20040159 Ver 1_Complete File_20040204

~~0~5 ~
D ~~~~ v
D
,~° °~°^~ JAN 1 8 2005
DENR - WgrER QUALITY
~ ,~.;~,,,,,~., ~nANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTIV~NT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SF.CRE'I'ARY
January 13, 2005
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Utility Impact Memo for the replacement of Bridge No. 111 over New Hope Creek
on SR 1107 in Durham County. Federal Aid Project No. 82352201, WBS Number
32780.1.1, NCDOT Division 5, TIP Project No. B-2963.
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
On June 30, 2004 the NCDOT received a Nationwide 23 (USAGE Action ID200220853) for the above
referenced project. After further review of the project, the NCDOT Utilities determined that additional
impacts will occur to wetlands as a result of the relocation of a sewer line and a telephone line. Wetland
impacts will total 0.034 acres. The sewer line at site UC 2 will be relocated below the stream by a
directional bore. In order to relocate the sewer line, 0.032 acres of wetlands will be impacted by
mechanized clearing for the construction and staging of equipment. The telephone line relocation at site
UO-1 will impact 0.002 acres of wetlands due to •excavation/ trenching of the line. Staging areas and
excavated areas will be removed upon completion of work and restored to the natural contours and
elevations.
It is not anticipated that the impacts from the sewer and telephone line will require a Section 404
Nationwide Permit 12. We are submitting this memo for USAGE records. If you need additional
information, please contact Brett Feulner at [phone].
S~nce el , , ~---
~, Greg ry J. Th~orp=e~P.h_.D~.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/ attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Jon Nance, P.E., Division Engineer
Ms. Chris Murray, DEO
Ms. Robin Hancock, PDEA
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RAi clr.N NR 97fiRR-1fi9R
w/o attachment
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Desigm
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, PE, Highway Design
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Dr. David Franklin, USAGE, Wilmington
Mr. Bill Gilmore, EEP
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOI-I.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27699

STA 23+15 ~ H ~ 1 N
O 3 ~ N Q
N
~ ~~ fv CO tV
~ ~N fnn ~~ N
~ ~ Q i; mD ~N•
,Q" ~ + . uN
~~'~,. F~ _ ~~ inn T'9 ~ /w r•
QV,re, 1-0 ~~ ~ ~ Nn~ .~
~k oP .~ r~ aom•
r~• ~
m ~ ~ N~N ^'
Q~~a~ ~ ~ r PNE1Y ~ 020 1V
y ~ d~ ~ it fA m
~~ {~ ~~ rO ~~~
i
f3, ^ 70 ~
i
N~
N q~QJ ~ m=
D
~~ ~m
~~` r r ~
~~
~ ~ ~ rY"~(= r '~'
1 I ITa"~
~~ rt ~
p I + m ~ "
~ p I~ N R J!
~ ~ ~ I ~ ~° ~
~ a ~ ~
~ fl a I I~ I ~ ~\ ~-o~
~ o
~ ~ I I II ~ 8
N- ~
+ ~
8 a$ ~ p~' ~
~~
T ~ ~
'~' ~ ~ O
.~
al~ I ~
+ ~ ~
17~g I~ I ~ N-
k-
IE ~/ I I `I ~ ~2Z '~yo
~Om
N
A
~ ,I` lal ~ WAS ~'~cx-,
~ n
Nmr y ~ D ~z
n b ~ I ~ ~~ ul `ms
tia Y Nmr•
j ~ ~ ~ I Ulf '~O Mlt'
X12
TlA

. ,
n' ~
A

/~
=/
Y ~
O '
. I I-
,I I
• ~%~ = I
,,, ~
y
\ 0~~ \ ~ I
oa ~~, ~ ~ ~ 7~ _ I
°co ~ ~ ` I
~ ~
--IG z ~ _
~ o
me r<,, O
-- ~ WLB • T
r~
~- z~ ~ \
mn ~
~ ~ ~ - 'I
~ I
~ ~ m
w
8~M - O w Ul ~ m
~ I ~ D
(11 ,~ ~ ~ -~ r-
_ - l Do
~ I NC mr~
• I y D =
mmn
~iNi n
N

~ ~
I w -
l~
n
N
~ FA I ~/V

-A
`~
N
°~ c
~ zm
~Z
O
~m
o ~ v~
(~
~ p Z H
O O~
y ~ n
~ ~
~ w m
D

~A
0
O
A m
V ~
~ C
.o
~ A
w ~
A
A
w J+.

e s-
~~~ ~~~
auw
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR $ECRETARMY
December 6, 2004 ~ ~~~a " ~ O
p~C ~ 4 2004
CONTRACT NO.: C200825
STATE PROJECT: 32780.3.2 ~T,pq A~ YBItIINCH
T.I.P. NO.: B-2963
FEDERAL NO.: BRSTP-1107(12)
COUNTY: Durham, Chatham
DESCRIPTION: Bridge over New Hope Creek and Approaches on SR-1107.
SUBJECT: Preconstruction Conference
C.C. Mangum Company, LLC
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Sir:
The Preconstruction Conference for the above referenced project is scheduled for Thursday,
December 16, 2004, at 10:00 A.M. The conference will be at the Division Five Offices, located
at 2612 N. Duke Street Durham, North Carolina 27704.
A proposed progress schedule should be submitted to the Department for review and approval at
your earliest convenience.
In addition, the following information should be submitted to the Department at the
Preconstruction conference:
Detailed Construction Schedule
List of Project Personnel (i.e. Project Manager, Project Superintendent, Erosion Control
Coordinator, etc.)
List of Material Suppliers
List of Subcontractors
List of Company Officials authorized to execute Supplemental Agreements
It is requested that you invite any proposed subcontractors deemed necessary. By copy of this
letter, I am inviting various Department representatives, Environmental Agencies, and Utilities
having involvement and/or interest in this project.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] N HARRISON AVE
RESIDENT ENGINEERS OFFICE - HARRISON AVE WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US SUITE 100
1577 IV1AtL SERVICE CENTER GARY, NC 27513
RALEIGH NC 27699-1577

C.C. Mangum Company, LLC
Page 2
December 6, 2004
Should additional information be required prior to the conference, please contact my assistant Eben
Miller or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Philli((pJ/Johnson, PE, PLS
Kesident Engineer
cc:
NCDOT Division 5:
Mr. J. G. Nance, PE
Mr. "I'. N. Parrott, PE
Mr. J. R. IIopkins, PE
Mr. Chris Murray
Mr. Leonard Scarborough
Mr. Jan Womble
Mr. John Grant, PE
Mr. A. Battle Whitley, PE
NCDOT Central Construction:
Mr. E.C. Powell, PE
Mr. R. A. Hancock, PE
Mr. Rick Nelson, PE
Mr. C. S. Sweitzer, PE
Mr. D. W. Jernigan, PE
NCDOT Materials and Tests Unit:
Mr. Cecil Jones, PE
Mr. Owen Cordle, PE
NCDOT I Iydraulics Unit:
Mr. D. R. I-Ienderson, PE
Mr. Randall C. I-Ieneger, PF,
NCDOT Roadway Design Unit:
Mr. Jay A. Bennett, PE
Mr. Tony Houser, PE
Mr. Bruce I3. Payne, Jr., PE
NCUOT Structures Design Unit:
h'Ir. Greg Perfetti, PE
Mr. John C. Frye, PE
NCDOT Roadside Environmental Unit:
Mr. Donald Pearson, EI, CPESC
Ms. Katie Simmons, EI, CPESC

C.C. Mangum Company, LLC
Page 3
December 6, 2004
NCDOT Utilities Coordination Unit:
Mr. Richy H. Narron
NCDOT Project Services Unit:
Mr. Roger Worthington, PE
FHWA:
Mr. John Sullivan, PE
Utilities:
Mr. Eric Crane, MCI /ICI
Mr. Shane Burns, BellSouth
Mr. Stuart Carson, City of Durham
Mr. Rickey Suggs, City of Durham
Mr. Tony Thomas, City of Durham
Environmental Agencies:
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Richard Spencer, US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Doug Walters, USGS Water Resources of NC
Mr. Wib Owen, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. Alan W. Klimek, PE, NC Division of Water Quality
Ms. Nikki Thomson, NC Division of Water Quality
File B-4
Letter No. P02

..
-_?
~.I ~ ~~ (q ~~.~ ,
A ~ ~A~ ~~ 'rf(I(//l/
_ ~J~~~
/rM I l~
`~ /~
V'~a~^~
STATE OF NORTH CAROL
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP( _ _ . _. . _ . _ _ _ . _ .._.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY ~ c~. ,.. +c~ _ ~'
GOVERNOR
December 6, 2004
CONTRACT NO.:
STATE PROJECT:
T.I.P. NO.:
FEDERAL NO.:
COUNTY:
DESCRIPTION:
C200825
32780.3.2
B-2963
BRSTP-1107(12)
Durham, Chatham
Bridge over New Hope Creek and App
SUBJECT
Preconstruction Conference
C.C. Mangum Company, LLC
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Sir:
_J ~_ g t ~~
2f1iT4 __- -- .
.-- D~NR - yygT'ER4ITAUTy _ - - - _ _.
WE71ANpS AND STORAIyNAJFR BR,~H
~~~~~d~ ~
,_ D
D E L ~ ~ 2004
D Nh WATER QUALITY ~
The Preconstruction Conference for the above referenced project is scheduled for Thursday,
December 16, 2004, at 10:00 A.M. The conference will be at the Division Five Offices, located
at 2612 N. Duke Street Durham, North Carolina 27704.
A proposed progress schedule should be submitted to the Department for review and approval at
your earliest convenience.
In addition, the following information should be submitted to the Department at the
Preconstruction conference:
Detailed Construction Schedule
List of Project Personnel (i.e. Project Manager, Project Superintendent, Erosion Control
Coordinator, etc.)
List of Material Suppliers
List of Subcontractors
List of Company Officials authorized to execute Supplemental Agreements
It is reduested that you invite any proposed subcontractors deemed necessary. By copy of this
letter, I am inviting various Department representatives, Environmental Agencies, and Utilities
having involvement and/or interest in this project.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] N HARRISON AVE
RESIDENTENGINEER~SOFFICE-HARRISONAVE ~/EBSITE:WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US SUITE 100
1577 MAIL SERVICE CENTER GARY, NC 27513
RALEIGH NC 27699.1577

C.C. Pvlangum Company, LLC
Page 2
December 6, 2004
Should additional information be required prior to the conference, please contact my assistant Eben
Miller or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Phillip Johnson, PE, PLS
Resident Engineer
cc:
NCDOT Division 5:
Mr. J. G. Nance, PF.
Mr. T. N. Parrott, PE
Mr. J. R. Ilopkins, PE
Mr. Chris Murray
Mr. Leonard Scarborough
Mr. Jan Womble
Mr. John Grant, PE
Mr. A. Battle Whitley, PE
NCDOT Central Construction:
Mr. E.C. Powell, PE
Mr. R. A. I-Iancock, PE
Mr. Rick Nelson, PE .
Mr. C. S. Sweitzer, PE
Mr. D. W. Jernigan, PE
NCDOT Materials and Tests Unit:
Mr. Cecil Jones, PE
Mr. Owen Cordle, PE
NCDO'I' Hydraulics Unit:
Mr. D. R IIenderson, PE
Mr. Randall C. Reneger, PE
NCDOT Roadway Design Unit:
Mr. Jay A. Bennett, PE
Mr. "Pony I~o~ser, PE
Mr. I3ruce I3. Payne, Jr., PE
NCDO"I' Structures Design Unit:
Mr. Greg Perfetti, PE
Mr. John C. Frye, PE
NCDOT Roadside Enviromnental Unit:
Mr. Donald Pearson, EI, CPESC
Ms. Katie Simmons, EI, CPESC

