project has been designed to comply with the Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program
(15A NCAC 2B .0242) and the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B
.0233). Therefore, we request that the DWQ issue an Authorization Certificate pursuant to 15A
NCAC 2B .0233 for the proposed use.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Rachelle Beauregard
at 715-1383.
Sincerely,
Grego J. Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (7 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Jon Nance, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, DEO
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Conforti, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
2
NAY-2005 14
x a9M 703\u"stsm p*rmis\b3703.prmi.bufflrw.dgn
li
LJ O co
to
G rl
rn `

?rn
: ?rn
s
c
?-I
M rn A ,?.
o
9z(/) ?z N M
C') V
Q
ZE
k
6 O
(+ H-
O K
D* W ?
1~'1 k 3
a
.jam \
r1 \A \
\
O
N
It
H
8
O N
P
N

(:b
S n
ZFI
O
OI

O Ln
m
D z
r p

-?
w c
(D
0
W m
m M
o m
(D LD
N
m
A T
j' O D

O O

m z
--
n
C) X
O
X Cf)
Zv W

Q C
n
m 'n

X

?m

Ch CA o D
rl)
N
N
m
n
C C D

N
0 ?A
V v O
z G CA
N N m
N D C
C O W 0

co 0
o
m
? A D D
0 c r
O
z
?• m

N
O
-I
Z
. m ,)
N D
W
r
m

O
?
.
.N D
r
O
M
m
"
.N m 0 co
C
n T
mT
m
x z m
,. m Z
N .--?
O?O? wAT ?RQG
3 .:.t
o -c
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
December 7, 2004
Wake County
DWQ Project No. 041738
TIP No. B-3703
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and NEUSE RIVER BUFFER RULES AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE
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
replacing Bridge No. 317 over Middle Creek on SR 1404 in Wake County.
Impact Stream Fill in Riparian Buffer Impacts Wetland Wetland
Locations Impacts (Ac) Surface (Square Feet) Impacts- Impacts-
Water (Ac) Fill (Ac) Mechanized
Clearing (Ac)
Site 1 0.01 0.07 6,581 (4,299 Zone 1 + 2,282 0.0002 0.01
(STA 17+44 Zone 2)
to 18+91)
The project shall be constructed in accordance with your application dated received October 28, 2004. After
reviewing your application, we have decided that the stream impacts and wetland fills described are covered by
General Water Quality Certification Numbers 3403 and 3366. This certification corresponds to the Nationwide
Permit 23 and the Nationwide Permit 33 issued by the Corps of Engineers. This approval is also valid for the Neuse
River 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.
1.) 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.
W?C6 ?e Carolina
Transportation Permitting Unit Naturally
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htt?://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands

3.) During the construction of the project, no staging of equipment of any kind is permitted in waters of the U.S., or
protected 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.) Pursuant to NCACI5A 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.
12.) 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.
13.) No live or fresh concrete shall come into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has hardened
14.) 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.
15.) All work shall be performed during low or normal flow conditions.
16.) All fill slopes located in jurisdictional wetlands shall be placed at slopes no flatter than 3:1.
17.) 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. .
18.) All protected 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.
19.) 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.
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 919-715-3415.
cer ly,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
JEH/njt
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. Jon G. Nance, P.E., 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\DWQ041738\120304wgc.doc
9M1 ?A?q
?? aw wm
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTLVIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls ofNeuse Road, Suite120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814
TIPPETT
0A1738 LYN SECRE
TARY
October 25, 2004
o LC?C?aMC? p
0 C T 2 10 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
ATTENTION: Eric Alsmeyer WETLANDS AND sTORMWATER BRANCH
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 5
Dear Sir:
Subject: Application for Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 and Neuse Riparian Buffer
Certification for the replacement of Bridge No. 317 over Middle Creek
on SR 1404, Wake County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1404(4),
State Project No. 8.2407801, Division 5, T.I.P. No. B-3703: $ 2©0
,vwz3+vQ9 Fez d4 W. c.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 317 over Middle Creek [DWQ Index # 27-43-15-(4)] a Division of Water Quality Class "C
NSW" Waters of the St ct involves replacing the current bridge in its existing
location, while using off-site detour g maintain traffic during construction. The proposed
bridge will be a 3-span, 1 slab bridge with a width of 36 feet. The approaches will
be two, 12 ft lanes with eight foot shoulders. Enclosed with this permit application is a project
site map, permit drawings, PCN form, Categorical Exclusion (CE) document, United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurrence letter and half size plan sheets.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ;
Temporarpacts: The construction of the bridge will require the use of two rock
causeways consisting of Class II and Class B riprap to provide access to the-site for the
construction equipment. The resulting temporary surface water fill will be 0.07 ac.
Construction of the proposed temporary rock causeway is depicted in the attached drawings
(Permit Sheets 3-7).
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
Permanent Impacts: Jurisdictional wetlands associated with the flood plain forest along
Middle Creek will be affected by construction of the project by a small amount of fill and
mechanized clearing. These riverine wetland impacts are 0.0002 ac of fill and 0.01 ac of
mechanized clearing. Total wetland impacts are 0.01 ac. We are providing compensatory
mitigation for these riverine wetland impacts through the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP). The EEP acceptance letter is enclosed with this application. In addition, two 48-inch
pipes will be installed approximately 400 feet north of the bridge to enhance wetland
nourishment, no jurisdictional impacts will occur at this site.
One bridge bent is proposed to be constructed in the creek. Permanent surface water
impacts from this bent is 0.01 ac. We do not plan to mitigate for these impacts.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Bridge No. 317 over Middle Creek will be a 3-span, 147-foot cored slab bridge. The
following measures were taken during the design of the proposed bridge to minimize impacts to
the stream, wetlands and buffers. The proposed bridge will be replaced in its existing location
and is 9.7 feet longer and 8.8 feet wider than the existing bridge. This will increase the
floodplain under the bridge. The existing bridge has three bents in the creek and the proposed
bridge will only have one bent in the creek. A preformed scour hole will be constructed on the
north side of the bridge to filter stormwater runoff.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
Existing Bridge No. 317 is 136 ft long with eight spans. The bridge superstructure
consists of a reinforced concrete floor on timber joists. The substructure consists of timber caps
and piles. One reinforced concrete abutment and one pier are in the water. There is the potential
for 68.5 cubic yards to be temporarily placed into Waters of the United States, although all
guidelines for bridge demolition and removal will be followed in addition to Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. This project is classified as Case 1 in which in-
water work is limited to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of special resource waters or
threatened or endangered species, except for the removal of the portion of the sub-structure
below the water.
UTILITIES
An underground electrical line will be relocated for this project. Bore pits will be
necessary near Stations 15+00 & 25+00 outside the wetland boundary to directional bore the 4-6"
PVC Conduits. No jurisdictional or buffer impacts will result from the relocation of this
electrical line.
2
RESTORATION PLAN
The project schedule calls for a January 2005 let date. It is expected that the contractor
will chose to start construction of the causeways shortly after that date.
The materials used as temporary fill in the construction of the rock causeways will be
completely removed. The entire causeway footprint shall be returned to the original contours and
elevations after the purpose of the causeway has been served.
After the causeways are no longer needed, the contractor will use excavating equipment
to remove all materials. The rip rap used in the causeways may be placed as riprap slope
protection. All causeway material will become the property of the contractor. The contractor
will be required to submit a reclamation plan for removal of and disposal of all materials off-site.
FEDERALLY-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 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003, the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists four federally protected species for Wake County.
Table 1 lists the species, their status and biological conclusion.
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Wake County
Common Name Scientific' Name? Federal. Biological
Status ` Conclusion "
dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heteradon E Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
bald eagle Haleaeetus leucephalus T No Effect
red-cockaded Picoides borealis E No Effect
woodpecker
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or significant portion of its range).
Biological conclusions of "No Effect" were given in the CE for the bald eagle and red-
cockaded woodpecker based on no suitable habitat. Habitat for Michauxi's sumac was
determined unsuitable in the CE document but since then it was determined there was suitable
habitat for this species. Surveys were conducted July 22, 2003 for Michauxi's sumac for this
project, although it was not found. The Biological Conclusion for this species has changed to
"Not Likely to Adversely Affect". A concurrence letter from USFWS dated July 8, 2004
concurrs with these biological conclusions for these species.
The dwarf wedgemussel is known to Middle Creek in Johnston County. Surveys for this
species were conducted by NCDOT biologists on October 11, 2000. Habitat in the vicinity of the
bridge is somewhat degraded due to sediment loads. No dwarf wedge mussels were found. A
few state listed species were found such as triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), eastern
-
3
lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata), and creeper (Strophitus undulatus). ). An additional survey was
conducted in May 28, 2004 by Biologists with The Catena Group and NCDOT biologists. A
letter from the USFWS dated September 13, 2004, which is enclosed with this application,
concurs with the Biological Conclusion of "May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect" for
dwarf wedgemussel with the notion that NCDOT will implement the following commitments:
• NCDOT shall conduct an in-stream survey just prior to the construction let date.
• Bridge deck drains shall be configured so that run-off does not fall into the stream.
• The resident engineer will alert the Biological Surveys Unit two months prior to the
project being awarded so that they may plan and implement the required in-stream
mussel survey.
• There will be a moratorium on clearing and grubbing-no work between November 15
and April 1.
• Weep holes shall be configured so that the run-off does not fall into the stream.
• NCDOT resident engineer is responsible for providing a written invitation to the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission, Nongame and Protected Species Branch, and the US
Fish and Wildlife Service prior to construction.
• NCDOT will adhere to Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC
04B.0124) to protect endangered and/or threatened aquatic species.
• Erosion control plans will include the following requirements:
1) Sediment and Erosion controls must be in place prior to land clearing activities.
No sediment from either bridge demolition or construction activities shall be
allowed to enter the flowing stream.
2) "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" will be defined on the plans which consist
of a 50 ft buffer zone on both sides of the stream.
3) The Contractor may perform clearing operations, but not grubbing operations in
the "Environmentally Sensitive Areas", until immediately prior to beginning
grading operations.
4) Once grading operations begin in "Environmentally Sensitive Areas", as
specified on the plans, work will progress in a continuous manner until complete.
5) Seeding and mulching will be performed immediately following final grade
establishment.
6) Stage seeding will be performed on cut and fill slopes as grading progresses.
4
SUMMARY
It is anticipated that the construction of the causeway will be authorized under Section
404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering). We are, therefore,
requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing construction of the causeway. All
other aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that
these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages 2020-2095;
January 15, 2002). We anticipate 401 General Certifications numbers 3361 and 3366 will apply
to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0501(a) we are providing two copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality, for their records.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Rachelle Beauregard
at 715-1383.
Sincerely,
Gregory . Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Jon Nance, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, DEO Division 5
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Conforti, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
5
NEUSE BUFFER ADDENDUM
The purpose of this addendum is to provide the NCDWQ with the information
needed to evaluate the impacts of the project on the Neuse Buffer areas. In addition, we
are presenting material in this addendum to illustrate that the project has been designed to
comply with the Riparian Buffer Mitigation Program (15A NCAC 2B .0242) and the Neuse
River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). Therefore, we request that the
DWQ issue an Authorization Certificate pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B .0233 for the proposed
use.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace Bridge No. 317
over Middle Creek on SR 1404 at its existing location.
Neuse Buffer Impacts. Impacts to buffers include that of construction of the new bridge,
including the temporary rock causeway (Permit Sheets 3 and 4). Impacts to buffers are shown in
Table 2 below. Under the Neuse Buffer Rules, impacts to buffers from the construction of
bridges is allowable and no mitigation is required.
Table 2. Neuse River Buffer Impacts (Square Feet)
Bridge
Construction
Zone 1 Im acts ft 4299
Zone 2 Impact (sft) 2282
Mitigation requirements allowable
(exempt, allowable or allowable with
mitigation)
This bridge has been determined to be structurally deficient and functionally obsolete.
The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic
operations. Because this bridge needs to be replaced, impacts to the riparian buffers at Middle
Creek are unavoidable. Replacing the existing bridge at its existing location provides the least
amount of impacts to riparian buffers.
NCDOT has developed measures in the design of the bridge to minimize impacts to
buffers and water quality. The new bridge is 9.8 feet longer than the existing bridge and has
three less spans. Bridge deck drains shall be configured so that the run-off does not fall into the
stream. Other conditions are being conducted due to protected species in the area (see Federally
Protected Species Section).
6
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(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
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 23, 33
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 Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), 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/Proiect Development and Environmental Analysis
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 5 of 12
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: Replacement of Bridge No. 317 over Middle Creek on SR 1404
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3703
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Wake Nearest Town: Raleigh
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): See map in permit drawings
Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35.942°N, 78.582°W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
5. Property size (acres): N/A
6. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Middle Creek
7. 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/mgs/.)
Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project at
the time of this application: forested
8. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bridge No. 317 will be replaced on existing location with a temporary causeway to
provide access for construction equipment to the site. Heavy duty excavation
Page 6 of 12
equipment will be used such as trucks, dozers, cranes and other various equipment
necessary for roadway construction.
9. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a deteriorating bridge
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the 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.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must 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.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Jurisdictional impacts include
temporary impacts to Middle Creek due to the temporary causeway and permanent fill
in riverine wetlands due to the new bridge.
Page 7 of 12
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland
Impact
Site Number
(indicate on
ma)
Type of

Impact*
Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year

Floodplain**
(yes/no)
Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of

Wetland***
See cover letter

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. 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.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.2 ac
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.01 ac
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact

Site Number
(indicate on
ma)

Type of
Impact*
Area of

Impact
(acres)

**
Stream Name**
Average Width

of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or

Intermittent?
(please
specify)
See cover letter

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall,. gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.us2s.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mWguest.com, etc.). -
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on
Page 8 of 12
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water
Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma)