C.C. Mangum Company, LLC
Page 3
December 6, 2004
NCDOT Utilities Coordination Unit:
Mr. Richy H. Narron
NCDOT Project Services Unit:
Mr. Roger Worthington, PE
FHWA:
Mr. John Sullivan, PE
Utilities:
Mr. Eric Crane, MCI /ICI
Mr. Shane Burns, BellSouth
Mr. Stuart Carson, City of Durham
Mr. Rickey Suggs, City of Durham
Mr. Tony Thomas, City of Durham
Environmental Agencies:
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, US Anny Corps of Engineers
Mr. Richard Spencer, US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Doug Walters, USGS Water Resources of NC
Mr. Wib Owen, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. Alan W. Klimek, PE, NC Division of Water Quality'
Ms. Nikki Thomson, NC Division of Water Quality
File B-4
Letter No. P02

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOB F.RNOR SF,CRF.TARY
December 30, 2004
v M SCATf n
~ ~ ~ ~ ~l~ ,, ,- L~ - ~ ~t~l
~,~~,~.~
CONTRACT NO.: C200825
STATE PROJECT: 32780.3.2
T.LP. NO.: B-2963
FEDERAL NO.: BRSTP-1107(12)
COUNTY: Durham, Chatham
DF..SCRIPTION: Bridge over New Hope Creek and Approaches on SR-1107
MEMORANDUM TO: J. G. Nance, PE
Division Engineer
FROM: Phillip Johnson, PE, PLS ~,~
Resident Engineer
SUBJECT: Preconstruction Conference Meeting Minutes
Jq N ' ~ `~~
7
wET(pNDSR,,
,: .
-'~~ANCH
A preconstruction conference for the above referenced project was held on Thursday, December 16, 2004 at the
Division 5 Conference Room in Durham. The following persons were in attendance.
Representing the Department were: Tracy Parrott, Phillip Johnson, Eben Miller, Rick Nelson, Heather Montague,
Steven Mallory, Katie Simmons, Scott Taylor, Bill Massinger, Richy Narron, Charles Washburn, and Kifah Kamil.
Representing the Prime Contractor, C.C, Mangum, were: Steve Allison and Jason Williams.
Representing the Grading Subcontractor, Narron Construction, was: Michael Vaught.
Representing the Utility Subcontractor, Pipeline Utilities were: Johnny Blankenship and Keith Burke.
Representing the City of Durham Public Works were: Jim Harding, John Rives, and Tony Thomas.
The Resident Engineer (RE) for this project is Mr. Phillip Johnson, PE, PLS. All correspondence should be directed
as follows
Mr. Phillip Johnson, PE, PLS
Resident Engineer
NCDOT
1901 Harrison Avenue, Suite 100
Cary, North Carolina 27513
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RESIDENT ENGINEERS OFFICE - HARRISON AVE
1577 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1577
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
1901 N HARRISON AVE
SUITE 100
CARP, NC 27513

Mr. J. G. Nance
Page 2
December 30, 2004
Deaartments Kev Personnel:
^ The Assistant Resident Engineer (ARE) for this project is Mr. Eben Miller.
^ The Lead Project Inspector (PI) will be Mr. Scott Taylor.
^ The Assistant Project Inspector (API) will be Mr. Bill Massinger.
^ The Survey Party Chief will be Mr. Charles Washburn
Contractors Kev Personnel
The Project Managers for C.C. Mangum on this project will be Mr. Steve Allison and Mr. Jason Williams. C.C.
Mangum's project superintendent will be Mr. Ricky Creech.
The Project Manager for Narron Construction on this project will be Mr. Michael Vaught. Narron Construction has
yet to appoint a project superintendent.
The Project Manager for Pipeline Utilities on this project will be Mr. Keith Burke. Pipeline Utilities has yet to
appoint a project superintendent.
RIGIIT OF WAY
The Division 5 Right of Way (ROW) Office provided copies of the Right of Way agreements to Mr. Johnson and
Mr. Miller.
It was confirmed that all Right of Way on the project site has been acquired and that the sole property owner was the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE).
Kirby Warrick is the Department's ROW contact for the project.
Mr. Parrott raised the question as to whether an agreement with the USAGE had been reached over access to the
mitigation site. Mr. Miller will confirm that such an agreement is in place.
UTILITIES BY OTHERS
Mr. Miller reviewed the utility relocation which will be taking place on the project.
BellSouth will be relocating their aerial facilities on the project as necessary. This relocation will be coordinated
through the RE's office. The contact for BellSouth on the project is Mr. Shane Burns.
MCI will be relocating underground facilities on the project beginning approximately the first week of January 2005.
"this will include a new bore underneath the creek and the lowering offiber-optic lines at approximately Sta. 15+00
Rt. of -L-. This relocation will be coordinated through the RE's office. The contact for MCI on the project is Mr.
Eric Crane.
UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Allison stated that the sewer line construction will most likely be the first operation performed on the project.
Mr. Thomas raised a possible dispute between the Department and the City of Durham over the municipal
agreement. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Narron both advised the City that any changes to this agreement would be handled
by the Department's Utility Coordination Unit.
Mr. Thomas noted that the City of Durham would require as-built plans for the sewer line prior to acceptance.

Mr. J. G. Nance
Page 3
December 30, 2004
Mr. Miller advised the contractor that the Department would be available to assist in locating the existing sewer line.
The contractor and the City of Durham's representatives both raised questions over the proximity of the existing
sewer line to the proposed drilled shafts. Mr. Nelson determined that this distance was approximately 3 to 4 feet.
Mr. Rives stated that due to this proximity it would not be allowable for the contractor to begin drilled shaft
operations prior to the relocation of the sewer line.
Mr. Thomas raised a question over the proximity of the proposed sewer line to the proposed drilled shafts. Mr.
Kamil assured the City that this had been taken into account during the design process and that no conflict would
exist.
Mr. Williams raised a question as to whether variations in the proposed sewer line elevation would be accepted. Mr.
Kamil stated that minor variations in the plan elevations would be acceptable.
Mr. Rives asked what the existing sewer would be filled with. Mr. Miller responded that flowable fill would be used.
Mr. Rives and Ms. Montague both noted the need to protect the surrounding areas during this operation.
PERMITS
Ms. Montague distributed copies of the initial permit application letter dated February 5, 2004 to the RE office.
Ms. Montague reviewed the Project Commitments (Page 21) and the permit documents (Page 105-116) of the
contract with the following emphasized:
L The Contractor is not to use the existing impoundment parking lots as staging areas.
2. Clearing will be performed by Method II.
3. The Contractor is to maintain access to the waterfowl impoundment for the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) at all times.
4. The contractor is to prevent any green concrete from being placed in the creek.
5. Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented. No components of
the existing structure will be dropped into the creek.
6. The Department will contact the NCWRC to coordinate relocation of the gate at the access road to the east
of the bridge
7. The Department will contact the NCWRC to coordinate regrading of any of the access roads.
8. No parking signs will be posted along the shoulders of the road in the vicinity of the bridge. These signs
are not shown on the plans.
Mr. Miller raised a possible concern over the placement of erosion control devices within permitted areas and
beyond the clearing limits as shown in the erosion control plans. Ms. Simmons agreed that the Department's
Roadside Environmental Unit would provide assistance to the RE's office as the need to adjust these devices is
necessary.
Ms. Montague and Mr. Parrott both requested that the RE's office stake out the limits of the temporary causeways.
Mr. Parrott requested that the RE's office determine if no perniit is required for the mitigation site.
Mr. Johnson noted that the Division Environmental Engineer (DF.O), Mr. Chris Murray, had advised that he would
be available to assist in delineating the limits of construction within the mitigation site.
Mr. Taylor raised a question as to how much clean-up of existing trash would be required at the project site. Mr.
Johnson and Mr. Parrott both stated that clean-up would be required within the defined construction limits.
Mr. Miller requested that the contractor review the proposed permit modification, which will be required for their
staging area within Pern~it Site number 4. The contractor's only request was that the width of this staging area be

Mr. J. G. Nance
Page 4
December 30, 2004
increased to 40 feet. Mr. Miller noted that this 40 by 70 foot area would be submitted to the USAGE for a permit
modification.
Mr. Parrott re-emphasized the need for strict permit compliance during the life of the project.
SUR VE;r7NG
Mr. Washburn noted that,due to his projected workload, it would be important that the contractor utilize the survey
request forms that he has provided.
CONTRACT /PLAN REVIEW
In review of the contract documents the following items were brought to the Contractor's attention:
^ The Date of Availability for this contract is January 5, 2005 through March 15, 2005.
^ Tl~e contract time is 240 days.
^ The liquidated damages for this contract are One Thousand Dollars ($ ]000.00) per calendar day.
Contractor's Plan of Operations
Mr. Allison noted the following:
^ The contractor would begin the project by making the necessary submittals for the sewer line construction.
^ The contractor will most likely start construction between February and March of 2005.
^ During construction of the structure the contractor intends to begin with the drilled shafts and work out to the
end bents.
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS (GENERAL)
Major and Specialty Contract Items (Page I-2)
Mr. Johnson noted that there were no major items in the contract and that the specialty items consisted of items for
construction of the drilled shafts.
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (Page 5)
Mr. Johnson provided the Contractor with the disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) goal of 10%. Mr. Allison
noted that the actual DBE percentage had not yet been determined by the contractor.
Retainage and Prompt Payment (Page 14)
Mr. Johnson noted that the Department will not deduct and hold any retainage form the Prime Contractor on this
project; however, the Department will withhold an amount sufficient to cover any anticipated liquidated damages.
The Contractor may withhold up to 3%retainage if any subcontractor does not obtain a payment and performance
bond for their portion of the work.
Contractors at all levels; prime, subcontractor, or second tier contractor shall, within seven calendar days of receipt
of monies resulting from work performed on the project or services rendered, pay subcontractors, second tier
subcontractors or material suppliers as appropriate.
Failure of any entity to make prompt payment as defined may result in a withholding of money due that entity in the
next partial pa~mlent until such assurances are made satisfactory to this provision; or removal of an approved
contractor from the prequalified bidders list or the removal of other entities from the approved subcontractor list.
The contractor and the Department agreed that the monthly estimate would close at the end of the month.

Mr. J. G. Nance
Page 5
December 30, 2004
Domestic Steel and Iron Products (Page 16)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the Domestic Steel and Iron Products provision.
Mr. Miller emphasized that the inspectors assigned to this project be aware of the need to review product
certifications on the project to assure that this provision is followed.
Submission of Records -Federal Aid Protects (Page 17)
Mr. Johnson noted that this provision would require the contractor to submit completed FHWA-47 forms.
Mr. Allison asked if payroll information would be required as well. r. Johnson responded that it would be necessary
for the contractor to submit certitied payroll for this project.
Contractor Borrow Source (Page 17)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the provision, noting the need for Skaggs Method analysis.
Mr. Allison and Mr. Vaught both raised the possibility of extending the construction limits at the mitigation site and
utilizing the entire old roadbed as a borrow source.
Mr. Miller stated that he would explore the feasibility of this proposal with the DEO and the USACE.
Subsurface Information (Page 1 g)
Mr. Johnson stated that subsurface information is available on the structure portion of this project only.
Plant and Pest Quarantines (Page 18)
Mr. Johnson stated that, since the project is located within a quarantine area, the contractor must thoroughly clean all
equipment prior to leaving the site.
SafetxVests (Page 19)
The general provision was reviewed.
Twelve Month Guarantee (Page 20)
The guarantee special provision was reviewed.
Outsourcing Outside the USA (Page 21)
The outsourcing special provision was reviewed.
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS (ROADWAY)
Roadwav Construction Lump Sum Item (Page 22)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the special provision and reiterated that all payment for items included in this provision would
be made under the Lump Sum Roadway Construction Line Item.
Mr. Parrott discussed how this item would be quantified during the course of the project. Mr. Miller noted that he
would most likely be generating a percentage for this item based upon the materials received.
Clearing and Grubbing (Page 22)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the special provision.
Burning Restrictions (Pa£e 23)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the special provision.
Shoulder and Fill Slope Material (Page 24)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the special provision.
Restrictions on Construction of Embankment (Page 24)

Mr. J. G. Nance
Page 6
December 30, 2004
Mr. Allison requested that this provision be waived due to the minimal fill at the end bents.
Mr. Nelson will investigate the possibility of waiving this provision with the Department's Geotechnical Unit.
Mr. Parrott stated that, while waving this provision might be a possibility, the contractor should try to arrange his
schedule such that this provision is met.
Asphalt Pavements - Superpave (Page 27 through Paee 42)
The following articles in the contract were reviewed:
1. The spreading and finishing article
2. The surface requirements and acceptance article. It was noted that any unsatisfactory laydown or
workmanship would result in operation under limited production procedures and acceptance in accordance
with Article 105-3 of the Standard Specifications.
Mr. Allison stated that C.C. Mangum would be performing the paving on the project.
Mr. Williams raised a question as to how reductions calculations would be computed due to the lump sum payment
method. Mr. Miller and Mr. Parrott both stated that any reductions penalties would be evaluated as needed.
Mr. Parrott stressed the importance in stil] following the QMS records keeping procedures despite the lump sum
payment method.
Asphalt Binder Content of Asphalt Binder Plant Mixes (Page 42)
Mr. Johnson stated that Asphalt Binder Content would be established by use of Superpave mixes with approved Job
Mix Formulas.
Single Swing Gate (Page 42~
Mr. Johnson reviewed the special provision and applicable details in the Roadway plans.
Guardrail Anchor Units, Type 350 (Page 44)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the special provision.
Mr. Allison stated that Bulington would be the guardrail subcontractor.
Mr. Parrott noted the importance of submitting necessary certifications and paperwork related to this and other
guardrail items.
Aggregate Production (Page 45)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the special provision.
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS (EROSION CONTROL)
Mr. Allison stated that State Construction would be the Seeding and Mulching subcontractor.
The project special provisions were reviewed.
Ms. Simmons noted that Roadside Environmental would be making monthly visits to the site and would be available
to assist in locating erosion control devices. She also stressed that seeding take place in a timely manner and the
importance of properly constructing weirs.
Mr. Johnson stated that the inspectors assigned to the project would be making weekly reviews of erosion control
and providing them to the contractor.
Mr. Parrott stressed to the contractor the need to be proactive with erosion control problems, especially due to the
high environme~ital profile of the project.

Mr. J. G. Nance
Page 7
December 30, 2004
Mr. Miller noted that there would be two sets of working erosion control plans on the project, one for the project site
and one for the mitigation site.
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS (STRUCTURES)
Drilled Piers (Page 61)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the project special provision with the following areas of emphasis:
1. Mr. Johnson noted that a drilled pier preconstruction sequence plan must be submitted for review and
acceptance 30 days prior to the beginning of construction.
2. Prior to the beginning of any drilled pier work a preconstruction conference must be held. Mr. Johnson
noted that a more thorough review of the drilled pier requirements would occur at this future conference.
Mr. Johnson noted that the use of Bentonite slurry is prohibited on this project.
Mr. Allison noted that Gemini would be subcontracted to perform the drilling work.
Submittal of Working Drawings (Page 95)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the project special provision.
Mr. Johnson also requested that the RE's office be copied on any letters pertaining to working drawing submittals.
Construction, Maintenance, and Removal of Temporary Access (Pa eg 101)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the project special provision.
Mr. Parrott noted that the contractor would need to perform every reasonable effort to remove all rip-rap from the
creek.
Mr. Allison stated that the contractor would likely place fabric underneath rip-rap placed in the creek and may
pursue use of a turbidity curtain as well.
Removal of Existing Structure Page 102)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the project special provision.
Mr. Johnson noted that Best Management Practices must be followed.
Mr. Miller stated that he was in the process of having the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) pursue removal of the
gauging station.
Construction of Superstructure (Pa eg 103)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the project special provision.
Mr. Nelson stated that it would be required that the contractor place tool joints in the concrete parapet rails to aid in
minimizing cracking.
Mr. Nelson stated that bond breaking tape was no longer to be used to protect lateral joints; however, a method of
protecting these joints during asphalt laydown would be required.
Construction of Substructure (Page 103)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the project special provision.
Mr. Nelson stated that the contractor may evaluate the possibility of carrying the drilled piers into the caps and
eliminating the columns.

Mr. J. G. Nance
Page R
December 30, 2004
OPEN DISCUSSION
Mr. Miller noted that any off site detour would be signed by Department forces. He will coordinate the placement of
any signs with the District Trafftc Office.
Mr. Miller noted that the striping on the project would be changed at the Division's request. The project is to be
striped with eleven foot lanes and a 5 foot shoulder. This change will not affect any quantities and the Department
will not be issuing a plan revision to reflect this change.
With no further comments from the participants, Mr. Johnson thanked everyone for their participation and adjourned
the meeting.
Meeting attendees are requested to provide in writing to this office any errors, omissions, or admissions to these
minutes.
cc: All Attendees
Mr. Shane Burns
Mr. Eric Crane
Mr. Chris Murray
Mr. Donald Pearson, EI, CPESC
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
Mr. Wib Owen
Ms. Nikki Thomson
File B 1
ec: Mr. Dennis Jernigan, PE
Letter No. MO l

~ .1
d~~t~~
wr+.
.`~d.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART~N'I' OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
3508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
February 5, 2004
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
W ETLgNpS~401 GROUP
FEB ~ 4 2004
wAT FR QUAIITr SEGTIG
N
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
~40159~
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge
No. 111 over New Hope Creek on SR 1107, Durham County.
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1107(4), State Project No.
8.2352201, TIP Project No. B-2963.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. The document states that the existing one lane bridge will be replaced with a
new 255-foot long, 32-foot wide bridge in existing location with an offsite detour. A
travelway of 24 feet will be accommodated, with an offset of 4 feet on each side. The
project will require approximately 2,800 feet (347 m) of new work on approach
roadways. Total project length will be approximately 2,800 feet (376 m).
Anticipated impacts to wetlands consist of 0.27 ac of fill in wetlands and 0.06 ac of
temporary fill in surface waters. Temporary impacts are covered in the attached
Categorical Exclusion. Wetland impacts are a result of the widening and raising of the
road
This project falls within the flood storage area of Jordan Lake. Due to the widening of
the bridge and the approaches a decrease in flood storage loss of 7,330 cubic yard is
expected. The USACE Operations Branch for Jordan Lake requires any fill that is
located below the flood storage area of 240 feet mean sea level to be mitigated for.
Project impacts have been minimized to the maximum extent practical. The NCDOT
plans to mitigate for loss of wetlands and Jordan Lake flood storage by excavating the
portion of fill from the abandoned section of Farrington Road that is located below 240
feet mean sea level. Farrington Road was realigned prior to the creation of the reservoir
and the old roadbed was not removed. The removal of the fill from Farrington Road will
provide 2.5 acres of wetland mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts to wetlands. The
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH W ILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

f
volume of fill that is will be removed is 7,400 cubic feet. A report detailing the
mitigation is attached to this application for your convenience.
There will be no deck drains over the water. New Hope Creek is classified by the
Division of Water Quality as Class WS-IV NSW in the Categorical Exclusion (CE)
document and the classification has not changed.
Demolition: Bridge No. 111 is composed of timber. The bridge sections will be removed
without dropping components into Waters of the United States. All guidelines for bridge
demolition and removal will be followed in addition to Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters.
Three federally protected species are listed as occun-ing in Durham County. This project
will have "no, effect" on the bald eagle and "may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect" the smooth coneflower and the Michaux's sumac. The US Fish and Wildlife
concurred with the biological conclusions in a letter dated October 22, 2003. That letter
has been attached for your convenience.
This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide 23 in
accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2082, Jan 15, 2002. We anticipate a 401 General
Certification number 3361 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 contact Brett Feulner at
[phone].
Sincerely,
~~
nµ Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
I~•/~ Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/ attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Michael Housey, USAGE, Jordan Lake Operations Branch
w/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USAGE, Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Mr. Jon Nance, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Omar Sultan, Prog. and TIP Mr. Chris Murray, DEO
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics Mr. Art McMillan, PE, Highway Design
Ms. Robin Young, P.E., Project Planning Engineer