Type of Impact Area of

Impact
(acres)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary,
sound, bay, ocean, etc.)
See Cover Letter

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. 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.
The new bridge is 9.7 feet longer than the existing bridge and has three less spans than
the existing bridge. The new bridge is being replaced on existing location.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 9 of 12
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, 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 NCWRP 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
htti)://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/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.
Mitigation of 0.01 ac of riverine wetlands provided by EEP
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
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
Page 10 of 12
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
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 ?
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 ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,.
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify. )?
Yes ® No ? If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 4299 3 0
2 2282 1.5 0
Total 6581 0
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Page 11 of 12
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
No mitigation required
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both' 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.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. 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
XIV. 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).
4plicant/Agent's Signature i ` Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
zs 0q
Page 12 of 12

r'I
WAKE COUNTY
SITE
VdCdNI°1[°Y
MAP
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WADE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2407801 (B-3703)
SR 14®4
BETWEEN SR 4734 AND SR 1386
SHEET 1 OF K DATE 9 :2 0
NORTH CAROLINA,

•c 1-,o.`--3.!x4-A"
.i ON",
?r?r'?'?1.? .'' ?? i = .. n', YCr a?J/. ?.rr -' fii? , '.?•: {}Y{,
4?•+ri I •'.YSF... ??? ?+r ^'? ':S, ?s!' tii.' ??A.: ?yj r?..
.•--? ''-•1393;
1Ylei?'i\`? ,
?• i1 T x:
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
SITE ML4P DIVISION,- OF HIGHWAYS
WADE COUN'T'Y
PROJECT: 8.2407801 (B-3703)
SR 14®4
BETWEEN SR 4736 AND SR 1386
SHEET 2 OF I( DATE 9 2 ° o

\B'ro- fi\T,.S,... P..,\S3703_prmtbuffLdgn
,
,. K 10
%tp ?
Mo ?o
0 n?
m? m
N
co tb r
Arno
n ?
2 ? It
-- th
r-1 N
vy N
w I
A ? O
iS
A \A \
O
N?
C?
N? o i
a
H
O
N
}y?
WTW
a
p
a
O
F
y
? A

r

F y
IRAN
V
t7 ?N S~QN
c uca: 200
11:58:3' AN.
Pced1L3/03-p--t_buff2.dgn

? -
-n
nfl
-11
Z
z
DO ?o

ku) iiN
b ?
y2
O O?;
mrn rnrn
N ? •
JJ
x'1 ?i;?t it
M ? III:
L
F I li;il
Cl)
0

O li
, i ?;?
l
y k 1 I.
2 >'I I

'
Q 'II ' ;
I
?
Ili 7
-1 µ
111
1
??\/? 1aµ '?I'. ?
' ?1 Ir

11
li
I
?
IF
?
I
'
vjV 1 '
I
?
I
i

'+? ?ial

-- ?_
--
cl I 0
?. '?` • i ?1 ?
I

4
>
N
j? I I I?'
....
?
?
.. .. .... I
1
?
?
?``
..
.. .. ........ .. '1
1
N
N 1
I 'd; 11
F?. 1

It.
r4
C
n
1 1
V
? D
?A
(

I r-
00 2
N n
rTi

0 "'t
() 8m
a? zr
o? o?
<. z
o ? a
< k C:
o C? z 7i
Z O
O
D ?
M
(D
0 Ell
IF
m
0
G>S r --'r AiNk
?y.?ry N
m
O
P
? N
J?
15.00

I„ B22 / ct? 4 1
M ` N ' I I ,i I I' , ?; 1

is
T?;, ,I A

s
x
;,,I
III o H
m
p
T
LAI
` r
m
y m IS
L r
? a
nl

\ 1111 I? ? ?

Cl)

s I;
T
f0 N
?.

O
r

1
/
??

II
I1
a
u W
V

I
I
%
'
; ? 0 tn' W
?+I
11 q
I
11, ? ? O

:ia
iy i ;
I• I? Z

20.00
Z N
0281-M rn
E? 12QI? c h
se's
T aN
N Zi' Z
o?? NN
25010
0
r

I °
(b b
(ma
y
2 _
? m
°
o
Q

0
z
-L
1
W
a
0
g
V _
=
N

O ? ?
g .r

J
t
V
0
W
N
a
J
Y
O
W 3
N
\ V ~
v?
w
q,13?
Ul)

w

a
o ?
z

II
f I
o?
4
V
u
It: W O
?ti
"CC ^1
J
3
Q? _------ p
O vi Q W C
W W Z,
C, W Z W Cr- IW?? 4
(c h cc N V In
?Q W WP O2? z v) ,
? WC
p W ?J m? Z? O o
9 c <Q Lli W
W ?? . .
J ?N m N
u6o•?nsgn-u?c-z??d-c?: r.: •. ??
Wd 7.71'7,7,7:

1
00.517
1
J
?aWJZ+ 1
V
?v
v
/ N u `\
o
+- c
?I
I
:. II
w
Z
z `r' 7.
Q

z
?
Q

Q ? x
?o

r ?x
J 1
Z?L L Cq'
`-J

?g Q
Uz
l_. - ---
-------------

0
z
G?.
d ?
o z
z ?
N
° n
i
Nl 3 u d
? I
r.
V
0

m'
ED

5
7
5
Fy
5
LL
1--
0
z

Di
NN
O Z?
d
c
rc
FY)
cc Lu
"q N
oj .: V O?? ¢ ?V WQ ?2
W 2 WQ (/)? Wa
Cl WZ ?W WW ?a
O ~ ?N tW? (nj O? (n4
Q-.. oW W(n zt W(-
ti
1i W m- 2? O- o -zl
,'d o Q Z CQ W O,
el O (n W
V)
Ln U C7 ?- V W . .
1
?5Z
s
N
s
D
v
J
W
a_
m
W

O
7 Lei>
z o
z
U v,

N ? 'C

Ict
CL Q O (?

z .. z
o
Uz
g zo

o -?
ko

wd ez zz¢
Cr,nziec?;::
.
': d A4 Pp i
.
.f,?D3\?8?1? \Rooa\63703_prmm,t_uro f:oyn
PROPERTY OWNER
NAME AND ADDRESS
OWNER'S NAME ADDRESS
01 CHARLES LEONARD PARKER, ETAL P.O. BOX 123
FUOUAY VARINA, NC 27526-0123
O C C PARTNERS, INC.
10 WALTER G. & BERNICE K. LASATER
4621 SHADY GREENS DRIVE
FUOUAY VARINA, NC 27526-8488
8736 BELLS LAKE ROAD
APEX, NC 27539-8810
O AMHERST HOMEOWNERS ASSOC., INC. c/o BRADY, SCHILAWSKI & INGRAM
102 COMMONWEALTH COURT
SUITE A
CARY, NC 27511-4400
O D. WATSON & WILLA A. ADCOCK 8020 KENSINGTON DRIVE
FUOUAY VARINA, NC 27526-9471
C
? ? O1
N (D
Z65a
0) N
N
? w C V
(A l6 C

a L
wU E
a

H LL `$ N
CL
0
0
j E c R C O

W I-
U
LL
? ? c m
U) 00
..
LL

c `v

}
Q m rn=
m`m o
0 0
O
V m v
U
y ?
g
F-
U cN

v
0
U R N U
H d X ? ?
? ? W C
W Z =
12
Z W c N U
W
3
y
c N
N
C
0 O
LL
a

d CL
2 Q
? m U
N
fn C m
N
Cl.
0
co a
co
W
F

O
O ? CD
t
-
E C

t
r
J
m O
Z 0
H

Z
O t+1

P 6

(L
z
Z? o

N
F-
W
O0 Q1
t
o U U
LL)
0 C
U a.
z
s

-
l
R

CL N

LL
IL

U)

D co

z Q

N
W
N
W Z
?v
W ? N
W
?
U

W p
N

O

W
J
Q N
W
Z ?
~ •?
N
W
Z ?
r N v

a J 4 0
o
G W
U J
Q m N ° O
N
O 0 ? N
N

N
N
J N

U Z

Q v N Of
N
a
?
w?

Q/ ? U
g Qa
x
W ?
Q
W .
a

? F- c7
m O ?
O? x

U
m
`
O t r
o °
a
NLL
+
W
N
(D
? d co

F- ?
U

w ?.
N ?
¢lL U°V lbO

a
0
--, ® St?l?l a
." t
PROGRAM
October 19, 2004
.Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-3703, Bridge 3.17 over Middle Creek, Wake County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide wetland mitigation for the subject project. Based on the
information supplied by you in a letter dated October 11, 2004, the impacts are located in
CU 03020201 of the Neuse River Basin in the Central Piedmont Eco-Region, and are as
follows:
Riverine Wetland: 0.01 acre
. As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the
Memorandum of Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The wetland mitigation for
the subject project will be provided in accordance with this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely, C
4 , , 4 I 1-lez
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE-Raleigh
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3703
A
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
1?-
_?
PROGRAM
October 19, 2004
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-3703, Bridge 317 over Middle Creek, Wake County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) proposes to provide preservation to compensate for the unavoidable 0.01 acre of riverine
wetland impacts of the subject project in the following manner:
Wetland Preservation (10:1) in same eco-Te 'on 0.10 acre)
Langley Cypress Creek, Franklin County
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
dated July 22, 2003. The compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance
with Section IX, EEP Transition Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3703
....,>.ti? W'L?Y t o'?.r ?....? ?f it ., .. a '? 1 e . ,. . ?? ? C' w- C " ... ,- ... .1 va '?. ? L. rr
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 17699-1652 / 919-7.15-0476 / www.nceep.net

United States Department of the Interior RECEIVED
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office SEP 17, 2m
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726 MONOf 1 MAYS
September 13, 2004 WO FFEEOFNATURALENYIROI?IE?ffi
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your letter of September 2, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 317 on SR 1404 over Middle Creek in Wake County (TIP
No. B-3703) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally protected dwarf wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). In addition, NCDOT has determined
that the project will have no effect on the federally protected red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis) and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 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).
The Service previously concurred, in a letter dated July 8, 2004, with your determination that the project
may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Michaux's sumac and will have no effect on the red-
cockaded woodpecker and bald eagle. In that letter, we were unable to concur with your determination
for the dwarf wedgemussel. Your most recent letter provides additional information, including the results
of a more recent mussel survey conducted on May 28, 2004 and a list of environmental commitments.
Based on the information provided, and assuming implementation of the proposed environmental
commitments, the Service concurs with your determination that the project 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. 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 fisted 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).
Sinc 1 ,
l r
Jo Ellis
Acting Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
{
Wake County
SR 1404
Bridge No. 317 Over Middle Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1404(4)
State Project 8.2407801
TIP Project No. B-3703
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:

7`29
-2/f , - 3 - 11r, - ---
DATE L. Gail Grimes, P. ., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT
11.3 'o z
DAT Nicholas L. Graf, P.E. `
Division Administrator, FHWA
Wake County
SR 1404
Bridge No. 317 Over Middle Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1404(4)
State Project 8.2407801
TIP Project No. B-3703
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 2002
Document Prepared by
A A T H V T B C N
A tq= wrERNA77mw LTD. COMPANY
Edward B. McFalls, P.E., Project Manager
Earth Tech
for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Brian F. Yam oto, Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Vsultant ono 1, FrOject Manager
Engineering Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
` i?\\1lllldlidddl.
?. a
f`o
S o
0
Inv el fft-
ONi
JOHN
CONFORTI : z
RENT :0
?'d;•. _ 9766 ?'?

SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Wake County
SR 1404
Bridge No. 317 Over Middle Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-4404(4)
State Project 8.2407801
TIP Project No. B-3703
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General
Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional
Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, NCDOT's Guidelines
for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, General
Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the
following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Highway Design Branch
Two 48-inch (1.22 m) pipes will be installed approximately 400 feet (122 m) north
of the bridge to enhance wetland nourishment.
There will be a moratorium on clearing and grubbing-no work between
November 15 and April 1. Other phases of construction can take place during
the moratorium as long as the environmentally sensitive areas have been
stabilized.
Bridge deck drains shall be configured so that the run-off does not fall into the
stream.
The erosion control plans for Protected Aquatic Species must be used. These
plans include the following requirements:
• Sediment and erosion controls must be in place prior to land clearing
activities. No sediment from either bridge demolition or construction
activities shall be allowed to enter the flowing stream.
• "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" will be defined on the plans, which
consist of a 50 ft. buffer zone on both sides of the stream.
• The Contractor may perform clearing operation, but not grubbing
operations in the "Environmentally Sensitive Areas", until immediately
prior to beginning grading operations.
• Once grading operations begin in "Environmentally Sensitive Areas", as
specified on the plans, work will progress in a continuous manner until
complete.
• Seeding and mulching will be performed immediately following final grade
establishment.
Categorical Exclusion
July 2002
Special Project Commitments
Page 1 of 2
Stage seeding will be performed on cut and fill slopes as grading
progresses.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
The stream impacts associated with the project will likely be lower than the 150
linear-foot (45.7 m) threshold for mitigation set by Division of Water Quality
Wetland Rules. If it becomes apparent during final design that more than 150
linear feet (45.7 m) of stream will be impacted, mitigation measures will be
considered.
NCDOT will conduct an in-stream survey for the dwarf wedge mussel just prior to
the construction let date.
NCDOT Division 5
The NCDOT resident engineer will alert the Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch two months prior to the project being awarded so
that they may plan and implement the required in-steam survey for dwarf wedge
mussels.
NCDOT resident engineer is responsible for providing a written invitation to the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Nongame and Protected
Species Branch, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service for the pre-construction
meeting prior to construction.
There will be a moratorium on clearing and grubbing-no work between
November 15 and April 1. Other phases of construction can take place during
the moratorium as long as the environmentally sensitive areas have been
stabilized.
The erosion control plans for Protected Aquatic Species must be used. These
plans include the following requirements:
• Sediment and erosion controls must be in place prior to land clearing
activities. No sediment from either bridge demolition or construction
activities shall be allowed to enter the flowing stream.
• "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" will be defined on the plans, which
consist of a 50 ft. buffer zone on both sides of the stream.
• The Contractor may perform clearing operation, but not grubbing
operations in the "Environmentally Sensitive Areas", until immediately
prior to beginning grading operations.
• Once grading operations begin in "Environmentally Sensitive- Areas", as
specified on the plans, work will progress in a continuous manner until
complete.
• Seeding and mulching will be performed immediately following final grade
establishment.
• Stage seeding will be performed on cut and fill slopes as grading
progresses.
Categorical Exclusion Special Project Commitments
July 2002 Page 2 of 2
Wake County
SR 1404
Bridge No. 317 Over Middle Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1404(4)
State Project 8.2407801
TIP Project No. B-3703
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 317 is included in the 2002-
2008 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) and in 'the Federal Aid Bridge' Replacement
Program. Figure 1' shows the project location. Substantial environmental impacts
are not anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency
rating of 20.2 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered
structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. The _replacement of this
inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1404 (Johnson Pond Road)` in Wake County is functionally classified 'as a
"Rural Local" route in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
Through the project area, SR 1404 has 20-foot (6.1 m) wide pavement and
4-foot (1.2 m) unstabilized shoulders. The existing right-of-way is 60 feet (18.3
m) wide. The posted speed limit near the bridge on SR 1`404 is 45 miles per
hour. There is an advisory speed of 35 mph near the bridge. Figure 2 shows the
existing bridge and roadway.
The existing bridge was constructed in 1955. The superstructure consists of a
reinforced concrete` floor on timber joists. The substructure consists of timber
caps on timber piles. The abutments are vertical. The 'existing bridge consists of
eight spans, each approximately 17 feet `(6.2 'm) long -a total of approximately
136 feet (41.6 m). The clear roadway width is 24 feet (7.3 m). The crown of the
roadway is `approximately 10 feet (3.0 m)' over the bed of Middle Creek.
Presently, the posted weight limit is 18 tons for single vehicles and 26 tons for
trucks with trailers. The bridge is located in a tangent section which transitions
into a curve. The bridge crosses Middle Creek at 90 degrees. The horizontal and
vertical alignments of the bridge and its approaches are good. Figure 4 includes
photographs of the existing bridge and its approaches.
Page 1
July 2002
The average daily traffic volume on. SR 1404 at Bridge No. 317 was
3,700 vehicles per day in 1999. By the design year 2025, the average daily traffic
volume is expected to increase to 11,500 vehicles per day. The projected traffic
volume includes two percent dual-tired vehicles and ;one percent truck-tractor
semi-trailers. Ten school buses each cross the bridge two times daily. SR 1404
is not a designated bicycle route.
One accident was reported within 500 feet (152 m) of Bridge No. 317 in the
period between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2000. The accident involved
one vehicle. The vehicle was traveling north on SR 1404. The driver of the
vehicle ran off the right side of the roadway, skidding while on the shoulder of the
road and struck the end of the bridge rail. Circumstances contributing to, the
accident were exceeding safe speed and failing to keep vehicle entirely within. a
single lane
An aerial power line is located on the west side of SR 1404. As of October 2000,
a 6-inch water main was being constructed just south of the existing bridge.
There is a pump station southeast of the bridge.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The project will replace the existing
with a new,, bridge.;- Figure 3 shows
roadway approaches and bridge. T
approximately 400 feet (122 m)
nourishment.
bridge carrying SR 1404 over Middle Creek
the proposed typical
No 48-inch (1.22,m)
north of the bridge
B. Build Alternatives.
cross-sections for the
pipes will be installed
to enhance wetland
Four alternatives were carried forward for detailed study in this Categorical
Exclusion. They are shown on Figure 2 and described below.
Alternative 1 replaces Bridge Number 317 in its existing location, while using an
off-site detour to maintain traffic during construction. The, off-site detour consists
of SR 1390 ,(Optimist Farm Road), SR 1375 (Lake Wheeler Road),. SR, 1393
(Hilltop-Needmore Road), and SR 1404 -(Johnson Pond Road). The total off-site
detour length is 5.73 miles (9.22 km). The new bridge would be approximately
150 feet (46 m) long..
Alternative 2 replaces Bridge Number 317 in its existing location, while using an
on-site temporary detour east of the existing bridge to maintain traffic during
construction. The temporary bridge would be approximately 105 feet (32 m) long
and the new bridge would be approximately 150 feet (46 m) long.
Page 2
July 2002
Alternative 3 replaces Bridge Number 317 in its existing location, while using an
on-site temporary detour west. of the existing bridge to maintain traffic during
construction. The temporary bridge would be approximately 105 feet (32 m) long
and the new bridge would be approximately 150 feet (46 m) long.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
No Action. This alternative consists of short-term minor reconstruction and
maintenance activities that are part of an ongoing plan for continuing operation
of the existing bridge and roadway system in the project area. Many of the wood
structural elements are decaying. The bridges safe load-bearing capacity has
already been reduced due to the decay. Although further maintenance activities
will slow the decay, eventually the,bridge will have to be closed.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative 1,.replacing the existing bridge in its existing location, while using an
off-site detour to maintain traffic during construction, is the preferred alternative.
Alternative 1 was selected because it has the least natural resources impacts
and is the least costly to construct.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
Construction and right-of-way cost estimates for, the alternatives studied are
presented below in Table 1.
Table 1: Estimated Costs
Preferred
Items Alternative 1 Alternative 2 ` Alternative 3
Structure Removal $27,838 $27;838 $27,838
Structure $292,500 $292,500, :$292,500
Roadway Approaches $362,925- , $362,925: $362,925
Detour Structure & Approaches $0 $651,800 $609,800
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $307,737 $600,937 $581,937
Engineering and Contingencies $159,000 $314,000 $325,000
Ri ht=of-wa /Utilities/Relocations $45,000 $63,500 $67,500
Total - r $1,195,000 $2,313,500 $25267,500
There are no relocations for all alternatives. The estimated cost of the project, as
shown in the 2002-2008 Transportation --Improvement Program, is $785,000,
including $60,000 for right-of-way `and $600,000 for construction. Right-of-way
acquisition is scheduled for Federal Fiscal Year 2002, with construction to follow
in Federal Fiscal Year 2003.
Page 3
July 2002 -
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
An evaluation of natural resources in the -immediate area of potential project
impact was performed. The evaluation included 1) an assessment of biological
features along the alignment including - descriptions' of vegetation, wildlife,
protected species, wetlands, and water quality issues; 2) an evaluation of
probable impacts resulting from construction and 3) a preliminary ` determination
of permit needs and conceptual mitigation options. The information included in
this report ' was taken from the Natural Resources Technical Report, which is on
file in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch.
A. Methodology
Published information and resources were collected prior to the field
investigation. Information sources used to prepare this report include the
following:
• United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Lake Wheeler,
1987)-
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) Map (Lake Wheeler, 1987)
• NCDOT aerial photograph of project area (1:1200)
• Soil Survey of Wake County (Natural Resources Conservation Service
[NRCS] 1970)
• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR)` basin-wide assessment information (NCDENR 1996)
• USFWS list of protected and candidate species:
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) files of rare species and
unique habitats
Water resource: information was obtained from publications posted on the World
Wide Web by NCDENR -:.-Division of-Water Quality (DWQ). Information
concerning the. occurrence of federally- protected species in the study area was
obtained from the USFWS list of`protectedand candidate species (March 2002),
posted on the . World ` Wide , Web by-'the . -Ecological Services branch of the
USFWS office in North Carolina. Information concerning species under state
protection wasobtained from the NHP database of rare species and unique
habitats. NHP files were reviewed for documented sightings of species on state
or federal lists and locations of significant natural areas.
A'general field survey was conducted along the proposed project route by Earth
Tech biologists on_ November 11, 2000: Water resources were, identified and
their physical characteristics were recorded. For the purposes of this.study, a
brief habitat assessment was performed within the project area of Middle Creek.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of
observation techniques, including active searching, visual observations, and
Page 4 _
July 2002
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows).
Terrestrial community classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley
(1990) where appropriate and plant taxonomy follows Radford et al. (1968).
Vertebrate taxonomy follows Potter et al. (1980), Martof et al. (1980), and
Webster et a/. (1985). Vegetative communities were mapped using aerial
photography of the project site. Predictions regarding : wildlife community
composition involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on existing
vegetative communities.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were delineated and evaluated based on
criteria established in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual (USACE, 1987). Wetlands were classified based on. Cowardin et _al.
(1979).
For the purposes of this report, the following terms are used for describing the
limits of natural resources investigations. "Study corridor" and "project area."
denote an area. with a width of 80 to 100 feet (24.4 to 30.5 m) along the full
length of the project alignment. The "project vicinity" is an area extending 1 mile
(1.6 km) on all sides of the project area, and "project region is an area
equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle
map (about 61.8 sq miles or 163.3 sq km). When referring to stream banks, "left
bank" and "right bank" are relative to an observer facing. downstream.
B. Physiography and Soils
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed with
respect to possible environmental concerns.
The project area lies in the central portion of North Carolina within the Piedmont
physiographic province. Elevations in the project area are approximately 265 feet
(80.3 m) above mean sea level (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929). The
topography of the project vicinity is hilly with moderately steep slopes rising from
the-floodplain of a medium size stream.
The proposed project is in a rural-to-urban transition area in Wake County on
Johnson Pond Road (SR 1404) between. Optimist Farm Road (SR 1390) and
Hilltop/Needmore Road (SR 1393). Wake County's major economic resources
are business, education, and industry. The population of Wake County in 1999
was 592,218 (North Carolina Office of State Budget, Planning and Management
1999).
Information about soils in the project area was taken from the Soil Survey of
Wake County, North Carolina (NCRC, 1970). The map unit in the project area is
Chewacla loam.
Page 5
July 2002 -
• Chewacla loams, 0 to 2 percent, are formed by alluvial deposits of fine
material and are mapped along the banks of Middle Creek within the
project area. This soil type is found in nearly level, frequently but briefly
flooded areas, and is somewhat poorly drained. The seasonally high
water table is 1.5 feet (0.45 m). Chewacla soils are classified as a hydric
soil by the NRCS.
Site index is a measure of soil quality and productivity. The index is the average
height, in feet, that dominant and co-dominant trees of a given species attain in a
specified number of years (typically 50). The site index applies to fully-stocked,
even-aged, unmanaged stands. The Chewacla soils have a site index of 100 for
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), 97 for sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
96 for loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and 86 for water oak (Quercus nigra).
C. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resources assessments include the
physical characteristics likely to be impacted by the proposed project
(determined by field survey), best usage classifications, and. water quality
aspects of the water resources. Probable impacts to surface waters are also
discussed, as well as means to minimize impacts.
1. Waters Impacted
The project is located. in the Neuse River basin (NEU034 :sub-basin). Middle
Creek originates about 12.4 miles (19.9 km) northwest of the project area. From
the project area, the stream meanders in an east-southeasterly direction about
45 miles (72.4 km) to its confluence with the Neuse River.
Middle Creek is approximately 35 feet (1.0.7 m) wide in the study area.:Upstream
of Bridge No. 317, Middle Creek flows to the southeast,. running perpendicular to
SR 1404. The substrate of Middle Creek at this point consists of.sand ; silt and
some gravel over silty clay. The stream had moderate flow and the water was
clear the day of the site visit. Water depth ranged from about 1 to 3 feet (0.3 to
0.9 m). The banks are nearly vertical to a height of 2 to 5 feet (0.6 to 1.5 m).
The creek is about 5 to 15 percent shaded by scattered shrubs near the road
right-of-way and -becomes 90. to 100 percent shaded by trees and shrubs at
50 feet away from NCDOT right-of-way. The banks are covered almost
completely by multiflora rose.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification by the DWQ that
is designed to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within the state.
Page 6
July 2002 -
Middle Creek [Index # 27-43-15-(4)] is classified as a Class C NSW water body
(NCDENR, 1999) in the vicinity of the project area. Class C water resources are
waters protected for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading,
boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where such
activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. There
are no restrictions on watershed development activities. The supplemental NSW
classification refers to nutrient sensitive waters. This supplemental classification
is intended for waters needing additional nutrient management because of
excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. In general,
management strategies for point and non-point source pollution control require
no increase in nutrients over background levels.
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
a) General Impacts
No waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur with 1 mile (1:6 km) of the
project study area.
This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project area.
Potential impacts to water quality from point and non-point sources are
evaluated. Water quality assessments are based upon published resource
information and field study observations.
The project area is in a forested, moderately developed watershed. No
disturbances to the landscape were observed in the immediate vicinity, and the
area is largely unsuitable for most agricultural, residential, or industrial uses.
However, the project vicinity is heavily developed. Potential threats to stream
quality are residential development and increased nutrients, and silts and
sediment in runoff.
Basin-wide water, quality assessments are conducted by the Environmental
Sciences Branch, Water Quality Section of the DWQ. The program has estab-
lished monitoring stations for sampling selected benthic macroinvertebrates,
which are known to have varying levels of tolerance to water pollution. An index
of water quality can be derived from the number of taxa present and the ratio of
tolerant to intolerant taxa. Streams can then be given a bioclassification ranging
from Poor to Excellent.
There are ten monitoring stations on Middle Creek. Information for each station
can be found below in Table 2.
Page 7
July 2002
Table 2: DWQ Monitoring Stations on Middle Creek
Monitoring Station Distance from Project Area in
Miles km Date
Sampled Bioclassification
Upper tributary, above Lufkin 9 15 upstream 02/87 Poor
Upper tributary, below Lufkin 8 13 upstream 02/87 Poor
Basal Creek, near NC55- 4 6 upstream 05/86 Good-Fair
SR 1301 2.5 4 upstream 05186 Fair
Near Tallicud Rd. 1 2 upstream 05/86 Fair
SR 1375 1 (2) downstream 08/95
07/91
05/86 Good-Fair
Good=Fair
Fair
Off SR 2752 near airport 2.5 4 downstream 06/86 Good-Fair
SR 2739 5 8 downstream 06/86 Fair
SR 1507 8 13 downstream 06/86 Fair
NC 50 11 (18) downstream 08/95
07/91
07/90
07/87
07/87 Good-Fair
Good-Fair
Good-Fair
Fair
Good-Fair
Point source discharges in North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge. Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the
DWQ. Municipal, industrial, and other facilities that discharge directly into
surface waters must obtain a permit. Homes. that use a.municipal. wastewater
system or a septic system, and do not discharge to surface waters do not require
a permit under the program. There are eleven permits issued to discharge. in
Middle Creek as of February 2001, (NCDENR 2001). Information about these
permits can be found below in Table 3,
Table 3r ODES Permits for Discharge into Middle Creek
Permit
Number
Facility
Permit Type Distance from Project Area
in Miles km
N00022217 Star Enterprise Sales Terminal Minor 'Non-Municipal 10.5 17.01 upstream
N00035181 NC Center for Mature Adults MinorNon-Municipal 1 1.62 downstream
N00061638 Utilities, Incorporated Minor Non-Municipal : 0.5 0.81 downstream
N00062715 Heater Util./Crooked Creek Minor Non-Municipal Within project area
N00062740 Heater Util./Briarwood Farms Minor Non-Municipal 8 12.96 upstream
N00064050 Apex Town Middle Creek WWTP Major Municipal 11.5 18.63 upstream
N00065102 Ca Town South WWTP Major Municipal 1.5 2.43 upstream
N00066150 Brookfield Prop-Brighton . Minor Non-Municipal 1 1.62 downstream
N00073679 Heater Util./Oak Hollow WTP Minor Non-Municipal 5.5 8.91 downstream
N00082996 Heater Util./Holl brook WTP Minor Non-Municipal 8 12.96 upstream
N00084654 Motiva Enterprises-Apex Terminal Minor Non-Municipal 10.5 17.01 upstream
Any action that affects water quality can adversely affect aquatic organisms.
Temporary impacts during the construction phases may result in long-term
Page 8
July 2002 -
impacts to the aquatic community. In general, replacing an existing structure in
the same location with an off-site detour is the preferred environmental
approach. Bridge replacement at a new location results in more severe impacts,
and physical impacts are incurred at the point of bridge replacement.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface water
resources:
• Increased sediment loading and siltation as a consequence of watershed
vegetation removal, erosion, and/or construction. .
• Decreased light penetration/water clarity from increased sedimentation.
• Changes in water temperature with vegetation removal.
• Changes in the amount of available organic matter with vegetation
removal.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff,
construction activities and construction equipment, and spills from con-
struction equipment.
• Alteration of water levels and flows as a result of interruptions and/or
additions to surface and groundwater flow from construction.
Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the
construction activity occurs, but may also affect downstream communities.
Efforts will be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will
be implemented, as applicable, during the construction phase of the project to
ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site.
b) Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
Demolition and removal of a highway bridge over Waters' of the United States
requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers if dropping components
of the bridge into the water is the only practical means of demolition. Effective
9/20/99, this permit is included with the permit for bridge reconstruction. The
permit application henceforth will require disclosure of demolition methods and
potential impacts to the body of water in the planning document for the bridge
reconstruction.
Section 402-2 "Removal of Existing Structures" of NCDOT's Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures stipulates that "excavated materials shall
not be deposited.... in rivers, streams, or impoundments," and "the dropping of
parts or components of structures into any body of water will not be permitted
unless there is no other practical method of removal. The removal from the
water of any part or component of a structure shall be done so as to keep any
resulting siltation to a minimum." To meet these specifications, NCDOT shall
adhere to Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, as
Page 9
July 2002 -
supplemented with Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal.
In addition, all in-stream work shall be classified into one of three categories as
follows:
Case 1) In-water work is limited to an absolute minimum, due to the
presence of special resource waters or threatened and/or endangered
species, except for the removal of the portion of the sub-structure below
the water. The work is carefully coordinated with the responsible agency
to protect the Special Resource Water or T&E species.
Case 2) No work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated
with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3) No special restrictions other , than those outlined in Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
Middle Creek contains populations of Dwarf Wedge Mussel and has important
spawning grounds for certain anadromous fishes (shad, herring). Therefore,
Case 1 applies to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 317 over Middle
Creek.
The superstructure consists of reinforced concrete, timber joints, timber caps,
and timber piles. The substructure consists of timber caps and timber piles. One
reinforced concrete abutment and one pier are in the water. The maximum
potential fill is 68.5 cubic yards (52.3 cubic meters).
The stream bed in the project area is nearly all sand and silt. Therefore,
conditions in, the stream raise. sediment concerns and a turbidity curtain is
recommended.
D. Biotic Resources
Terrestrial and aquatic communities are included in the description of biotic
resources. Living systems described in the following sections include
communities of associated plants and animals. These descriptions refer to the
dominant flora and fauna in each community and the relationships of these biotic
components.. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are. presented in the context
of plant community classifications. These classifications follow Schafale and
Weakley (1990) where possible. They are also cross-referenced to The Nature
Conservancy International „Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial
Vegetation of the Southeastern United. States (Weakley et al. 1998), which has
recently been adopted as the standard land cover classification by the Federal
Geographic Data Committee, Representative animal species that are likely to
occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also cited.
Page 10
July 2002
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for the
plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the same species
are by the common name only.
1. Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities were identified within the project area: a
maintained roadside community, floodplain forest, and a bottomland forest.
Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial areas will be
discussed in each community description. Many species are adapted to the
entire range of habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be
mentioned separately in each community description.
a) Maintained Roadside Community
This community covers the -area along the road shoulders in the project area.
Species include Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), grasses (Panicum sp.),
rushes (Juncus sp.), sedges (Carex sp.), plantain (Plantago sp.), and dandelion
(Taraxacum ofcina/e).
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and
capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation to both
living and dead faunal components. European starling (Stumus vulgaris), and
American robin (Turdus migratodus) are common birds that use these habitats.
The area may also be used by the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana),
various species of- mice (Peromyscus sp.), and Eastern- garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis).
b) Floodplain Forest
This community occurs along the left bank of Middle Creek and extends beyond
the end of the project area. Numerous narrow slough-like features crisscross this
wetland. There was no flowing water in these sloughs although some pools of
water were present. Canopy species in this community include river birch (Betula
nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and red maple (Acer rubrum).
Canopy height is about 50 feet (15 m). Other species found are winterberry (Ilex
verticillata), privet (Ligustrum sinense), sweetgum, poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), Virginia bugleweed (Lycopus virginicus), false nettle (Boehmeria
cylindrica), rushes and sedges.
This community probably represents an example of a Piedmont/Mountain Levee
Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Although it lack the
presence of sycamore, the TNC classification is most likely I.B.2.N.d.5 Betula
nigra - (Platanus' occidentalis) - Temporarily Flooded Forest Alliance.
Page 11
July 2002
Animals that may be expected here are the eastern towhee (Pipilo
erythrophthalmus), Carolina wren, . (Thryothorus ludovicianus), downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), raccoon (Procyon lotor), pickeral frog (Rana
palustris), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), three-lined salamander (Eurcycea
guttolineata), eastern kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus), northern water snake
(Nerodia sipedon), and yellowbelly slider (Chrysemys scripta).