J

_
"-
~
-
--
-
'
""""'
* '. ~ "f
T'4M.y.~" l I
I
~ T/~T
~+~x~~ F T;~' R~ f~/f#'
7 ,~
F7IR
.~ .lorry-`;;1~, f ky a.~l`~u` f .ct/ r' ~~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~\ ~~~~~~ ~ :. ~u~, k ly ~ ~s ~ V ''`,
,r~ a
r "b`i5 ~, ~ i'~. F ,rt.Y~ s i~4. X` 7 ~ _ i ~4 ~ ~~ ~ "r ~ i,.. ,~~I r 1' t
~
1
'
~
'
~
i
I
~
~
~
~
~~~
~ ~
~
. ~
.
t,-
}
-~ ;~~ ~~~~
. ~~
~~ ~
~~
~~ j ~
. ~
.
~ / 1
$ ~ ~ ,r;=`'~y'~-~~ ~~~
1
~"
X
1
. T,
:S
x
1
~ ~ ~ f ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
N ~ ~ "~. ~ ~, k:; F ~ ~"~ ti ~
~
+
~
~ ~ + ~ ,~'"X, .~ F",`y
~. f.~ R ~ ~
,~F~~_,T ,..._ y,~y7{1
~1;~. T, li.
{i' ~t-- (~
~
~
~
~
F
~+
t ~kl.~
~
~ V! ~'T t~../
:
~
\ V ,n^ Y } ~'ry
L
'7." N
..77``
~/
~
~
.
+
,i
`
(
'
:.~I.~
y,~y
~
4~'~
..., ~+.
: t ~1
+
«A •• 'K f
~+
]
i~
--
~
~
"
~ ~
~
~-4
4h~
(..
r
s
ii
I..
T
~ a
~
~
I ~~`c c . ~+ ~ ~#I ',,,r ~'' ~
4 ~ ~ 5`
~ ~ ~.V;~•11 .,V ~b ,~. L
. ~ dl Y r~ v. 'r+
~ -^X 'Ut:..r .~~N~_T1'
~'7~
Sr ~ r,~
~ ` 7
,
.{ . ,~-.
I ~~' ~ t
`~r
~ ~~'5
' 1 .` ' l
+
Y
,
..
r,
~
~
-..4
j
~
/
t
~
•~. {~ ~~_: ; a.' L"h,. .{'. -2r '7'.' £ii. t''.?j' 1' ~ .!:~r.~(r~(.iv~f~il~Y'. J '~~,~1 '~"~ ~/',:''' ~~.'

MCI .
J
+ ~~
~
:
~
,
~
j ~~,
~~~ ,,,,;~,
-~ y
~ ~
'
a I !
'
f ~
~
~
I
~
j~~j~
~~!
:
..
It
,
~
ll
~
l ~ y~
' ~i [~{~F{~~`t~ r~ ~"A4 ~..(~,Z ~ ~ ~ `f
~r ~j,L.:
as
~ l~
-. y
1
J
,
N>
ff 1
i'.t,
•> 1 .YWy / ~ J a~~~
'J
f
~
~ ~ (
~r~
~ ~
+
/ x
~
~. +
t..-.r
t
y
_...~..'.M.Mn
R ti
r
d
~
~
._~~.~ ." } ~
II~ rJr''~
r ti ~w..J- +/~~~ .'"'jL
x +sjv~.a~ 4 "'f ~ ~ ,
,~ ~ t* { ' Y~~,' ~, . ~ C?C~ °,~. ^j ~~, r ~ ~,""C I ~"x~ ~ ,,~"r/ ~ i ;b+rl f .,t ,1 f t ~ ~~+ ,, ~+ 1.
~~ ~y 1`'I
. • ~ ,4 ~ ~. ~jL 1 ~ ~ G I~ ~ /'~~~ f 1 ,Cr ' I ~ y _,~L ~~"'~.,,~-
. \ .. h~ ~~~»..r/ `~
r
..
.? Jt j t~f ~.li; ~ e~ J~'f +{ .,,~ ~. ~,+ .`~ '`~` ` ~~ ~, I ,- i~ ~', r~i / % J/ ~ ,~I ~ ti ~~ f 1.~,,
~ r ~', ~
. ~, I~J'.fV ~' ,I ~ ~ ~;
'~.~ <~( ~ ~
?^r ~ ~ 4 1 l/' ~ ~ + ~~ j
~~
1Y~
~ `,
'
~ ~ ~
t
~ +~
`'
l~
'
A
+
t
a V~
% \
F
^..~ :
`
..`l
.
3 ..~
IN
~ :.
'• ~I
a ~y /
'
.
I ~1 /
~:
#~
F '^
~
~
.
.. yam,
K
.
t
.
1
~ s 711
I
"~-'Y~~, ~Tr`"'
+q J~'S
{ d _Ip air., l~~T ~_, ~ a ! ,
~ ~ 5 t1 ~1, 1 ~t .,I s .r~'I f '-r~. T h } >. N Y~, ~,
,F" +'k} ~' ~ 1
f
.
! ~ ~... Y -:lilt ; i
x ~ + ,t R ~ ~ ' ,rjl ~, ;:err, '~t~ :, ~ ,~ `~`. ~ u{' i { .`~ ~ +
.
:n
~ r 1
I { I,
~ i
~, 1 ~ 'i. o ~ a •.;
_ ''";F
'~ 1 ~ ~,,''Y '> z
I
~
.e..
.
~
"'[ i
'^'t"
~-
.
'
~
~
^
~ ! ~. ~ I ` ~
~
.
.
~ ~
. '
,u x
~ w w•~t r P
I q
+ w
U
j
~~/y
a J~~ .!"~ .~7 ~` 1 ~rti~1)). / .,~ f ~ r ~y _Vl x..11
~ ~ I /r' ~.~~~,` ` , .. 1 (~_, r
~
~~I~ 1~ i
~~' ~ F~~'I .
,7ft ~L+
`~
rn,~s....~• SF ; ~ ~%3 r"1 ~ R `~ ~r"'`~>~~r~`~
J" t r~.' 1,n.
;
+
K
y

, r ~p ~y~~
.. M ~ .y,< j ~ aF; ' ~ t i
1:,~.r i .,.' • i+n" yA""~ ~ r yyyttt '.
~
J
`
?
~
~
f ! ~Y~ ~j'
`\ ~~
_
,p
.Y, yY \ ~ ~ f:~
~ ~l
.a 1
~
"
~
~ ~
~~
~
6
..~,-+, f .z~y. ~,_,,,~~x ~ f;,
/
.
_
,r~,~~ ; ~- J ~ , M ~ rf , J f(J 1 ,.`..
;S I
~
rty~
`444~ ~ y, f
~y
+
+
~
~
~ ~
~~l ~ S'CI ~: '~.~`v`..~ 1 ~ I \ ~~ , I
( ~ _ ... ~ Sr,' y r.
+.L -N..~~L! +
4~
.~
,~
't 1 i ~ I a~-, 'y ~ r~~ ` I
r • I 1 rr _ J.. Julf ~r^; ~ .a~~~ ~~J ~ • I~
~
~
~
t
rM
' Mi ~
.a- (~ ff r': I y~l " 's" ~'i. ~ 1 . ~
..t \ LI . t ~, r
,w '' ~' ,+' ~ y'; h is ~ ~~~'~'- a~~ ~ ~{' '~i,'~ 1° -
~
'" ~ ~~' ~
,
,
t l'~ ; t' ' 1,,~. x, ~, r . ~ ~ t ~.nl `~ ,,_`} ~~? ¢~a ~ i ~::I ~ G: ~ 1 ~, ' ,.. r 1 ~t
T
"'
t
~
},.~~..~' c ~y
':~ ~' ~ a
r1t0:ti ....f ~u'"~,.34r S, ~"/y.s` iiC~=' tr}'~ ~ "
i c= rv~ ~ l ~ _"`i
' `3 .' `~ is
~
t
~
~l^
~
~ ~r«n^F-
'./
~ ~ -
` C '~ ~~~'a.~~ ~C't"'^~ ~ ~ P`:
"L 4i, t1 ~S ~
I ~__. ~~
v
.
"~
, U~j
u
t
/'
..rT
''
~
ti
-
~
1
r
.
~
J
~
~
~
~ ? ~ ~
J
~
,~,n. eltt
~
t
y-
' E
L /
..
'rr"
a
'~
~+ +
~I
;
F~'~
~
/
,,
~ ~
`
,~»~~
tea.
i
~~r
e
it l
..,..mow"
~
.
=
~
,t
....
~.
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2352201 (8-2963)
~/(~ ~ ~
~ BRIDGE NO.111 OVER
~1.
1 NEW HOPE CREEg
ON SR 1107
SHEET 2 OF 9 DATE: ~1,I' 25 / 02

. i
~1~7C'II~,~~~ IL,1~~1~1~II~
--WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
PROPOSED BRIDGE
WETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
~~~~T (POND)
LCL1_L1_I__LJD FI~LEIN WE AND Y
®DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
• • •• • • • CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
T-~- TOP OF BANK
~- WE- - EDGE OF WATER
- -~ - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F -PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
--~-- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- -P~- - PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP.ORAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EX[ST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB - EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - ~- - - - WATER SURFACE
xx xxx x x LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
- - - CORE FIBER ROLLS
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
d
.,,~~
-~. , ..
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
GRASS SWALE
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGH~VA1"S
DURHAM COUNTI"
PROJECT:8.2352~01 (B-Q9b3)
BRIDGE NO.111 OVER
NE~V HOPE CREED
ON SR 1107
SHE[sT 3 OF 9 D.-ATE: -0! ;>S/r'~02

z ar
0
H °

~, C/J
~y M
~
O
0 3 z `° ~w H

~
z
~
~
~ ox
~~°
Q
~ .~
w
x
O a
p U C7 ~ O O
E"'
a c~n
~ ~
o ti ~ W

z ~

MATCH
SHEET 5
A
c
~ m F
w
~ x
I z ~,
R I ~
I
~
I
~
1 I_
1-
I firr-
I g S
J
I rr
~~K3
I ~~
. I ~~
I
y' I ~
,~
I a
~ ~{
~ I I ~~
N 1_J
i~
I I I
wV{ V
I ~ I
(
I ~
1
10 I
- - wee
_ __
~ ~
I ~
~ I
+
I -J~ +
~ ~
I * ~ I 1
w
v I
I W BlM - - -
I V
~ ~
~ ~ °'' a,,,~
,. ~
~ ~~ -
'

~
-

~
~

~~

o $
`
f/ 1
~~
~

O o~,
0
®

~

M a
o
o
a H ~

O f3 ~
Z v w
~ w w
(-i

z
~
co O f~
~~°
A
~ x v ~ ~w

x H w w
MATCH SHEET 6 ~ ~ o o ~ z
A o a ~ w
~ ~ i I
I II_ z ~

- w
w 1 a
N ~ ~ I
~ >c I
~~ m
U
~
B
a ,~,p,~,~' ,~
~~
y1
7
\~ N~
~ ~O

1~~( W_
N
>N ~ ~
\ ~+1~
~ W
(~ g .
~ / ~ '~.~ u

W d ~

`
I--- ~ I / 1`--9
~
~ I
-N l
-~ I ~ b ~
.„ la
la b
~ ~
~ ~
5 ~ ~5
_
~ ~ ~ ~ ( ~
~
I
~I ~ gg
Y
e

~~ ~
I
~ ~ ~ I ~_ ~ ~
l-
~ -
I >"C
~

~:J
I© I 7~J
a

~ ~ ;
~ I ~ ~
W
~ ~
~
~~ I_ ~
o
I: I
~~ I W _
~
~~

~ MATCH SHEET 4

~
~~ /

r "/

~~
z ~
~

r °
~
~
~ o
o
~ r r ~ ~ a~ ~ W~
a
~'~ ~ ~
a r o x z °~ ~w F
~ ' ~
•
, ~ ~' ~
J I
'l. rr ry O ~ ~ ^
~
,I
i
S
u
~ / ~ U
~ 3N~ ).7'MbJ
~% / l w ~7r M Q O (a/I
'''°~~~~,~,
a
~+r ~ 1 I '1 _
I~
®
p
~
U
C7~o
O
~ ~ ~'~ a ~ A ti ° W
x z ~o
~ _ ~ ~ _.~
~ -~ c ,
A a ~ w
~.

~ g _

~ U W
x

~ ~~ ~ g
+ z
~ ~
~ ~ ~
r I
II
~I I
I -~
.I
ji I
I
~ gl ~
~I
~I I g ~
~9 ~ I ~
~ I

~
~ ~~
~~ ~
~~
-~
~~~~ I ~
~

u '~f
I p
~ N
~
u~^
-N - ~ W
I
'H 'N
I

I W
~
~ I
-N _ h
~ I I i~ I ~
I I~
8 I
-N
g ~~~
~
O ~ Y
bvv
G
Q ~ -N I I 'N
Q ~
~ p
I ~, E ~
O ~ ~ W ~~ I I Yf
~~ - w
~ ~' \ 5I ilk \~. ~
g m gl ~I I I~". \ '
\