c) Bottomland Forest
This community occurs on the floodplain south of Middle Creek., Canopy species
include swamp chestnut..oak (Quercus michauxii), water, oak (Quercus. nigra),
sweetgum, red maple and a few scattered loblolly pines. The understory includes
American holly (Ilex opaca), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) and arrow-wood
(Viburnum dentatum). This mature forest has a.canopy height of 80 to 90 feet
(24.4 to 27.4 m). Although the species do not appear to change, at the southern
end of >the project area portions of this community become jurisdictional
wetlands.
This community probably represents an example of a Piedmont/Mountain
Bottomland Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The
equivalent TNC classification is most likely 1.B.2.N.d.16 Quercus (michauxii,
pagoda, shumardii) - Liquidambar sytraciflua - Temporarily Flooded Forest
Alliance. -
Tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), red-
bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes: carolinus), northern flicker. (Colaptes auratus),
and ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula) may be expected, here. Other
inhabitants may include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis),, southern two-lined
salamander (Eurycea bislineata), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) leopard frog (Rana
pipiens), northern water snake, `eastern box turtle : (Terrapene carolina), and
blackracer (Coluber constrictor).
2. Wildlife
Wildlife in the project area is described with its respective community above.
3. Aquatic Communities.
Within the project area, Middle Creek is a mid-gradient, third-order stream. The
bed material consists mostly of sand and silt, with a small percentage of gravel.
On the day of the site visit, the, water was clear with no suspended sediment.
The riparian community is mostly deciduous trees and mixed evergreen-
deciduous shrubs, and is described in Section V.D.1.b and Section V.D.1.c.
Page 12
July 2002
Middle Creek has been identified by North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission Fisheries Biologists as an important spawning area for some
anadramous fishes such as shad and herring. According to a communication
from, District 3 Fisheries Biologist, Middle Creek contains populations of Dwarf
Wedge Mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), which are Federally listed as
"endangered". A mussel survey conducted by biologist with NCDOT Project
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch identified a. number of state-
listed mussels in Middle Creek.
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Project construction will have various impacts to the previously described
terrestrial and aquatic communities. Any construction activities in or near these
resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This section
quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural communities within the
project area in terms of the area impacted and the plants and animals affected.
Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here along with
recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
a) Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial communities in the project area will be impacted permanently by
project construction from clearing and paving.. Estimated impacts are based on
the length of the alternative and the.,entire study corridor width. The bridge
replacement portion of the, Alternatives is 90 feet (27.45 m) wide; and 800 feet
(244 m) long. The onsite detour for Alternative 2 is :80 feet (24.4m) wide and
1473.7 feet (449.5 m) long. The onsite detour for Alternative 3 is 80 feet (24.4 m)
wide and 1467.4 feet (447.6 m) long. Table 4 describes the potential impacts to
terrestrial communities, by habitat type. Because., impacts are based on the entire
study corridor width, the actual loss of habitat will likely be less than the estimate.
Table 4: Estimated Area of Impact to Terrestrial Communities
Area of Impact in Acres H ectares
Alternative 1
Preferred `
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Community Permanent Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary
Maintained
Roadside 0.63 (0.26) 0.63 (0.26) 0.34 (0.14) 0.63 (0.26) 0.55 (0.22)
Floodplain
Forest 0.35 (0.14) 0.35 (0.14) 0.94 (0.38) 0.35 (0.14) 0.84 (0.34)
Bottomland
Forest 0.18 (0.07) 0.18 (0.07) 0.70 (0.28) 0.18 (0.07) 0.67 (0.27)
Total impact 1.16 0.47 1.16 0.47 1.98 0.80 1.16 0.47 2.06 0.83
Destruction of natural communities along the project alignment will result in the
loss of foraging and breeding habitats for the various animal species that utilize
the area. Animal species will be displaced into. surrounding communities. Adult
Page 13
July 2002
birds, mammals, and some reptiles are mobile enough to avoid mortality during
construction. Young animals and less mobile` species, such as many amphibians,
may suffer direct loss during construction. The plants and animals that are found .
in the upland communities are generally common throughout eastern Piedmont
North Carolina.
Impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations having steep to
moderate slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment
loads as a consequence of erosion. Construction impacts may not be restricted
to the communities in which the construction activity occurs, but may also affect
downstream communities. Efforts should be made to ensure that no sediment
leaves the construction site.
b) Wetland Communities
Wetlands occur within the project area and will be impacted by project
construction. Wetlands are present north of the bridge on both sides of Johnson
Pond Road, and in the southern portion of the project area. The channel ranges
from 35 to 40 feet (10.7 to 12.2 m) wide within the project area.
c) Aquatic Communities
Impacts to aquatic communities include fluctuations in water temperatures as a
result of the loss of riparian vegetation. Shelter and food resources, both in the
aquatic and terrestrial portions of these organisms' life cycles, will be affected by
losses in the terrestrial communities. The loss of aquatic plants and. animals Will
affect terrestrial fauna which rely on them as a food source.
Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result from
increased sedimentation. Aquatic invertebrates may drift downstream during
construction and recolonize the disturbed area once it has been stabilized.
Sediments have the potential to affect fish and other aquatic life inseveral ways,
including the clogging and abrading of gills and. other respiratory surfaces,
affecting the habitat by scouring and filling of pools and riffles, altering water
chemistry, and smothering different life stages. Increased sedimentation may
cause decreased light penetration through an increase in turbidity.
Wet concrete should not come into contact with surface water during bridge
construction. Potential adverse effects can be minimized through the
implementation of NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters. Additional provisions will be adhered to as described in Section V.F.1 to
prevent adverse affects to aquatic federally endangered species.
Page 14 _
July 2002
E. Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides inventories and impact analyses for two federal and state
regulatory issues: "Waters of the United States." and rare and protected species.
1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States" as'defined ` in 33 CFR § 328.3 and in accordance with provisions
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). These waters are
regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). Any action that
proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls
under these provisions.
Jurisdictional wetlands occur within the project area and will be impacted by
project construction. Wetlands are present north of the bridge on both sides of
Johnson Pond Road, and in the southern'. portion of the project area. Middle
Creek meets the definition of surface waters, and is therefore classified 'as
Waters of the United States. The channel ranges from 35 to 40 feet (10.7 to
12.2 m) wide within the project area.
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional
Waters of the US. Anticipated impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE
and the DWQ. Within the project area, Middle -Creek is 40 feet (12.2 m) wide.
Assuming a study corridor of 90 feet (27.45 m) for each 'alternative, -the
construction of the new bridge Will impact 90 linear feet (27.45 m) of'-strearn and
a total area of 3,600 sq. feet (753.59 sq m) of, surface waters.` A bottomland
wetland was identified' within the project area. Bridge replacement 1 would
permanently impact 0.34 acres=(0.14 ha) of the wetland community. Alternative 2
detour would temporarily impact 1.19 acres (0.48 ha) of the wetland community
and Alternative 3 detour would temporarily impact 0.92 acres (0.37 ha).
2. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional' surface waters are anticipated from the proposed
project. Permits and certifications from various state and federal agencies may
be required prior to construction activities.
a) Nationwide Permit No. 23
Construction is likely to be authorized by Nationwide Permit. (NWP) No. 23, as
promulgated under March 9, 2000 Part VIII, Volume 65, Number 47, Pages
12817 - 12899. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded, or financed in whole or in part, by another Federal
agency or department where that agency or department has determined that,
Page 15
July 2002
pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for, Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
• the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from
environmental documentation because it is included within a category of
actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect
on the human environment; and
• the Office of the Chief Engineer has been furnished notice of the agency's
or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with
that determination.
b) Section 401 Water Quality Certification
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification or waiver thereof,
from, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) prior to
issuance _of the NWP 23. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the
state issue- or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that. results in a discharge into Waters of the U.S. Final permit
decision rests with the USACE.
c) Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Water Management Strategy
Pursuant to. 15 NCAC 213.0233, Riparian Area Rules for Nutrient Sensitive
Waters apply. The rules state that roads, bridges, stormwater management
facilities, ponds, and utilities may be allowed within the 50-foot riparian buffer
area of subject streams where no practical alternative exists. They also state
that these- structures shall be located, designed, constructed., and maintained to
have minimal disturbance, to provide maximum erosion; protection, to have the
least adverse -effects, on aquatic life and habitat, ;and to; protect water. quality to
the maximum extent- practical through the use of best management practices.
Every reasonable effort will be made to avoid and minimize wetland and stream
impacts.
Estimated impacts to the riparian buffers. are.. quantified below in Table 5.
Impacts to Zone 1 are based on a buffer width of 30 feet measured landward
from the top of bank or rooted vegetation. Impacts to Zone 2 are based on, a
buffer width of 20 feet measured landward from the outer edge of Zone 1. The
Authorization Certificate for Neuse Buffer Impacts will be requested along with
the 401 Water Quality Certification.
Page 16
July 2002
Table 5: Estimated Impacts to Riparian Buffers for Middle-Creek
Zone 1 Zone 2 Total
acres (ha) acres (ha) acres (ha)
Alternative 1 0.095 (0.15) 0.011 (0.02) 0.106 (0.17).
Alternative 2 0.095 (0.15) 0.011 (0.02) 0.106 (0.17)
Alternative 3. 0.095 (0.15) 0.011 (0.02) 0.106 (0.17)
Detour Portion of Alternative 2 0.075 (0.12) 0.014 (0.02) 0.089 (0.14)
Detour Portion of Alternative 3 0.078 (0.13) 0.017 (0.03) 0.095 (0.15)
3. Mitigation
Because this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide Permit,
mitigation for impacts to surface waters may or may not be required by the
USACE. In accordance with the Division of Water Quality. Wetland Rules [15A
NCAC 211 .0506 (h)] "Fill or alteration of more than one acre of wetlands will
require compensatory mitigation; and fill or alteration of more than 150 linear feet
of streams may require compensatory mitigation.",,Because wetland impacts will
be less than an acre, wetland mitigation likely will not be required. A total of 90
linear feet (27.5 m) of Middle Creek are located within the study. corridor for the
proposed project. If the final length of stream impact is greater than 150 linear
feet (45.6 m), compensatory mitigation may be required.,
F. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining either as .a result of natural
forces or their difficulty competing with humans for resources. Rare and
protected species listed for Wake County, , and any likely; impacts to these
species as a result of the proposed project construction, are discussed in the
following sections.
1. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with a , federal classification of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered,_ and Proposed Threatened are protected under
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended.
The USFWS lists four species under federal protection for Wake County as of
March 2002. These species -are listed in Table 6.
Page 17
July 2002 -
Table 6: Species Under Federal Protection for Wake County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Vertebrates
Bald eagle aliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
proposed for
elistin
Red-cockaded woodpecker icoides borealis Endangered
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel lasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Vascular Plants
Michaux's sumac hus michauxii Endangered
Notes: E Endangered-A species that is. threatened with extinction throughout all or
significant portion of its range.
T Threatened-A species that is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throw pout all or a significant portion of its range.
A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of each
species-follows, along with a conclusion regarding potential project impact.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened (proposed for delisting)
Family: Accipitridae
Federally Listed: 1967
A large raptor, the bald eagle has a wingspread of about 7 feet (2.12 , m). Its
plumage is mainly dark brown, and adults have a pure white head and tail. First
year 'juveniles- are ` often chocolate brown to blackish, sometimes with white
mottling on the tail, belly, and underwings. The head and tail become
increasingly white with age until full adult plumage is'reached in the fifth or sixth
year. An opportunistic predator, the bald eagle feeds primarily on fish but also
takes a variety of birds, mammals, and turtles (both live and as carrion) when
fish are not readily available.
The bald eagle is primarily riparian, associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes,
usually nesting near bodies of water where it feeds. Selection of 'nesting sites
varies tremendously depending on the species of trees growing in a particular
area. In the Southeast, nests are constructed in dominant or codominant pines
or cypress. Nests are usually constructed in living trees, but bald eagles will
occasionally use dead ones.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No suitable nesting sites exist in the project area, and Middle Creek is not large
enough in the project area to provide an adequate food source for bald eagles. A
review of the NHP files did not reveal any records of bald eagles in the project
vicinity. It can be determined that the project will not impact this threatened
species.
Page 18 _
July 2002
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Family: Picidae
Federally Listed: 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker is 7 to 8 in (18 to 20 cm) long with a wing span of
13.8 to 15 in (35 to 38 cm). There are black and white horizontal stripes on its
back, and its cheeks and underparts are white. Its flanks are black streaked. The
cap and stripe on the side of the neck and the throat are black. The male has a
small` red spot on each side of the black cap. After the first post-fledgling molt,
fledgling males have a red crown patch. This woodpecker's diet is composed
mainly of insects, which include ants, beetles, wood-boring insects, caterpillars,
and corn ear worms if available. About 16 to 18 percent of the diet includes
seasonal wild fruit.
Open stands of pines with a minimum age of 80 to 120 years, depending on the
site, provide suitable nesting habitat. Longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) are most
commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable. Dense
stands (stands that are primarily hardwood, or that have a dense hardwood
understory) are avoided. Foraging habitat is provided in pine and pine hardwood
stands 30 years old or older with foraging preference for pine trees 10 in (25.4
cm) or larger in diameter.' In good, well-stocked, pine habitat, sufficient foraging
substrate can be provided on 80 to 125 acres (29.2 to 45.6 hectares).
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Within the project area no suitable red-cockaded woodpecker habitat exists.
These birds are not associated with mixed hardwood riparian areas or human-
dominated maintained habitats. A search of the NHP files did not reveal any
records of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the project vicinity. It can be concluded
that the project will not impact this endangered species.
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Federally Listed: 1990
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small brown to yellowish' brown mussel that rarely
exceeds 1.5 inch (3.81 cm) in length. It is the only North American freshwater
mussel that has two lateral teeth on the right valve, but. only one on the left. The
female's shell is inflated in the back where the marsupial gills are located.' Little is
known about the species' life history and reproductive cycle. Gravid females
have been observed from late August until June. Like other freshwater mussels,
this species' eggs are fertilized in the female as sperm passes through its gills;
the resulting larvae than attaches to a fish host. Although this host is still
Page 19 _
July 2002
unknown, strong evidence suggests that it is an anadromous fish which migrates
from the ocean into freshwater to spawn.
The dwarf wedge mussel occurs along the Atlantic Coast from Canada south to
North Carolina. There are a number of documented populations in North
Carolina streams, including Middle Creek. The habitat is described as creek and
river areas with. a slow to moderate current and a substrate that consists of sand,
gravel,. or muddy bottom. These areas must be silt free.
Major factors contributing to the endangered status of the species include water
quality and loss of.habitat. The mussel needs slow to moderate currents and. a
silt-free environment. Construction of dams alters these conditions. Another
significant factor is its anadromous fish host has been blocked for some habitat
areas by impoundment and dams. Increased acidity, runoff of agricultural
chemicals and fertilizers and the mussels sensitivity to potassium, zinc, copper,
cadmium and other elements associated with industrial pollution also contribute.
Biological Conclusion: Not Likely to Adversely Affect
A search of the NHP files revealed a record of-dwarf wedge mussel occurring
within 1 mile downstream from the project area. At the site of the project, Middle
Creek is somewhat degraded due to sediment. A mussel survey was conducted
on October 11, 2000. No dwarf wedge. mussels were found near the project site.
Provided that the following provisions are adhered to, it can be concluded that
project construction is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" this species.
1. NCDOT shall conduct an in-stream survey just prior to the construction
let date.
2. The NCDOT resident engineer shall be responsible for alerting, the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch two months
prior to the project being awarded so that they may plan the required in-
steam survey.
3. There will be a moratorium on clearing and grubbing-no work between
November 15 and April 1. Other phases of construction can take place
during the moratorium as long as the environmentally sensitive areas
have been stabilized.
4. Bridge deck drains shall be configured so that the run-off does not fall
into the stream.
5. NCDOT resident engineer is responsible for providing a written invitation
to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Nongame and
Protected Species Branch, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service for the
pre-construction meeting prior to construction.
Page 20 _
July 2002
6. The erosion control plans for Protected Aquatic Species must be used.
These plans include the following requirements:
• Sediment and erosion controls must be in place prior to land clearing
activities. No sediment from either bridge demolition or construction
activities shall be allowed to enter the flowing stream.
• "Environmentally Sensitive 'Areas" will be defined on the plans, which
consist of a 50 ft. buffer zone on both sides of the stream.
• The Contractor may perform clearing operation, but not grubbing
operations in the "Environmentally Sensitive Areas", until immediately
prior to beginning grading operations.
• Once grading operations` begin in "Environmentally Sensitive Areas' ,
as specified on the plans, work will progress in a continuous manner
until complete.
• Seeding and mulching will be performed immediately following final
grade establishment.
• Stage seeding will be performed on cut and fill slopes as grading
progresses.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac)
Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: 1989
Endangered
Michaux's sumac or false poison sumac is a densely hairy colonial shrub with
erect stems, which are 1 to 3 feet (0.3-0.9 m) in height. The shrub's compound
leaves are narrowly winged at their base, dull on their tops, and veiny and slightly
hairy on their bottoms. Each leaf is finely toothed on its edges. Flowers are
greenish-yellow to white and are 4 to 5 parted. Each plant is unisexual. With a
male plant the flowers and fruits are solitary, with a female plant all flowers are
grouped in 3 to 5 stalked clusters. The plant flowers from April to June; its fruit, a
dull red drupe, is produced in October and November.
Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic
soils. Apparently, this plant survives best in areas where some form of
disturbance has provided an open area. Most of the plant's remaining
populations are on highway rights-of-way, roadsides, or on the edges of
artificially maintained clearings. Other populations are in areas with periodic fires,
or on sites undergoing natural succession. One population is situated in a natural
opening on the rim of a Carolina bay. Currently, the plant survives in the
following North Carolina Counties: Davie, Franklin, Hoke, Moore, Richmond,
Robeson, Scotland and Wake.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Page 21
July 2002
No habitat exists in the project area for Michaux's sumac. The soils in the project
area are all acidic. A search of the NHP database found no occurrences of
Michaux's sumac in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will
not impact this threatened species.
2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any,of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Table 7.includes FSC species listed for Wake County and their
state classifications. Organisms which are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or
Special Concern on the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare
Plant and Animal Species are afforded. state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to state-listed
species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
Page 22
July 2002 -
Table 7: Federal Species of Concern in Wake County
Common Name Scientific Name State
Status Habitat
resent
Vertebrates
Bachman's Sparrow * Aimophila aestivalis SC NO
Carolina Darter Etheostoma collies lepidinion SC YES
Pinewoods Shiner Lythrurus matutinus SR YES
Southeastern Bat" Myotis austroriparius SC NO
Southern Hognose Snake ** Heterodon simus SR NO
Invertebrates
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni T YES
Diana Fritillary ' Speyeria diana - SR YES
Green Floater Lasmigona subviddis E YES
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata T YES
Vascular Plants
Bog Spicebush Lindera subcoriacea E NO
Carolina Least Trillium * Trillium pusillum var pusillum E NO
Sweet Pinesap * Monotropsis odorata C NO
Sources: Amoroso, ed., 1999; LeGrand and Hall, eds., 1999 .
Key: T Threatened, E = Endangered, SC _ Special Concern, C = Candidate, SR
Significantly Rare
*=Historic record. The species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**=Obscure record. The date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Bog spicebush does not appear on the March 2002 USFWS list of protected
species for Wake County, however this species is listed by the NC NHP on their
website (last updated July 2001) as a Federal Species of Concern. The Data
Systems Manager of the, NC NHP, stated on August 21, 2001 that the NC NHP
has one record of bog; spicebush from northern Wake County in 1997. For this
reason the bog spicebush remains-on Table 7.
No FSC species were observed during the site visit, however there is one
recorded at NHP as occurring within 2 miles (3.2 km) of the project area. The
NHP lists current records of Squawfoot (Strophitus undulatus) within the project
area, and a recent stream survey of the site by a NCDOT biologist indicated the
presence of squawfoot.
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No impacts to federally protected species are anticipated if the provisions listed
on page 20 and 21 for the dwarf wedge mussel are followed.
Page 23
July 2002 -
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A.. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that, if.a federally funded, licensed, or
permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be
given an opportunity to comment.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) was conducted in December
1999- All structures within the area were photographed, and later reviewed by
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). In a concurrence form dated
February 17, 2000 and a memorandum dated November 7, 2000, the SHPO
concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places within the APE.
Copies of the concurrence form and memorandum are included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Office, in a memorandum dated November 7,
2000 said they had reviewed the project and are aware of no ; properties of
architectural, historic, or archaeological significance, which would be affected by
'the project. In addition, they have no comment on the project as currently
proposed. A copy of the memorandum is included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Anticipated impacts.to the resources in the project area are described in this
section. The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion"
because of its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences. The
project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the
structurally deficient bridge will result in safer-traffic operations.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation.'
No significant change in land use is expected to result: from construction of the
project.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the
area.
Page 24
July 2002 -
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited. There are no relocations.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the
project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the potential impacts to prime and important
farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction projects. Prime and
important farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation
Service. No prime or important farmlands will be impacted by the proposed
project. In addition, the proposed project is anticipated to be limited to the
existing right of way, and the land use adjacent to the project is residential.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emission analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality in
this project area.
Traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project; therefore
there will not be substantial changes in noise and air quality due to this project.
Noise levels could increase ` during construction but will be temporary. If
vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality
in compliance with 15 NAACO 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA), and no additional reports are required.
An examination of available environmental records revealed neither underground
storage tanks, hazardous waste sites, regulated or unregulated landfills, nor
dump sites in the project area.
Wake County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Flood Insurance Study maps for Wake County show that Bridge No. 317 is
located in a Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) 100-year
floodplain. The 100-year floodplain is in the vicinity of the bridge. The flood
profiles show that the 100-year flood overtops the bridge.
On the basis of the above discussions,. it is concluded that no significant adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of this project.
Page 25
July 2002 -
VIII. PUBLIC INVOVLEMENT
Because of the limited nature of impacts to area residents and businesses, there
were no formal public involvement activities during this study.
IX. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
There are no known areas of controversy on this project.
X. AGENCY COMMENTS
A. Federal
Natural Resources Conservation Service, October 30, 2000: Does not have
any comments at this time.
B. State
State Historic Preservation Office, November 7, 2000: They are aware of no
properties of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance, which would
be affected by the project.
Wildlife Resource Commission, October 8, 2001: There are records of state
listed ' mussels upstream of the project.` Therefore, due to the potential for
impacts to listed species, they request that NCDOT perform a mussel survey
prior to the construction of this bridge.
Page 26 _
July 2002
to
3.
C14 _?
;4"
4 N . Q
'ti Q
w (Z :g b
m
1?
1• A

t ,S,
44-h 4
r? FP
V~ V`^ r~
C, hi C)
4?
L7 R
H
H
?x
0
,z
`s >I
,. 'Aiii
0, i UP
' )
A
a y
_e a. ?
}, -c
? 'i
: ..-. ... o? I..
1 r ,, Ck f tat ,1..
, - " r , ,.1. , , , ? 4 -1 . .1 , ?. ? - , , ? ?
4
Y (z :, n . J s t
az :'rte
x.
. ?? . . ", ,-,? ? " 1-1, .1_'?'11'1", ?",L,?`;`-`, ? ?
t t -'S
1- f ! t V WITS
?? !, e S Q? ' ' {
?T7 i 4 _4 f -r .r x
icy _ p t } .
y 1 / t+ :? t .5 s
S ar
, 10 'u yM"'Ci i«. ?, but J x z:. ! t
» t /.
?l«? Y - t -
{{{ '3 v + - 4a
,:?i??,?" _. - ., '. , , -. Th._,?, Ms. ? .
_"` j7 i, r'
t
dw r ?>
/ x2
I ,j - -'r 7 / ft t c
*?"-.. Lp ya+ ``? . `fi n i S. S __Q 1 ;. 1!, ".' 1
r } :. ,,.t yl x w w V -
c ?iey,;E` r. y, x 3 '? 4 r .C. a .. r ,?'
i. a f"
x"
•:':-d .
L
V, 14
?y 1. -t v r '? e { r 1r 3c { l ° t -,_,s 5 _ « 1 t "E 3`°` ? t t r > - '' ,)...
i21?.y fi?? ny }, Y`,'s J t?4 r ??''g??` +, k? e I _,1 r f ,.
e'f-°? 6 of t'G ?j?, rr .?r2 'Y"'!' 'y 7?,+, ) t. :. ?{ ,? `
t ?, ;?'r.
y ?• @ 1 r Q. k i t r .
ti y
t ?? etlh 7 4 Yt 71 tt1 t i t 4 e - •i i `r .
n ,
}'? t t s titc.,l t .,psi r+, _ {? f ! 7,` S 1 i -
3? as St c -?.3i _ t 2 {, f'I£ I t: / Y ryf i Z t ; t r t:
J
. Y' t e
tr ,'? l , jt- a ?4 "S' { ' ; , r R S t C 3
O t x
, ?§1 A * r Y ih, q S $ a XI 1 V
."? ' -'q.`? . v §' yn?c ?'J I e ;' It 1 iI s v
" /?
y 'fir,{ r s. "? ! .+ \ ! G . ?'r i t r a ,??,
p?
y c
t o `x - `t. J
fe i j 1 i tC ?'.I l n
p ,x _ I L r
1 rCr-st?,•" Y. i 1 , "N?. -?.: 1Y ! ? t I t x - r i ` e - { t:, ,_, . ,.? , . - "! - !,'.."?..,2,.,??",.-,."".,-.,."..,,,,,? ? ?",,-!",;*? , c-y t: ,?, ,' rr.?1,,. ,?. ". ! r.?,} .,qty .
r''t. y? s? d x t ti I / r -
I . ?VV,,•.- f, ..?i_ Ygi'w}h r ye {^w ? .n; - -? \? ?!y? -.h - .
" S ?v ,"i,? 3-'-' Y i. i .y..Q.,_,Y e ?r ! x r:.'--
rt. -fit a ;r r {.. -- '?. T ;
10" t oVe ,Z•..i,' ?%}?i s? Y ,{F' sl a-?,7, t ???,y v ' ri *?•?? ' '*.. v$ r I :'1
a %, f 0 ,? ?? 1 i r -?` S t ? "? r ?':. ''" - ' :`yam
dti L-
7!' r4 5` - '[ /fpm
fT-v.?3Aa V ?;s?' , Gt t t?'4ra } r ? y?f ". `. 3 t . I '? '} x T R C.
1-&T_.i4 44(1 k}3 +?} x ?' tyr ,?s J T ?E r 1 ? x ,? - ,;` r § t+ r
;,yk+-. '°rr Y-?,?,'' a&V-N`#J4 l s3 t ! .a'' a.a•T r• f. ,~ ' F, 4 .t .:
1 S y t f'.? * = t sue, t hG". z ?` < K' J t ., r l ,.•oYr ( + i ..
]lam %. e• I4
{ ?L u ?, L. „ f 7.' Y .. ,1,. a 5 ,, f e' r ir; ` nl e -
x $ k¢( a J I r l7_
{ ';. -
t?9 of X N'tti ?S ; t _ l I s.}.v y_. } r Y ,. ? " y "\ ??Oso;
,-
INN. _
Fly 1 of 1, r5y rt,a ig'r ';e' t (,, + r 1 ?`? ?; 1 2 r '2, S 4S'...?}? t4 >y? .r t o . e r r y, r .r? ?! I
+ C+ at t`l4 1t w { f . LyK M1 S, _. ? v - l,,s' n - _, ? ', I C1f
?b? r irFrf yi,' W try t r r ><t U. '. 7, a. y..t y I S -I P t- ?i
wz ti rrt Ail ?r ;
X a?'4 ??; 1 Y 1!> ass 7'i; SIf p. ??;G J t4 k i:. -4, 1 t.,t _ v,? I
.t..'?if r?'j T i" rr ; tv?? f' a. ?t aui?Kt.t ?? r •*'.'.. ?'A2 h Y' 1?-, K._ ,w ?.f-• .+I r ", I rfr- r i ;e, t
?,.` ! t ':'?1 ;. iF y., 11 r?`;1- ?'? c?t? 2
.'%t.i22'^x?:.> „ ...f s,*,,- ?: / . .. -4-? w7.!_., ,._z r C-... ..jt Ys ..y t?`S??'; ...# ?
ti
y ti t u C :'! f N
,?'! r V .a
1 ?'
C
Jf t ?. i yr j t 1 1.:: 3
r !?' t
I 5 '3?.ak t "? r
',
71S t r
.;n f I J', y 1, h
" 3
t_..4 j,s : I A Z GIe ?.
p a ST i t Er
J-