~ w
w
N
MATCH SHEET 5

• ~
• 1 ~
O
I
d' ~ I N O
N~ N I N N
~ I~
~ ~
I
00 v N
I~

~ ~ O
N ~ ~
I N
Q ~~ N N
I
p ~~ ~~
Q W ..I I J
~ cn w I w a

p ~ ~ I~ ~
Q ~I ~
ow w
~ w ~
w -
dp

a
wc'
oI
°
N v~
a z
~
J
to o
~ I
I /
/ U o
~
I /
p ~
I
I
~ J
~ Q
O ~
U ~

o
~ ~, ~ F-
a
z
w I ~i

~ 'I'
w ~ ~
~ , ~ ~ I ~
J
~ N
m ~
' I
p N ~-
~, I'
N
z
o
~,
~
F ~
~ ~
~' i
a; H W W W

~ x ~ ~ ~ ~'
~n W
z

p
z ~
x ~
t~ x
w z ~,
w
° ~ W Aa° °
~
a ~ a •~ ~w ~
o ? ~ ~z H
Ca a W
U

z
~ + oww I '
~ X.
N~~w I,I ; I
o a u o .~ I I-I
N ~
I
I I; I`r'-~~ao~ ~
I I; I~, o ~ ~
I ~ ~~ N _ ~o
I I :\ ~--
w o
n '- - - o= r
N ~
I~ ~ ~~NJ p O
I I. I ~ ~ >- .. a >- J> o
T----QQ F-- ~ ___I
I I I ~~Jw ~U L~ ~ ~
O w ._~ ~~~\ \," d In w p ~~~ N~ W
p C ~ ~ ~. , ._ ~.} ~
~ p ~ ~<V" ~~~~~~~ W Q O w V w N ~' ~ w Q
F--
o Z I ~d ~ w ~\~, z
o ,\ o
a ~ I a
~ X i II ~ \~\ a
~_ - '\ •~ >
~ w 1 G I ~ ~`~ '~ a
III _ ~ x
I
O O ~ N O
N ~ ~~ NI
-- N I ---" ~ --- -1-

~ i
s

~~ O
N
N
.-, N
W II
Q ~
U
~ W
W
~ o
F-
~

~
~---~
o a

~
~
~ z
--- ~
o
~ ~

W
W
~_
a~
00
_~
N
II ~
I
W
w!
~ ~
z
O
J
L~
i
i
,~ o
cv ~ 5°~
0
~i ~
O
O~ ~~
~~~ ~ O
O~~ ~ ~G
O~~
~~ ~~O
~~~ ~ OG~
>~O ~ ~O
O~ ~ ~~
~~0~~~~
O OO~
~~ O ~O ~
~~O~~~C
~~ QOC
~O~ C~
OC
os
~°
m
Q

>-- ~
Q Q
~~
~ ~_
Q ~
U -
~ ~
U ~
O Q
~ ~~
~,
O

H W
a ~ ~ w
Cx7 ~ O ~ o a;
r.,
~ "' W
O ~ ~ p O `"
z

z ~
x ~
H x
w z ~,
w
p W A~ p p
~
A p Z" z ~
j s
~ w
A a
w
x

zQ
Q~ ~cncn
owQ
~~ ~~w
o~
~t~ ~
o= zzz
~~ o00
~F-f-
Q~
~Q ~,~o
F--- U
~ N LCD I~
~-f~~
W
0
N

~ f
r ~
m E c
co rn .~
p y N ~
N b N " O
Z N °
~ c
~ m m ~ O
a
w U E
~ O
d fn U
E
`~
0 I
A
0
c
y _ 0 0
H
~
v
C U
C

O
O l0
_ a --
.
..
~ ~
c ~ ~
is ~. o
~ LL Z
Q
_' ~
v ui ~ ~
c
~ ~C 'C O U F- O ~ O
J Y -
F Z ~ O g V

NL y$'~
O
=
~
N
Q
~
J
~
~
wHw
Q o
Q~ (~ ~ Z ~ U O !n J S
S ~ Q s
S
a
~ ov
_ c
m
F_ ~
wm
v O
w u'S~
a -
~ _~
z
LL ~
a y ~
W
~v
E o
i
a
3 ~~
c ~°
p~ ~
0 pn
O N
O n
r n
N
lL ~ `~ O O O O O

N W
T
~

2 a~ m
N~ ~
N
O~ 0 ~ 0 ~ N O J O ~
Y E ~ ~ ~ ~ °+' S ~ ~° ~
~ N N N N M N
~

N
J
.~. O
(~ Z N M ~ O H
~
H

~ ,
Durham County
Bridge No. 111 on SR 1107
Over New Hope Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-1107 (4)
State Project 8.2352201
TIP No. B-2963
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGIi;AMMATIC SECTION 4(I) EVALUATION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMII~TISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
.~
Date regory J. Thorpe, PhD
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
~~~~ 03
Date John F. Sullivan, II
'~NDivislOn Administrator, FHWA

Durham County
Bridge No.111 on SR 1107
Over New Hope Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-1107 (4)
State Project 8.2352201
TIP No. B-2963
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(~ EVALUATION
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
5-i5-a3 ~~ ` ~«~~
Date Robin Y. Hancock
Project Planning Engineer, PDEA
~, 7 , ~ ~ i
Date William T. Goodwin Jr., PE
Unit Head, PDEA

,,
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Durham County
Bridge No.111 on SR 1107
Over New Hope Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-1107 (4)
State Project 8.2352201
TIP No. B-2963
Roadside Environnrentol Unit, Division S Construction, Structure Design Unit
Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will be
implemented. The existing bridge is composed entirely of timber. Therefore, no components of
the structure will be dropped into Waters of the United States during construction.
Hydrouiics Unlt
During final hydraulic design, efforts will be made to design the deck drainage so that there arb
no weepholes over the stream, and if possible, no weepholes on the bridge at all.
Division S Construction
The bridge replacement will impact land on both sides of the roadway for the length of the
project. This land is part of a waterfowl impoundment managed by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission (NCWRC). The following commitments are .made to protect the
Section 4(fj C~amelands and waterfowl impoundment:
'-'` 1. The hunter access to the waterfowl impoundment located on the west side of the existing
bridge must remain open from September 1 to January 31.
2. NCWRC personnel must have access to the impoundment at all times.
3. The parking lot at the impoundment will not be available for use as a construction staging
area by the contractor.
.04. Disturbance of the area during the waterfowl season (September 1-January3l) must be kept
to a minimum.
5. NCWRC has requested that mitigation take one of two forms; either purchase an
appropriate amount of land adjacent to the property, or add 6 inches of gravel to the parking
lot at the impoundment and stabilize all newly graded slopes with weeping lovegrass.
6. David Cox of the NCWRC (919/528-9886) will be invited by the NCDOT Resident
Engineer to attend the preconstrvctionmceting for this project.
7. If the gate to the NCWRC access road east of the bridge is to be moved, NCDOT w(11
contact NCWRC to coordinate the relocation.
8. If the grade of SR 1107 (Stagecoach Road) is raised at the entrances to the NCWRC's
access roads, the slopes on the access roads will be reworked to allow for vehicular access.
9. The entrances to both access roads will be regraveled following construction.
Green Sheet
Categorical Facclusion
Apri12003
Page 1 of 2

.,
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Durham County
Bridge No. 111 on SR 1107
Over New Hope Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-1107 (4)
State Project 8.2352201
TIP No. B-2963
Division S Construction
In order to allow Emergency Management Services (EMS) time to prepare for ad closure, the
NCDOT Rlesident Engineer will notify Jeff Batten with Durham County E Sat (919) 560-
4517 of tho bridge removal 30 days prior to road closure. i
Division S Construction
The US Gdological Survey (USGS) Gaging Station attached to the south sid~ of the existing
bridge is currently in use. In order to allow USGS time to remove all gaging equipment from
the bridge,'the NCDOT Resident Engineer will notify Doug Smith with US Sat (919) 5'71-
4000 of the bridge remova130 days prior to construction ~
Division S Construction
A gravel parking lot will be constructed on the north side of SR 1107 appro ' ly 900 feet
(275 meters) east of the bridge. No parking signs will be posted along the shc- ders of the road
in the vicinity ,of the bridge. The parking lot will remain property of USACE erations. The
parking lot'will be maintained and managed by WRC and USACE Operations ranch.
Green Sheet
Categorical Facclusion
Apri12003
2 of 2

a

Durham County
Bridge No. 111 on SR 1107
Over New Hope Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-1107 (4)
State Project 8.2352201
TIP No. B-2963
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 111 is included in the 2002-2008 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and in the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts
are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 111 has a sufficiency rating of 27.7 out of
a possible 100 for a new structure. This bridge is considered to be both functionally obsolete and
structurally deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer traffic
operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the southwest corner of Durham County, approximately 1 mile south of
the intersection of I-40 and NC 751 (see Figure 1). Development in the area is primarily forested
and recreational in nature.
SR 1107 is classified as a Collector Route in the Statewide Functional Classification System and
it is not a National Highway System Route. This route is a proposed bicycle route for the
Triangle Region Bike Map, TIP E-2913.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1107 has a 19-foot (5.7-meter) pavement width with 4-foot (1.2-
meter) grass shoulders (see Figure 3A and 3B). The roadway approaches are lower than the
bridge throughout the project. The existing bridge is on a tangent.
The existing Bridge No. 111 is an 8-span structure constructed in 1951. The superstructure has a
timber deck on timber joists with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists entirely
of timber. The bridge is 137 feet (42 meters) long with a clear roadway width of 17.4 feet (5.3
meters). There is approximately 17 feet (5.2 meters) between the deck surface and streambed.
There is one lane of traffic on the bridge. Presently the bridge is posted with weight restrictions
of 18 tons for single vehicles and 27 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
MCI has an underground fiber optic cable running along the south side of SR 1107. Utility
impacts are considered to be low. There is a USGS Gaging Station attached to the south side of

y
the bridge. There is a concrete dam north of the existing bridge that creates a storage area
between the existing bridge and the dam. There is a sewer line running along the north side of
SR 1107.
The current traffic volume of 4400 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 13,000
VPD by the year 2025. The projected volume includes 1 %truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and
3% dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge is 45 mph (70 kmh).
There were three accidents reported in the vicinity of the project during a recent three year
period. Two were rear ends, resulting from slowing or stopping. The other was a vehicle struck
a tree.
According to the Transportation Director for Durham County Schools, there are ten school bus
crossings per day over Bridge No. 111.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure for Bridge No. 111 will consist of a 255-foot (78-meter) long bridge
and will be 32 feet (9.6 meters) wide to provide for two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with 4-foot
(1.2-meter) offsets on each side to accommodate bicyclists. Traffic will be detoured offsite along
surrounding roads during construction. Total project length will be approximately 2800 feet
(850 meters). Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 60 mph
(100 kmh). A design exception will probably be required for the horizontal alignment due to
tight radii at the beginning and ending of the project.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade.
The approach roadway grade will be slightly above the existing to alleviate flooding.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 24-foot (7.2-meter) pavement width to provide two
12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes. Shoulder widths will be 4 feet (1.2 meters) paved on each side. The
shoulder widths will be increased 3 feet (1 meter) where guardrail is warranted. There will be
approximately 1300 feet (396 meters) of approach work on each side of the bridge.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
The one alternative that was studied for replacing Bridge No. 111 is described below.
Alternate 1D: (Recommended) Bridge No. 111 will be replaced with approximately a 255-foot
(78-meter) long bridge at the same location and roadway elevation as the existing
structure. Traffic will be detoured offsite, along surrounding roads during
consh action.
2

C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
The "do-nothing" alternative is not practical and will eventually necessitate closure of the road.
This is not acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1109.
"Rehabilitation" of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical. This is
due to the fact that the major structural component of this bridge is timber, thus replacement is
more prudent than rehabilitation.
D. Project Background
A Programmatic Categorical Exclusion for the subject project was approved March 27, 1997.
The document recommended Alternate 1, replacement of the existing bridge with a new bridge at
approximately the same location and roadway elevation (232 feet). The proposed bridge would
be approximately 157 feet (48 meters) in length and 32 feet (9.6 meters) in width. Standard
accommodations for bicycle traffic would be included in the design. Traffic was to be detoured
offsite along surrounding roads during construction. Total project length was approximately 720
feet (220 meters).
A Right of Way Consultation, recommending a revised Alternate (Alternate lA), for the subject
project was approved April 13, 1998. During review of this project, it was determined the
elevation of the roadway should be raised approximately 6 feet (1.8 meters), to an elevation of
238 feet, in order to alleviate flooding problems. This would result in expansion of the project
limits. The total project length would become approximately 2600 feet (790 meters) and the
width of the project would be extended to affect approximately 12 feet (3.6 meters) of the
waterfowl impoundment on each side of the road. This would result in an increase to the amount
of wetlands impacted.
After further study and review by the US Army Corps of Engineers, the NC Wildlife Resource
Commission, and NC Department of Transportation, it was determined another alternate needed
to be evaluated.
Alternate lA did not satisfy concerns of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Operations
branch. Those concerns included impacts to wetlands, wildlife, and flood storage. Therefore, a
new alternate, Alternate 1 B, was developed. This alternate was an attempt to stay above the
elevation of 232 feet as well as minimize the amount of embankment impacted.
Alternate 1 B was designed hydraulically to convey the 25-year frequency peak discharge, taking
flood storage into consideration. The new bridge length would be approximately 255 feet (78
meters) which should allow for more flood storage as well as wildlife passage under the bridge.
Due to flooding on the east side of SR 1107, the elevation of the roadway approaches needed to
be raised in order to increase the level of service of the road. The side slopes were pulled in
resulting in a ratio of 3:1. Design standards require guardrail for this ratio.
3

Alternate 1 B was discussed in detail at a meeting held on February 27, 2001. That meeting
determined the project should go to construction outside of the hurricane and hunting season.
Also, NCDOT must mitigate for any and all impacts; including flood storage, recreation, habitat
lost, wetlands, and wildlife passage. In addition, a revised design needed to be evaluated such
that the footprint of the project would be reduced and the length of guazdrail decreased. This led
to the development of Alternate 1 C.
Alternate 1 C proposed the new bridge remain at a length of approximately 255 feet (78 meters)
and a width of 32 feet (7.6 meters). The elevation of the new bridge would be at 232.08 feet.
Design specifics included the structure to be cored slab and consist of 5 spans at 51 feet (15.5
meters) each. Bridge deck drains would be spaced such that they are not directly over the
channel. Roadway elevation on approaches would be raised in some azeas to prevent
overtopping. The driveway pipe located in the southwest quadrant would be shortened to
driveway length.
The USACE Operations accepted Alternate 1C and discussions of mitigation began. During the
finalization of Alternate 1 C, design was slightly revised, referred to as Alternate 1 D. Alternate
1 D would be exactly the same as Alternate 1 C with the exception of side slopes and right-of-
way. The requirements for guardrail include side slopes of a 2:1 ratio in fill AND over 6 feet of
difference between fill and natural grade. The cross-sections of this project aze less than 5 feet in
fill, therefore the 2:1 side slopes may exist without extended guardrail. Therefore the amount of
right-of--way was reduced from a width of 150 feet (46 meters) to 90 feet (28 meters).
Mitigation discussions consisted of flood storage, wetland, recreation, and wildlife. There are a
number of old roadways on the Jordan Lake property that enter the flood pool. Coordination
between NCDOT, USACE, and Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) detemuned these
roadways could be used to remove fill in order to restore flood storage as well as wetlands. In
order to provide safety for those pazking on the shoulder of the road, and to provide mitigation
for loss of recreational access, NCDOT will construct a gravel parking lot located on the north
side of SR 1107 approximately 900 feet (275 meters) east of the bridge. "No parking" signs will
be posted along the shoulders of the road in the vicinity of the bridge. The parking lot will
remain property of USACE Operations. The pazking lot will be maintained and managed by
WRC and USACE Operations Branch. Wildlife habitat and passage has been provided by
lengthening the bridge, resulting in azea of passage for wildlife under the bridge.
E. Recommended Alternate
As recommended in Alternate 1 D, Bridge No. 111 will be replaced with a new bridge at
approximately the same location and elevation as the existing bridge. The new bridge will be
approximately 255 feet (78 meters) in length and 32 feet (9.6 meters) in width. A travelway of
24 feet (7.2 meters) will be accommodated, with an offset of 4 feet (1.2 meters) on each side to
accommodate bicyclists. Traffic will be detoured offsite along surrounding roads during
construction. Total project length will be approximately 2800 feet (850 meters). Based on
preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 60 mph (100 kmh). A design
4

exception will probably be required for the horizontal alignment due to tight radii at the
beginning and ending of the project.
The approach roadway will consist of two 12-foot (3.6-meter) travel lanes with 4-foot (1.2-
meter) paved shoulders to accommodate bicycles. The shoulder widths will be 3 feet (1 meter)
wider where guardrail is warranted. There will be approximately 1300 feet (396 meters) of
approach work on each side of the bridge.
The construction of the recommended alternate does not have the potential to cause substantial
impacts to the local environment. This is the most cost-effective option and the alternate with
the least amount of impacts to natural resources in the vicinity of the project. This Alternate
combines both the department and resource agencies needs to satisfy the public in a safe manner.
The NCDOT Division 5 Construction Engineer concurs with the selection of Alternate 1 D.
Currently, this project is scheduled for construction in January 2004.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS (Table 1)
The estimated costs for the alternative is as follows:
COMPONENT ALTERNATE 1
(offsite)
Struc~'e
Bridge Removal
Roadway & Approaches
Detour & Approaches S 530,000
$ 20,000
S 920,000
~ 0
Mobilization & Miscellaneous a 175,000
Engineering & Contingencies S 55,000
Total Construction S 1,700,000
Right of Way S 35,000
Total Cost S 1,735,000
5

V. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Regional Characteristics
The project study area lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The topography in this
section of Durham County is characterized by gently rolling hills that are dissected by fairly wide
flood plains. Topography in the project area is relatively flat since it is located in a wide flood
plain area associated with New Hope Creek. Project elevation is approximately 240 feet (73
meters) above mean sea level (msl). Tributaries of Jordan Lake drain the portion of the county
surrounding the project area. The city of Durham lies immediately to the north of the project
azea. The study area within the proposed right of way is forested.
Soils
One soil phase occurs within project boundaries: Altavista silt loam, 2-6 percent slopes.
• Altavista silt loam is a moderately well drained soil that occurs on broad stream terraces.
Permeability is moderate, runoff is medium, and the seasonal high water table is located at
2.5 feet (0.8 meters) below the surface. Flooding occurs infrequently for brief periods,
usually in late winter and eazly spring. Altavista silt loam is listed as non-hydric. Altavista
silt loam is low in natural fertility, however, it is well suited to locally grown crops.
Woodland productivity is rated as high. Wetness, periodic flooding, and erosion are major
limitations for this soil.
Soil core samples taken throughout the project area revealed soils with a silty texture. The soils
did exhibit hydric conditions, such as low chroma colors, in low areas of the flood plain.
Therefore, hydric soil indicators, as defined in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual", 1987, were observed within the project study azea.
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted by the
project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its
relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality of the resources.
Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as aze means to minunize impacts.
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
New Hope Creek will be the only surface water resource directly impacted by the proposed
project. New Hope Creek is located in sub-basin 03-06-05, Hydrologic Unit 03030002 of the
Cape Fear River Basin, the largest river basin in the state of North Cazolina. Currently there are
no buffer rules in effect for the Cape Fear River Basin. New hope Creek is a tributary to Jordan

Lake, and has its confluence with the lake approximately 2 miles (3.2 km) of stream channel
distance downstream of Bridge No. 111. Jordan Lake is a 14,300 acre (5800 ha) impoundment
of the Haw River and its tributaries, and was created for flood control, fish and wildlife habitat,