a? r 31+i

,ten 1 F
ti ?. r ?`:
?
J
C)
z?a
,4 1?, ?, by h
??b?O" N 0-4
pnlh?,;,O??C
b°Cn?bzti""
oZ?0b `a
w
? ?d p ~
til
O
w
4i
,,,'''``QQQ"O
'''
4 - . a o
ro?
?. h
M
d,
R I . 4
p Q
;" CQ
k ,s"
444
:r F: r :r
N N IN
C) bm C)
a??
y
NI. ' 9
:3 r3
a
"a. .
ti

bbb
e e "*
INT
:41 :6 a
F F te"r
N N IN
M { t ,
• t ?T {` { f
.
n + ?. r :t l
?EyJ?1
Ij h 11 -
fill- _ -1 ,`., _?? _*? ,?,CeX?? "'t : .... I - i: 1W.
yr ri
O
.I? N
b b?y??
G1
pn o,2C?j
bd0nw?y
oz?o???
W ?j ? (G N
?i hi
0
W
1 ti
I a r- s > t ..t .r -
..?.',..Ft' . ' ,, 11 to c
rP ',r iy 1 t 1?;
1 Y r } t-.
_ _
ci r ?t /- r nil
! ,
r r? - 4 1.
r? 5 F \ :. {r F f I A& w k ~
f e ri ',Isfr#` r if'
f .':
?' l :; r.? a ?i
j"YOKEW nr . ,J / x' ' _
-
lr_-_??_,
y? r? 4?,- U? rY J'n r r r 1 tr ;Qti
' Y_,?W AMP 5{a Pik ?$ , a a ,k ?+ -i' i _.tj1
I'll
k / r. t.
4 Y? t r rU? 4 s
!t ,aA
}a y ,3,
r•
+ f ?y s
1, /
r' ^ I _,
y G ,5 r ?{
p
.11 1d s
a.r.
t t? I:, , 5 s Eh
' L ? } s12044 f S
"?4' v f: yt' 1 v.'" fc 4a r .a r : r + a
??,!,??A; , .., I , ., . J_- ", ? _? ,--a, ;:.",.",? , , -.0 I
n #
' s i i
;t '!' t,lA yv .:.'7.rt7 r '.i!1 r, ?t ,
k''Ev'a,?k,'!1.r {?h y;k'?.C Ya p s s j / '
,„ a `
A k n h' ?Yp. §i " "r, 1 n?.? s ?. a S F+ -° F .C : r a _
y 'Y d r 41,n',? t„$?F* v,7 `L lE• C ?}?k FIN jl , i h d - 1 r '. V . " \I) / , -,-_ 7- - _? . ;
r• r.: "o 1 I a w? ? yt "I'M. .,? i so s t y '? t ,« _ k :. r t
S
* 'd.{ as y -*r $ r a r r7t ? s' t .o E f v. t z e _
,fi.. ?, r LaRI tt t" a r< f1 rks r a r e -A 14 ;-, , /w %. '4'3?' ''.vW4 ryes .r?S' x1 ?'x e'if !1i a "h'
?'?j 'Yc4S? 'r ra .1 4 , i; 1: fl":- s ' ' r b, 3 I.. a ; v '
,parr! t 1.?{ 1+?. 7,6 t5 } <
-, ji ?O nix .. ''? ?. ?--`rf"1,, -, ?-: ?,, ? -` ? :;",
=g AW
IV.r a t r A c
, ? - . - 11 I— P - I : - . IS
, ? ??; Fr' ti/-- .. 'fir" , cs
.:',?, ,_ - ? y '.r t %? , _ v 51) rr k,?K?F? t S...r rK,s, `> ,r `".. `".' \"^•??^?r 1 i r-,...
-n ? ?`' n 4 -r te ? _ , w „?..
?? t`(.. 1 ?I J `?r w?.:ir jt?i\.t. '?'a,...Y ?7.` h ?Si( I\.f'? 7 ':t 1
}? 1 i i ?
irj , Q. "IMO `" ?, -
/ , -
d? t?V,f? '? 41 t ,rt >1d 4! "0 '-ikAlz{ ..r It t yw r {.. _' sn, s. t xt-,,, ``?,<..°b,.,zy.,.. ?l?m. r t
-iti ? k i ? A r , t r a ynr 3° ' 0-07 tv7 _
?",.'?>: -?;K;9 d{t n ..e?4; F <'! ??,?i f" t. ??y' -Y"`"`om `, '?•-• s y i.?.
?.1,_1
' "? K4I 4 A `?.1j f hl ? ?' ? ,,.rti, c # y:1 s r .. a i, t 1 it:: r• . r r Y .A ..,.?-r?+e *,Y "'°'i.,,,?.?,,Y ? \:? ,,_' s f i ,;k I M '. C 'a
Ftt v Syr Jy? `
??' ?aa'?" :1r u ?4 r < ° -yam 3 ?? '
T y ..- .?}J` _ ,r.?`y?
r C 7 Y1 :
f 'S t4a W d 'T f.
y . . y I + 4A 1] l .Sy'Y,' )? ; k _.- { x? D f, , 1 1 { :" 1 + C. 7?_ C Pa ?q-0041 t r 6? ?.
r; r.,iGtsip p.., h`'?°dif {?F4 t n s+ r i ! ,?'°r r t ,. .?,
?;rS, y a ? ;** "l ?U .y `t 4 y k •• a J tir
cj ) a Y t ti . t ' .. l ._ r ;, ¢ t F ?' [
i? Y "awl 'r ? t ?f ? ? I f
Q A. 1; f :- '?1+=rr r 'a e 3 f t r>g'. t 4 i S, 1' S -a t 1
c); a } k v 4xe,, 4 t*si si l T t rr , ?Q
.L .: f .s' k y 1 Y'r" :.? yK a Y 2 t4 1 ?` } f `t,T. ..+; , '? t ! ?_'..
ti r ?, a y= v- ..
,c S - sf?i_ r;r 4 W? r-f ?w ?k? 1 u %L)L 1 e t s ! E `\..,? ?J^
s.r ' V tF) 1 4 ?a `' ?.
Fps: .a-.t Y i t'T 4x'}f 'atm., .n .5;.? '? ' .kt ?•F wr'3" .,?.? ;+_. ..-e . r , . , .. ., .. .,, ter: . .r!s ?, ,!A......