recreation, and water supply. It is currently used as a water supply for the towns of Cary and
Apex [Division of Water Quality (DWQ), formerly the Division of Environmental Management,
1995].
New Hope Creek, at Bridge No. 111, is approximately 45 feet (14 meters) wide and has an
average depth of 6 feet (1.8 meters) at this location. The substrate is composed of silt, sand and
gravel. The waters of New Hope Creek were very turbid at the time of the survey, yielding a
visibility of less than 1.5 feet (0.5 meters).
A flood control structure is located approximately 300 feet (91 meters) north (upstream) of
Bridge No. 111. Between the flood control structure and the bridge, a large pool has formed, and
it is approximately 200 feet (61 meters) wide and 750 feet (229 meteres) long, resulting in a
surface area of 3.4 acres (1.4 ha). The creek once again becomes channelized approximately 100
feet (30 meters) north of Bridge No. 111.
Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Streams
The DWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, hereafter referred to as the NC 2000 Section 303(d) list. The
list is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is
one that does not meet water quality standards including designated uses, numeric and narrative
criteria, and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. The standards violation may
be due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, pollution, or an unknown cause of
impairment. The source of impairment could be from point sources, nonpoint sources, and
atmospheric deposition. Some sources of impairment exist across state lines. North Carolina's
methodology is strongly based on the aquatic life use support guidelines available in the Section
305(b) guidelines (EPA-841-B-97-002A and -002B). Those streams attaining only Partially
Supporting (PS) or Not Supporting (NS) status are listed on the NC 2000 Section 303(d) list.
Streams are further categorized into one of six parts within the NC 2000 Section 303(d) list,
according to source of impairment and degree of rehabilitation required for the stream to
adequately support aquatic life. Within Parts 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the list, N.C. has developed a
priority ranking scheme (low, medium, high) that reflects the relative value and benefits those
waterbodies provide to the State.
New Hope Creek, from a point 0.3 miles (0.5 km) upstream of Durham County SR 2220 to a
point 0.8 miles (1.3 km) downstream of Durham County SR 1107 is listed as biologically
impaired water in Part 5 of the NC 2000 Section 303(d) list. Part 5 contains biologically impaired
waterbodies with no identified cause of impairment. However intensive fecal coliform
monitoring is in progress and monitoring was to be completed in summer 2000. However, the
DWQ has not released their findings. Roughly half of the waters on the list appear on Part 5.
Identification of the cause(s) of impairment will precede movement of these waters to Part 1

(impaired by a pollutant as defined by EPA) and Part 2 (impaired by pollution as defined by
EPA). EPA recognized that in specific situations the data is not available to establish a total
maximum daily load (TMDL) and that these specific waters might be better placed on a separate
part of the NC 2000 Section 303(d) list (64 FR, 46025, August 23, 1999). Data collection and
analysis will be performed in an attempt to determine a cause of impairment. According to
DWQ, the listing is historical for "sediment" based on biological impairment. Potential Sources
are urban runoff and storm sewers. The priority for value and benefits of this stretch of New
Hope Creek is high.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the DWQ. The classification of New
Hope Creek [Index No. 16-41-1-(11.5)] is WS-IV NSW. The WS-IV classification denotes
waters protected as water supplies which aze generally in moderately to highly developed
watersheds: point source dischazgers of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to rules .0104
and .0211 of 15A NCAC 2B .0100; local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater
dischazge of pollution are required; suitable for all Class C uses. Class C uses include aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The
supplemental classification of NSW denotes Nutrient Sensitive Waters which require limitations
on nutrient inputs.
The project area is located in a water supply watershed. Within the project vicinity,
approximately 0.5 miles (0.8 km) downstream of the project area; the Jordan Lake watershed is
listed as a water supply critical azea. A critical azea is the azea adjacent to a water supply intake
or reservoir where risk associated with pollution is greater than from the remaining portions of
the watershed. The critical area is defined as extending either 0.5 miles (0.8 km) from the
normal pool elevation of the reservoir in which the intake is located or to the ridge line of the
watershed (whichever comes first); or 0.5 miles (0.8 km) upstream from and draining to the
intake.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1.0 mi) of project study area.
Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAI~ is managed by DWQ and is part of
an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water
quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate
organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Some macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle
changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these organisms are
reflections of water quality. A BMAN station on New Hope Creek is located at Bridge No. 111
on SR 1107. This station was sampled once in October 1985 and received a rating of Poor.
s

The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water quality
monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of physical. and chemical water quality
data. The type of water quality data or parameters, that are collected is determined by the
waterbody's freshwater or saltwater classification and corresponding water quality standards
(DWQ, 1995). Class C waters are sampled at a minimum frequency of once per month. Bridge
No. 111 over New Hope Creek is designated as a location for an AMS station. A water
leveVquality monitoring structure is attached to the bridge. The structure consists of a stainless
steel box (located approximately 4 feet [ 1.2 meters] above the deck) connected to a section of
corrugated galvanized pipe which extends to the creek bottom. The DWQ reports that high
conductivity readings and elevated concentrations of nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen have been noted at
this location (DWQ, 1995).
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger is required to
register for a permit. One major discharger is located on New Hope Creek, the Durham
(Farringtion Road) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The WWTP outfall is located
approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) upstream of Bridge No. 111. The WWTP is permitted to
discharge 10 million gallons per day into New Hope Creek. The DWQ (1995) reports that the
WWTP contributes an instream waste concentration of 99.5 percent to New Hope Creek under
7Q 10 low flow conditions (minimum average flow for a period of seven consecutive days that
has an average recurrence of once in ten years).
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated with
project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on
streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in
revegetation, and pavementlculvert installation. The following impacts to surface water
resources are likely to result from the above mentioned construction activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion in the
project area.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles.

In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during
construction of the project.
Impacts to Jordan Lake Resources
The project area falls within the flood storage area of Jordan Lake. Current plans fc~r the
replacement bridge include widening the bridge from one lane to two lanes as well as widening
the approaches. Therefore a decrease in the flood storage area of Jordan Lake is anticipated.
Local residents utilize the area around the bridge for recreational purposes including use of the
waterfowl impoundment for fishing and seasonal hunting. At times, residents park along the
road shoulders adjacent to the bridge, to access this site. Proposed construction involves the
installation of a guardrail that would impede parking near the bridge.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources located in the project area include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This
section describes the communities encountered and the relationships between fauna and flora
found within these communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities
throughout the project area are reflective of the topography, hydrologic influences, and the
project area's past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in
the context of plant community classifications and follow those presented by Schafale and
Weakly (1990) where possible. The dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in
each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and the common names (when applicable) are provided for each
described animal and plant species. The plant taxonomy generally follows Radford et al (1968).
Animal taxonomy follows Lee et al (1982), Martof et al (1980), Potter et al (1980), and Webster
et al (1985). All subsequent references to the same organism will include the common name
only. Fauna that was observed during the site visit are denoted with an asterisk (*). Scat
eviden.: ~~r tracks equate to observation of the species. Published range distributions and habitat
analysis are used in estimating fauna expected to be present within the project area.
Terrestrial communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area: Piedmont/low
mountain alluvial forest and maintained/disturbed.
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
The alluvial forest is present along the New Hope Creek corridor and it is very extensive south of
SR 1107. The transition from alluvial forest to maintained/disturbed community is abrupt due to
10

road shoulder maintenance activities. The hydrology of the alluvial forest is driven by
intermittent flooding during high flow periods. Periodic flooding provides nutrient input through
sediment deposition making this system very productive. However, periodic flooding can also
be a destructive factor during large storm events by undercutting banks and eroding soils.
The canopy is composed of river birch (Betula nigra), American elm (Ulmus americans), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sycamore (Plata»us occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), willow oak
(Q. phellos), boxelder (Ater negundo), and red maple (Ater rubrum). The shrub layer consists
saplings of the canopy trees, flowering dogwood (Corpus Florida), spicebush (Cinders benzoin),
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and ironwoood (Carpinus caroliniana). Herbs within the
alluvial forest include: Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), Jack-in-the-pulpit (Asimina triloba), and lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus).
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia) comprise the vine layer of this community.
Maintained/Disturbed Community
The maintained/disturbed communities are restricted to road shoulders along SR 1107 and aze
present along the entire length of the project. Flora within this periodically maintained
community includes: fescue (Festuca spp.), panic grass (Panicum spp.), buckhorn plantain
(Plantago lanceolata), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia), curly dock
(Rumex crispus),. poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), yellow woodsorrel (Oxalis stricta), and
buttercup (Ranunculus bulbosus). The width of the mad shoulder varies between 15 and 20 feet
(4.6-6.1 meters).
The maintained habitat within the project azea is surrounded by extensive forested areas and
represents only a minor constituent of a lazger community structure within the project vicinity.
Therefore, faunal species frequenting the maintained community will be largely those species
inhabiting the alluvial forest.

Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate or exploit the entire range of biotic
communities discussed. Generally, the community boundaries are abrupt with little transitional
area between them. The forested tracts and drainageways provide habitat for species requiring a
forest community, and provide shelter and movement corridors for other wildlife species within
the project vicinity.
Mammals that commonly exploit habitats found within the project area consist of the white-
tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginianus), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), gray squirrel* (Sciurus
carolinensis), and raccoon* (Procyon lotor).
11

Forests and forest edge habitats located in the project area also provide opportunities for foraging
and shelter for avian species such as the belted kingfisher* (Megaceryle alcyon), prothonotary
warbler* (Protonotaria citrea), northern parula* (Parula americana), tufted titmouse* (Parus
bicolor), red-eyed vireo* (Vireo olivaceus), and blue-gray gnatcatcher* (Polioptila caerulea).
The barred owl (Stria varia) is a permanent resident in this community type.
A variety of reptiles and amphibians may also be expected to utilize the terrestrial communities
within the pmject area. These animals include the two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata),
copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), black rat snake (Elaphe constrictor), eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina), ground skink (Scincella lateralis),
and eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus).
Portions of the alluvial forest south of SR 1107 are designated as a NC Wildlife Gamelands Wild
Turkey Restoration Area. Turkey restoration areas are provided through cooperative efforts of
public and private landowners and the Wildlife Resources Commission. Turkeys are stocked in
these areas in an effort to re-establish the species. The area is closed to all turkey hunting until it
has been determined that the population is self-sustaining. The proposed project will have no
affect on the Wild Turkey Restoration Area.
Aquatic Community
This community is contained within New Hope Creek. No submersed or emergent aquatic
vegetation was observed within this section of New Hope Creek. Fauna associated with the
aquatic community includes various invertebrate and vertebrate species. Prey fish including
shiners (Notropis spp.) and chubs (Semotilus spp.), provide foraging opportunities for
pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus) and bluegill (L. macrochirus). Yellow bullhead catfish
(Ameiurus natalis) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) provide a sport fishery in this
reach of New Hope Creek. Invertebrates that would be present include: crayfish (family
Cambaridae) and nymphal stages of; dragonflies and damselflies (Order Odonata). The bullfrog
(Rana catesbeiana), pickerel frog (R. palustris), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), and
northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) are common permanent residents in this community.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction related activities in or near the previously described resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural
resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems effected. Temporary and permanent impacts
are also considered.
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and sheltering habitat
for various wildlife species. Replacing Bridge No. 111 and its associated improvements will
reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the size
and scope of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal.
12

Areas modified by construction (non-paved) will become road shoulders and early successional
habitat. Increased traffic noise and reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the
roadway while attracting other wildlife by creating more early successional habitat. Animals
temporarily displaced by construction activities may repopulate areas suitable for the species.
This temporary displacement of animals will result in an increase of competition for the
remaining resources.
The calculated impacts to biotic resources reflect the relative abundance of each community
present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of
portions of these commutities. Table 2 summarizes potential losses to these biotic communities
resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the proposed 80-foot
(24-meter) right-of--way on the proposed alignment. Since the entire right-of--way will probably
not be impacted, actual impacts may be considerably less than indicated.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community Impacts
Alluvial Forest 0.87 (0.35)
Maintained 0.50 (0.2)
Total 1.37 (0.55)
Note: Values cited are in acres (hectares).
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two important
issues--Waters of the United States and Rare and Protected species.
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States"
(Waters of the' U.S.), as defined in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3.
Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (LJSACE) under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters which
have commercial or recreational value to the public.
Waters of the U.S. have been verified'by Eric Alsmeyer, with the USACE Raleigh office. One
perennial stream, New Hope Creek, is located within the project study area.
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual". The three parameter approach is used where hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an area
13

to be considered a wetland.
Wetlands are present within the project area, and are associated with the alluvial forest. The
wetlands can be described as palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous seasonally flooded
(PFO1C, Cowardin, et aJ, or piedmontllow mountain alluvial forest (Schafale and Weakley,
1990). Soils within the wetland areas have a silty texture and a Munsell color notation of l OYR
5/1. Hydrological indicators include saturated soil, the presence of oxidized rhizospheres, and
drift lines. Vegetation within the wetlands include overcup oak, green ash, red maple, boxelder,
tulip poplar, lizard's tail, and Jack-in-the-pulpit.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Anticipated impacts to wetland areas were determined by using the design plans. Impacts to
wetlands have been determined to be approximately 0.27 acre (0.11 ha). Wetland impacts
consist entirely of fill. Temporary surface impacts to New Hope Creek are approximately 0.06
acre (0.02 ha).
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts
to Waters of the United States from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or fmanced in whole, or part, by another
Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined that pursuant to
the council on environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act;