-0
4?, g- r2 n
V. . '4 14
ro N pa ,
F C:I I?
^^+ I. b
Q A' . 45
t Q
g
6. ;14 ?
Iq
H
q 11-6.
FrF-I Fr
1.. vw vw
I.Q
C) `y, C)
Qm
;z
am "*
2 `ti :
h
O Q
V M
N
"A. I .
y
I !
I t
I C
bbb
h H K
2MQ
S:
X414
- V-
X44
F;F
Vw Vw Vw
C) am
1? N
't_
?'.??;3
0• Q
M
hM
ij u
N. "
Z
?
`=J
y Z h
bb?y.?
pn ,;??
Oo0c)°?y
o?M0 ?
w x?(Z) w
til
Q
w
}
,, ", ?? . ?! , , - .f ; - , ; - - . -? .??,,;-,;'-,--?!? ,,?? ,.,? -, ? !, . / . ? t ? ',i"??,?? ".; :?. ? ,,,, ", '. ,
', 7 TS
hY--..?jf?- Tom'; 4 t.' •i i
11 - . '29Y"Yf-1 f< 1 1. 4 !
tz ~ ' L
,? y ," _
t i
:l,,f Rf ;. 1 yr7r 9 rp, v 4't. 7, j 3 t y J Y
`.
t
'I f? `, t 1 r a t J .! ...5 1
t zr ° i L t L
k N . Y. S K /..? f / li -
,Y TTT
t y: ?. T 11 >l? r f 1 -.
, , ,?: ?,,?7 -- / -',"'? -, '... ? t ,"' ? - ,:t ,,, . , - ? -,,, , - , , .-
fir dZ? 'y"c?,F??yr,y '' Jy tt sr 1 J F tt
r ,1a '+ if?y y .. ! 1 4 S: s ia , 1 .v
r { 1 t
} 71j i W S t M 1= S y ;
,y? ys?? P V a y i ;
'r { t.C.r ;ti, r r r'? Y' w c: r , 1 r 1, i
1? y -' ?U Y?z 4 .C rx j y'a t? ,; I.. f f y.}
tFttr} s-:Yar vw i" `` . # >; 'c tt ,Z A
,• tr
-
C ';4R II )d.Y?'rF ' .t- irCF ,, r 1 , M ?. f _: L d7 }? k :i , . °S f t r "f .1 i v, xrt,{ii J? .r il ri5. it "t ?Fryt 2' v
L r..3t Jt r,?,?y?y? R,,1 H (ti . i z 7S I .
i - t x i ; j { 'k.'S.1.ff •cS7t?c S ', , { 1,. V j r+' ' i 7 `',. fi i. { r , t7
4wr r iS,?f K N"'t ? M{4. ;..t? 4,; y &",t dxJit; Y"t +
v.7 -13 g; f9FT' ,1Y M li.:. '1' ;?-,,, r d t L?Y} 9 e t t 3 ; ?v ' t «?`E+ t t 3 s. ! I 1
. ,q} . ,S t ` >y n9 &:: 9r" ' `.J{ y.k t k f,e I.C ?r?y;. Le , r..F%>Yii 5t?.in , .?y w wxy { At llv ., i ?i, -t .y was iv r k } I s ` •R .Wr, k" s ?t.. q t f r ty I} ?' 1-1 ?'-Yltx r s-fctkl.?t y?`y-I Y•4`t C ky ?,.ytrj?(,,?^a'*f```E,y? t7= 4 fi¢^; ,e' :s ( f 1 -.
i ??(k' '" r ? sL) '"1' r r is T? n 7s.r'?S'X. J f- r j !t`. e
-;: t•. r g ??4 ?'!.' - c` f t ?,- 1# -4, y !?i'ia .j 1 N t .':+ -
.,y fi L z!!
- '1` 1 ?, ? ?? FQe?d,i s t"i' S fi t Waf .,iyK N !yy1}} 'xl r• t r •?' -^> f j ' Y I'VII '.p'a. f rr4"s••r ', 1 , .,,t- r'?'ii t x C?' `+ir:'e'4a ,.4} . ! i \. ?;
thh:rl"'tTt f y? S >T e c>, F• .y ri;rta P L S _ 7
11 f`ir r $ 47.y'i,r: „y ?;'cf 1 (?t``'1? =<'7r' Y ,E,.'rew + s yx Ic L
t,. f 'l,.f 2l ;5 1 Za a+ f4 ?, e fir: S r? h ?7 f't'^' ` ? i- _,,, .i'
tsi?ds"r. x# w .;.•,443h X;.>i xrFi t s 2r`'r.. ! t`t y ffl? y
_r4 ? .v+•yy???, :f- 7tF ry ?.? dro.`•i ., zy `fi q ,4•fJl ,lr L t'
F P) y r ?4 r? tt• ds tk, ,-,";1,
1 r{ "?1 }, ?t 5
k t -?L'-at t: ty .tY• '4?"'rJ?s ?'?' :V4 qR . '? a 7 r "? 1 f t s ,: t =t t 7 r•
_ _ ?iw. 4 -? q, Y+r' F- ?,, ) ?, 7` `" -"-. '. r t r . i, ?. c dn. - i t ? t 11, kf
.x>?' '- v , r YM121 -l4 s S : it > yX h yr T .. , J t t +
t.?k r ?§. ?a.. N .+ ?., t9r'r r f f ? t y r ?? _,.a j yc ?:•r t r '. _ t !
?7 rr F <` 9 i '??'?wy± - .K II •i rk .•-ws fr ' y r ,r _ k 1,1
1 ` I& VI y. j VI `f
a i j vj
F r
j-t . 4C to S •L1 ' 'X .+.KZ` .,. eii?t .. 'f ? 4 -y,
Jai ti.-.?sa? # a?r't :i ,-- `# I I ;.r '?" so •'. yy?' r '``:. - '? t _:K" - _ e '11 . +•?- s %?".,? yr :? j.,, Y?'•irr`'Fzr7S,?Y,?i ?x y" r \? ?„ ??v i 'j ?. ..
u ; . ? . Z : y s ?.n ?r v oar `_ ? ° ti - t:
. 'fit ' . , 73111 5 +.:z _ ' Y .ta• ?..U ?•. "f t r i?• i C .? '
a? 5f?:rs ?? Nij?# glfr 3 ;m t?d? j^ { a(? 5 f 4(
.r„'S-..yb".. ? . a5 -? sLCr ?;$, '??,-?
yy
r.., ....,.ak:c,v i..v".o '_3. J?fa.. ,. ; ...
v -•,
Lr?-$ '. lw ,

L4 S
- ? 9,
-
All! 4? ? jt ? 4 `t: x., . ? I 0 j. l
i
M.• ,
ro
m

?a
Qc
o'?
;1P
y?
u-nai
Ile"
is
c?
e?
04-
ITE ? O
y

t 4r
m
1 Q
tVm
L
YN INS
North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
,Y4p Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
9fUF 7Rl^"
FIGURE 1
VICINITY MAP
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NUMBER 317
ON SR 1404 OVER MIDDLE CREEK
WAKE COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3703
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles
Looking north at the bridge.
North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch

FIGURE 4a
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NUMBER 317
ON SR 1404 OVER MIDDLE CREEK
WAKE COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3703

Downstream side of the bridge.
North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
FIGURE 4b
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NUMBER 317
ON SR 1404 OVER MIDDLE CREEK
WAKE COUNTY _
TIP NO. B-3703

Looking upstream from the bridge.
Looking downstream from the bridge.
x
0 v
PC
o
NZ Z
O
yz} N?
V
0
M
O
M
.,
ir 0gg
y .
Q
W
Q ^Q
IL) .- '
(
C.)
W
CC
OZ??
W
Q m
W O
Z?-1 z W ?
og a Q W>
P, 0 0 .
9
O
W
m W.I
cn
N
0
O
z
z W
O

O E I

Lij O

1 silta aoa
NIOd 30NIH
V) m
M
?
O- E

P
1 V + O

3

=

V)
m N ? O E
a
? a
La z
C?
t0 N JfV
N O O
N N O
N L
L
C
K (-4j
O
J
Q
atn
H
J
V)
O
?
Ix o E
I
N Q
. l0
N M N Q
O
OI Oa Q L>_.I
V) O

P J

O
Q =
M
Q
J
co
- O
Q
N

o E

J ^
N a0
U !- . .

` sin aoa
d .-.
n z
I M
C! O

o E Q
'° U
0

O V)
O O V)
Q
< O Ln
r- ? Q
J
rn?N3z U
Q
? J
Q
U o-) Ln z
O) N O
? O ~
LL N I-
LL _1f- U
< ?I-QV) z
0OD O
QQ?E- L?
E

0

o
M
w?
t0 O Z N
t0 ? O O
M f.7 d
E

0 U
78
r
-277
A140
-ZONE X
P ) P
0 1000 3000 5000
coq ?„ North Carolina - Department of
4 ?g?6 Transportation
Division of Highways
q
QQ Project Development and
OFTptA Environmental Analysis Branch

FIGURE 5
FEMA 100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN MAP
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NUMBER 317
ON SR 1404 OVER MIDDLE CREEK
WAKE COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3703
Appendix A
USDA.
iited States
apartment of
Iriculture
itural
.sources
mservation
avice
•05 Bland Rd.
jite 205
sleigh, NC 27609
Mr. John Conforti
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
October 30., 2000
19) 873-2134 Dear Mr. Conforti:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on Bridge Group XXVIII bridge
replacement projects listed below:
TIP Project
No. County Bridge
Number Road Carried Stream Crossed
B-3643 Granville 72 SRI 004 (Providence Rd.) Hachers Run
B-3644 Granville 226 SR1120 (Veasey Rd.) Knap of Reeds Creek
B-3645 Granville 201 SR 1435 (Davis Chapel Rd.) Little Grassy Creek
B-3653 Halifax 162 SR1450 (Branch Rd.) Chockoyotte Creek
B-3853 Halifax 82 NC561 Marsh Swamp
B-3702 Vance 19 SR 1305 (Barker Rd.) Flat Creek
B-3915 Vance 21 SR 1303 (Hicksboro Rd.) Flat Creek
B-3521 Wake 273 SR 1006 (Old Stage Rd.) Middle Creek
B-3523 Wake 525 SR 1300 (Kildaire Farm Rd.) Swift Creek
B-3530 Wake 174 SR 2320 (Riley Hill Rd.) Buffalo Creek
B-3703 Wake 317 SR 1404 (Johnson Pond Rd.) Middle Creek
B-3704 Wake 108 SR 1834 (Norwood Rd.) Lower Bartons Creek
B-3705 Wake 125 SR 2045 (Burlington Mills Rd.) Smiths Creek
B-3917 Wake 311 SR 1379 (Penny Rd.) Lake Wheeler (Swift
Cr.)
I B-3918 Wake 1 127 SR 2044 (Ligon Mill Rd.) Tom Creek
The Natural Resources Conservation Service does not have any comments at this time.
Sincerely,
Mary K%ombs
State Conservationist
The Natural Resources Conservation Service works hand-in-hand with the
American people to conserve natural resources on private lanc AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

? y
it A
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
November 7, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
0XS
--:? rx
From: David Brook
Deputy State His to Preservation Officer
Re: Bridge Group XXVIII Bridge Replacement Projects, Wake County, ER 01-7792
Thank you for your memorandum of October 2, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural,
historic, or archaeological significance, which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we
have no comment on the project as currently'proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
17 P 3
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 733-8653-
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] • 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] • 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4615 [phone] • 715-4801
Federal Aid =BRZ-1.104(-1) TIP 413-3703 Counn,: Wake
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NAT[
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 317 on SR 1 101 over Middle Creek
On February 17, 2000, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
photograph review session/consultation
other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
[1}? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are considered not eligible for the National
Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Representati
1

1 ?' 20W
Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
tative, SHPO/
'l
State Historic Preservation Officer
n )
!,,7
Date
Z/
,YM3O
EARTH TECH / R A (_= ;`."
Date
-- Z z3/zoo?
If a serve report ii prepared. a tinal cop.: of this form and the attached list will
be included.
IGL" f R?,. r f I e' L t-.? L VI IN L-

iV.sl iru.VUJ. r- .UL
g3Cv??
11?Torth Carlaliceesour?ces Commission
Charles R. Full£vood, F_NKudvc Director -
TO: Yvonne 0.1G. Howell, PE
Earth Tech
FROM: David Cox, Highwa3(-Froject lit r j
Habitat Conservation Piograzn
DATE: October 8, 2001
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacoments'jn.Granvil e, Halifax, Vance, and Wake counties
of North Carolina. ' TIP-Nos..B=3643,.13-3644, 13-3645, B-3653, B-3853,13-3702,
13-3915,11-3521, B-3523, $-3330, B-3703,1 -3704, B-3705, 8=3917, and B-3918.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Re$durces Comi fission (NCWRC)„have reviewed the
inforniation provided and have the fbllowingpfalunmaryconunents on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of th_eNational Environmental. Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401,*as amended; 16
: .
U.S.C:. 661-667d). le
On ln-idge replacement proj ycts of this scope-.our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Sparaiing structures usually do not require
work within the stream and-do not require•..;tream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridgez. allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath'the structure, does not block fish pass?gc, aad. does not block.navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge clerk drains should not discharge:directly into the stream...
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents)-should not he placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are wnstructPd, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations. immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not-more than 20'x10'. If possible, when using tc rilporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
Mailing Address: Divisian of rnlan..i Fisheries to 1721 Maii Sevrlce Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 2.81 - F.x. [phone]
I LL •, .;Jl.? ..IGV JVV Ji ?• VJ I. {. V V V 1
NCWRC, HCP, FALLS LAKE TEL: 919=528--98 9'' ; '-- •Oct 08'01 10:12 No . 66 :PfV
Bridge Memo ~` ,? . •?, ? .
.2 October S 2001
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other meelz:Aized equipment.and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact; allows the.arsa to Fevcgetate.=Mtally and minimizes disturbed soil.
r:€
6. A clear bank (ri rap free) area.ofat Ic"t-110 fe ,; should remain an each side of the
steam underneath the bridge. , "' ?•
7. In trout waters, the N,C,Wildhfe..Re6'0 3 - orn aissiou reviews all U.S. Army
Corps orBngineers natiortwida and: generax `4034' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to P 'tect trout and trout:habitat and we can
recommend that the project iequirc•ahdiidividusd 1404' permit, •
8.. In streams that contain threatened'or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge.should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S: Fish and Wildlife Service for '
information on requirements of the E:ndaugered•Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous f sh, tha ND MOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Amadromaus Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed. _ ; r {
10. In areas with significant fisheries forsur,sli, seasonal exclusions may also by
recommended. } . :....
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any; Vou..d-.distufaing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially f616 w grairi*M events.
12; Temporary or permanent zerbaceous aegetation.-should be planted on all barn soil
within 15` days of ground disturbing actvitiez- to provide tang-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent tarstream waters abould bur conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cof%rrsdams, or.other diversion structures should be used
where possible to proveni excavation.?in:•flowing water. .
14. Heavy equipment should've operated-fiorim th 'ba-ak rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimtintation acid reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment- go rock shouid'be ?used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbaR.Pp of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.. '
16. During subsurface invests tions; equipment should b'e inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of s' uxfare waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or otherrtoxic mesrials:.: "
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforcmd opucrete pipes, or eoncretc box culverts are
used:
1. The culvert must be desipt-d to allow for fish pam age, Generally, this means that the
culvert or pipe invee< is buried at least •1!-foot below the natural stream bed. If
mutti-ple cells arc required tho smoud and/or third cells should be placed so that their
bottoms are at stream bwikful stage (similar to Lyonsfield design), This could be
!C t HV I F'A',?,LS LAKE TEL : [phone] Oct 08' 01 - 10:12 Igo. 001 P.04
Bridge Memo October 8 2001
accomplished by constricting 'a lob i11 an tW #:pstream end of the other cells that
will divert low Slows to &&iher c3alf.' `Thin will 'allow sufficient water depth in the
culvert or piped uring nti,Zrial flosva fd a4Gommodate fish-movements. If culverts are
long, notched baffles should be pi*' ed in rzirifotc°d concrete box culverts at 15 foot
intervals to ?zllow.for the collection ofedimenrs in the culvert, to reduce flow
velocities, and to provide resting" or places, a and other aquatic orgaoisTns moving
through the structure.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used,,: at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows Wallow:for wnldlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should.bo atuated sa that ao channel realignment or widening is
required. Widening of tNop stream channel ;it the. inlet or outlet of structures usually
causes a decrease in watci velocity ciusing; sediment deposition that will require future
maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placird on the stream bed,
Inmost cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing stricture at the saute location
with road closure, If road closure_is.not fcasibls, `tetnpo ,. 7 detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, a nimize theme d for c dazingg and to avoid destabilizing
stream bmiks. If the structure will b on a neW' aligi=0t; the old st.r dture should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-yeiar floodplain..Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation,,. the ara,a.should be-sv?bilized with gruss and 'planted with
native tree species. If the `area that is roclaiin• was:Iarevi?tusly wetlands ; NCDOT should restore
the arv.% to-wvdallds. If-mmuess=, The rite ]rna,r:bN u4zi as wro an nirtigation or the,subject
project or other projects in the waterah.dc'.* -
Project specific comritents:
i . B-3643 - Granville County Bri.d No 72;•ovex .JateherS Run. Standard comments apply.
We are not aware of any threatens of ennang9te. species in the project vicinity.
.2. B-1644 - Granville County -Bridge hTo 226 over` :Knap of Reeds Creek. NCDOT should be
aware that NCWRC has desigaat: NCW.RC Famelanc.5s•;in the vicinity of this bridge.
Impacts to gameland properties `should be aVotded. There are also records of state listed
mussels upstream of the project. ;?;herefow; `diie.to. the potential for impacts to listed species
we request that NCDOTperform' a niussol survey prior to the construction of this briidge.
3. B-3645.- Granville County = Br dge No .'101 aver Little Gras
• sy Creek. Standard comments
apply. We arc not aware of any threatened oten4ngered species in the project vicinity.
4 B-3 653 - Hali fax
over (lock?,yotte Creek. `'Due to the potential for
omous fish aCou y BridV6 No. 161,
cation, ikDOT should %iloseky follow the "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage", Th.l i_ w ludw an in-water work moratoriu1rorn
February 15 to June 15. We are not aware a¢'auytlreatened of endangered species in the
project vicinity. Standard coninimts apply.,...:-
5, B-3853 - Nalifax County -Bridge No. 82 over Marsh Swarnp, Standard comm ents apply.
We are not aware of any threatened of endangered specie in the project vicinity.

4CWRC, HCP , FRLLS LRKE TEL: 919 S28 9839 Oct 08 , 01 10:13 No. 0'0.1' P r -
Bridge Memo j
, `? t October 8, 2001
1;
6. B-3702 -Vance County _B"'
Na.9'over Flat Creek.
apply. We
are not aware of any threatened of endarjge sd species',iri tha p standard vicinity.
7. B-3915 - Vance County- Bridge No, 2x`ovat Crrk. Standard comments apply.
e
are not aware of any threatened.4of enda5 bred spocies in the project vicinity, W
%
8. B-3521- Wake County-Midgn1yo 273 over:Middla Oreek. Due to the potential for
anadrolno us. fish at this location. WCDO`T Mould closely follow -the "Stream Crossing
Guidelines ror Anadromous Fish Passag;"o This includes an in-water work moratorium. from
February 15 to June 15. There are also records Qf stag listed mussels upstream of the
project. Therefore, due to the potential'f+ai• impacts to.listed species we request that NCDOT
perform a mussel survey prior tr" the conM" oti©n of t?ls bridge. Standard comments apply.
9. B-3523 -Wake County- gBrideN0 525-1, verSwift Creek. Standard comments apply. We
are not aware of any threatened P endankered spocse in the project vicinity;
10. •B-3530 - Wake County - Bridge No. 174•0er Buffale .Creek. Standard comm apply.
We are not aware of any threatened of
i air`gered spe win the ents project 'vicinity.
ti i .•a;?
11. B-3703 -Wake County - Hridge'No. 31.7 bv*(: v fiddle Creek. There are records of state
listed mussels upstream of the.projoct. Therefore, due`tia the potential for impacts to. listed
species we request that NCDOT pe.tform,'a mua"scl su& prior to the construction of this
bridge. Standard comments
'apply
12. B-3 704 -Wake County --Bridge c?. 109.
ever Lpwer 131irtons' Creek. Standard comments
apply.. We are not aware of anyttueatened Of 6nc°ange: F.
species u the project vicinity.
13. B-3705 -Wake County-Bridge No. 1;15 ;? ViT i, r24119Clock. Standard comments apply.
We are not aware of any threatened of endiiagP„reit species in the project vicinity.
:. ... ..
i d. $_39 i 7 Wa1cu Coun fr •' ° ? !' "'' • _
- 13"1,Kc No. -311. -bVer-Lake Wheeler (Swift Creek). Standard
comments apply. We are not aware of anytbzeateAed.ofgndanger
vicinity. cdspecies in the project
15..B-3 918 - Wako County -Bridge ?No..1274?var_Torn Crce..k. Standard comments apply. We
are not aware of any threatened of ? da4xed'speGi' tithe project vicinity.
h. ..
We request that NCDOT routinely mui??zo adver'impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bride replacements. The NCDOT should install and m aintain
sedimentation control measures throuesout the
contacting water in or entering into t?aesc •streamsfc e, aece r%?nt ofbndges w'th s co ere from
structures of some type, as opposed ta: pipe or b+?x:C?aJvert?, -18 recommended in most cases.
Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along s?c?bank.,.rcducing habitat fragmentation
and vehicle related mortality at highway aroseuigs. ;.; •..
If you heed further assistance or infarnm ion 0n*NC'VY_R'C concems regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at (9.19) 52$-9586. X71% c yogi for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects. 4 , .
4
I lw 2 RoodwoZT Proj\B3703_RDY_TSH.dgn
3 09/08/9'
?lKyle l4
CC200863 TIP PRO JECT*: B-3703
0 0 0
? ? w cn
'!? o rn o 0
m = S ?
Z° H ?.
o ? o o
o r" Cq
as
.? v v
o o
u 8 u u 11 u
+
O G7 0 C x G
N3 " ;E o ° a
N
0 m m
z z
r = _
m
z
_? C a
O Zi -u
V ? ? y
°w E E
GO 47
II II
CA N N
? Qp V
m
o yy ??jj Q
tft
O
A
Ell
n
? ?a xx
b ? ,fat
to y V ?
z
n
v
n
O
z
-o m
m
O Pnn
Q
c
m O
M z
m
v
N
Q
z
c
m
S
n
m
N
n
z
O
O
z
I
O
y
m
m
M
m
M
?O
m
0
0
N
I
N
m
v
9.
M
O
v
sr
a
Wz
zz
N
?o
O ~
02
ti
2
A
'y
ma. o
Q x
O n
v? z . t b
f
X
j wt Wow o pc1lN
o
y
hh
tiJ
:Rt
o?
SO
b p?
?b
?n
r?
i?G F?5
CAI
0 1
o$?
?x
14
00
r?
C4 C4
rp'

N ,
.a
a

m m C

. 1
2
Si 2
g

m hr ??
7

N

g
Z ?:•.• p G N
M :: +

a N in
_
Q
Z m d
00 Q
Z+
1?) 1- Z
+
Q O a Q

-43 O Z
.
t
vWi s m ? ?
a h °
J
V G
OW n
?? J C?
V
z
CL
O
U. CL N

W +,+
U' >-
W a

O
4s WV

b
?W U)
12 §.:
g k O
w
v? z
>

[?
T N

S 77/d aloe N

1N/0il 3JN/H' r-
p
i 0 Z
c 0
a
Z-
W
Z
Z

0
Z-

s
F

O

? O

=
to o ?_ fir- F
V
Q

G
i

s
W
? N

J
t
rLi
Q
V
V n.

SJW 90-4
=p
1NIOd 3ONIN i

z
0

?WW

W
?W

AL

W
s
d
0

m

vi z
0
z

I-W
U. m
m
z p ?
W

?

y

V W
b
F F
W

ILM

0

29U
W O
F
W
W
6
W
f
0
z
66/2/9 u6p•d),I-AOF1-60LE8\(oad? onpQVON%V
OObI b00Z-2ftl 0
a

n!
m?
m
0
? 0
m

Fb pj? m

mo
?? o?
o

$ c
z
W? rd
w . m

Q

J
LLr
s? v
m cc
W p
a
??
a
i
m
cd o
?

O F
FF
W
W aW
b
OJ O
o
W h o W oa

b ? W' ?O
Q ao nt n
a
d s ao
?~ ?
N
X
F
X
XC
?+

`
C W

yy,,
6< qq
Q yy44
<

d6 n W n`
6< pa 6?
(? D W F-

W
4
?o

0
N
? t
??` / dOd,6

W
H?
4

J 4Cl'
2

d'
0?.

sdvds ? Sdvds
1' h W W
o(?`aNjt? stQ
?,rrrrr°?
ZQO,I??rW„?i ?o
uu?? ^ O
?rrrrr W
44O?1?1>t ;1?
1
O
v7
?I
io c
u
3
a
N
N
C
ti
ti
1
I
sn77•s9=,_
-""a e.ss
lrpA
3/r?4gbs
o $
o

'lfDP'IASd .108-£0
dug-,
3•Zf.60 g
Zb'b$f Sl 'n1S Od -I"
by ti
y S0.
Sly S.s9
N76''N27«
N79't6'36'?
- 400L