(1) that 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;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency' or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
If minor wetland impacts occur to New Hope Creek or to the adjacent wetlands, a Section 404
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and Section 401 certification will be
required from the state prior to construction. It is anticipated that a Nationwide Permit (NWP)
No. 23 [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] will be required. Nationwide Permit No. 23 is for projects
expected to have minimal impact. In the event that NWP No. 23 does not apply, minor impacts
attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are expected to qualify under a
Regional General Bridge Permit designated for NCDOT bridges (Permit No. 031) issued by the
14

Wilmington USACE District (USUSACE-WD 1998). Notification to the Wilmington USACE
office is required if this general permit is to be utilized. Nationwide Permit No. 33 may be
required if temporary construction including cofferdams, access, and dewatering are required for
this project. The USACE will determine final permit requirements.
Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity
of Waters of the U.S., specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by
the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts
over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of
the U.S. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and
degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in
light of overall project purposes. Wetland impacts can be avoided by confining construction
activities within the boundaries of the existing road shoulder (maintained/ disturbed community).
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to Waters of the U.S. Implementation of these steps will be required through project
modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the proposed
project footprint through the reduction of median widths, Right of Way widths, fill slopes, and/or
road shoulder widths. Other practical minimization mechanisms include: strict enforcement of
sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface waters during the entire life of the
project, reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, reduction/elimination of direct discharge into
streams, reduction of runoff velocity, re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious
pesticide and herbicide usage, minimization of "in-stream" activity, and litter/debris control.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters of the
U.S. have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extend possible. It is recognized that
"no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse
impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.
15

Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of Waters of the U.S.
Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site,
howeR~ wr there are no areas immediately adjacent to the project area available for wetland
mitigation.
The proposed project will result in the loss of three resources which necessitate mitigation: loss
of wetlands, loss of flood storage area, and loss of parking for recreation. An area adjacent to the
project site will have fill material removed in order to facilitate parking and partially offsetting
the loss of the flood storage area of Jordan Lake. Offsite mitigation will be used to offset
wetland impacts and flood storage loss. The NCDOT plans to remove a portion of an abandoned
roadbed that is within the flood storage area of Jordan Lake. Farrington Road (SR 1109) was
realigned prior to the creation of the reservoir and the old roadbed was never removed.
Coordination for removing the old roadbed for wetland mitigation and flood storage area
mitigation is currently ongoing between the NCDOT and the USACE Operations Branch for
Jordan Lake.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline due to
either natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to
adversely affect a species classified as federally protected, be subject to review by the USFWS.
Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered,
and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003, the USFWS lists the following
federally-protected species for Durham County (Table 3). A brief description of each species'
characteristics and habitat follows
Table 3. Federally-Protected Species for Durham County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle Threatened (Proposed for Delisting)
Echinacea laevigata smooth coneflower Endangered
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac Endangered
' Threatened species are species that are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
2 Endangered is defined as a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
l6

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)Threatened, proposed for delisting
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail. The body
plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be identified by
their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within 0.5 miles [0.8 km]) with a clear flight
path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the surrounding
land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The
breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the major food
source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food may be
live or carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat for the bald eagle is within or near the project area. The trees occupying the
canopy of the alluvial forest are fairly uniform in height and very dense. Open water (Jordan
Lake) that is of sufficient size for foraging opportunities for the bald eagle is approximately 1.0
mile (1.6 km) south of the project area. Additionally, the NC Natural Heritage Program data
base of rare species and unique habitats has no record for the presence of the bald eagle within
the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not affect the bald eagle.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) Endangered
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: 12/9/91
Flowers Present: June -early July
Smooth coneflower is a perennial herb that grows from simple or branched rhizomes. This herb
has a smooth stem and few leaves. The basal leaves are the largest, and these leaves are smooth
to slightly rough, tapered to the base and elliptical to broadly lanceolate. Mid-stem leaves have
short or no petioles and are smaller than the basal leaves. Flowers are light pink to purplish in
color and solitary. The petal-like rays usually droop. Fruits are gray-brown, oblong-prismatic
and four-angled.
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is found in areas of meadows, open woodlands, glades, cedar
barrens, roadsides, power line right-of--ways, clearcuts, and dry limestone bluffs. Plants usually
grow in soil derived from calcareous parent material. North Carolina populations are found in
soils derived from Diabase, a circumneutral igneous rock. Optimal sites.; are in areas with
abundant sunlight and little competition from other herbaceous plants.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
t~

The maintained grassed mad shoulder offers the only potential habitat for smooth coneflower
within the project area. A plant by plant survey, for smooth coneflower within areas of potential
habitat, was conducted on August 23, 1996 by NCDOT biologist Bruce O. Ellis and a follow up
survey was conducted on July 22, 2002. No Echinacea spp. was observed during the survey.
Additionally, the NC Natural Heritage Program data base of raze species and unique habitats
contains no record for the presence of smooth coneflower within the project vicitity. Therefore,
project construction will not affect smooth coneflower.
Michaux's sumac (Rhos michauxii) Endangered
Family: Anacardiaceae '
Federally Listed: 9/28/89
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of the leaves aze rounded
and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of Michaux's sumac aze greenish to
white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on female plants, are a red
densely short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac is dependent on some sort of
disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in association with basic
soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows only in open habitat where it
can get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete well with other species, such as
Japanese honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Potential habitat for Michaux's sumac is present only within the road shoulder portions of the
project azea. A plant by plant survey for Michaux's sumac, within areas of potential habitat was
conducted on August 23, 1996 by NCDOT biologist Bruce O. Ellis and a follow up survey was
conducted on July 22, 2002. No Michaux's sumac was observed during the survey.
Additionally, the NC Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and unique habitats
contains no record for the presence of Michaux's sumac within the project vicinity. Therefore,
project construction will not affect Michaux's sumac.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There aze eleven Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed by the USFWS for Durham County.
Federal species of concern are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they
aze formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. However, the status of these
species is subject to change, and so should be included for consideration. An FSC is defined as a
species that is under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to
support listing. In addition, organisms which aze listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) by the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state
18

protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979, as amended.
Table 4 lists Federal Candidate and State listed species, the species state status (if afforded state
protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This species
list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the
future.
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Durham County.
Scientific Name Common Name State Status Habitat
Etheostoma Collis lepidinion Carolina darter SC Yes
Lythrurus matutinus Pinewoods shiner SR Yes
Norturus furiosis population Atlantic pigtoe (mussel)* T' Yes
Fusconaia masoni "Neuse" madtom SC Yes
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T Yes
Lasmigona subviridus Green floater E Yes
Somotogyrus virginicus Panhandle pebblesnail SR No
Gomphus septima Septima's clubtail dragonfly SR Yes
Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur E-SC No
Juglans cinerea Butternut W-5 No
Montropsis odorata Sweet pinesap C No
Plagiochila Columbiana A liverwort C No
* No specimen found in Durham County in twenty years.
~ Watch List.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these species
observed. A review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and unique
habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project
study area.
NATURAL RESOURCES CONCLUSIONS
Within the study area for this project, there is one area of wetlands and one jurisdictional stream,
New Hope Creek. Anticipated impacts to the wetland are approximately 0.27 acre (0.1 ha).
Temporary impacts to New Hope Creek are approximately 0.06 acre (0.02 ha). Estimated
impacts are derived using the calculations made from the design plans. New Hope Creek is
listed as a 303(d) stream. A Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" has been issued for the three
species listed as federally protected in Durham County. Loss of the flood storage area of Jordan
Lake and recreational parking will be mitigated through removing a portion of an abandoned
roadbed off Old Farrington Road and the construction of a parking lot adjacent to the project
area.
19

VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded,
licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
On March 26, 1996, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject project.
No known historic architecture structures are located within the azea of potential effect, and no
historic architectural survey needed to be conducted (see letter dated March 27, 1996).
C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject project. There aze no known
azchaeological sites within the proposed project area, and no archaeological investigation needed
to be conducted (see letter dated March 27, 1996).
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments listed on the Project
Commitments Sheet (Green Sheet) of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT
standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in
land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of--way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
20

No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project. This project will impact a
resource protected by Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (see
attached Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation).
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects.
There are no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity
of the pmject. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage
within these classifications.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation
(CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National
Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or have any
significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
21

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT
WITH PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND
WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project BRSTP-1107,41
State Project 3 2201
TIP No. B-2963
Description: Replace Bridge No. 111 on SR 1107 over New Hope Creek in Durham County.
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of
existing highway facilities on X ^
essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location? ^ X
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly
owned public park, recreation land, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located X ^
adjacent to the existing highway?
4. Does the amount and location of the land
to be used impair the use of the
remaining Section 4(f) land, in whole or
in part, for its intended purpose? ~ X
(See chart below)
Total size of section ~~ site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres (4.05 ha) ............ 10 percent of site
10 -100 acres (4.05-40.5 ha) ............ 1 acre
greater than 100 acres (40.5 ha)............ 1 percent of site
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project
(e.g., noise, air and water pollution,
wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic
values) on the remaining Section 4(f)
land impair the use of such land for its ~ X
intended purpose?
Page 1 of 6

Yes No
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction
over the Section 4(f) land agree, in
writing, with the assessment of the
impacts of the proposed project on, and ^
the proposed mitigation for, the Section X
4(f) lands?
7. Does the project use land from a site
purchased or improved with funds under
the Land and Water Conservation Act
(Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act),
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Act
(Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise
encumbered with a Federal interest ^ X
(e.g., former Federal surplus property)?
8. If the project involves lands described
in Item 7 above, does the appropriate
Federal Agency object to the land ~ X
conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of
an EIS? ^ X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE
FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
Yes No
The following alternatives were evaluated and D
found not to be feasible and prudent: X
1. Do-nothin¢.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? a X
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? ~ X
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? ~ X
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or X ^
impacts of extraordinary measure?
Page 2 of 6

2. Improvement of the highway without using
the ad'ac n u is ark recreational
landLor wil life waterfowl refuge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts,
changes in standards, use of
retaining walls, etc., or traffic
management measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs
Yes No
X ^
-^
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation, maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental, or economic impacts
o (v) a project which does not meet the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are extraordinary magnitude
Bridge No. 111 cannot be replaced without using land included in the recreational area,
which is on both sides of SR 1107.
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility. on new
locati n t the ublic ark,
recreational land. or wildli a and
waterfowl refuge. This would be a X
localized "runaround. "1
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) project which does not solve the existing problems
or (ii) bstantial social, environmental, or economic impacts
or (iii) substantial increase in project cost or engineering difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or difficulties of truly unusual or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
Page 3 of 6

MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible ^
plannmg to minimize harm. X
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following:
(circle those which are appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location
and of at least comparable value.
O Replacement of facilities impacted by the project including sidewalks, paths, benches,
lights, trees, and other facilities.
Oc. Restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas.
O Incorporation of design features and habitat features, where necessary, to reduce or
minimize unpacts to the Section 4(f) property.
e. Payment of the fair market value of the land and improvements taken or improvements
to the remaining Section 4(f) site equal to the fair mazket value of the land and
improvements taken.
O Additional or alternative mitigation measures as determined necessary based on
consultation with the officials having jurisdiction over the pazkland, recreation azea, or
wildlife or waterfowl refuge.
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
Flood Storage (fill below 240 ft msl)
Initial fill mitigation was calculated at 9886 cubic yazds (cy) [7560 cubic meters]. By
increasing the length (span) of the bridge, removal of part of the existing Roadway fill will
account for 1850 cy (1414 cubic meters) of fill. In addition, 706 cy (540 cubic meters) of
excavation for standard roadway ditches will account for fill. This results in total flood
storage mitigation of 7330 cy (5606 cubic meters).
There are Secondary Roads (SR) that enter the flood pool of the lake on the Jordan Lake
Property. One of the abandoned roadbeds will be used to mitigate for flood storage.
Farrington Road (SR 1109) was realigned prior to the creation of the reservoir and the old
roadbed was never removed. The old roadway provides potential for fill to be removed in
order to restore flood storage as well as wetlands.
Page 4 of 6

Wetlands (Water Oualiri)
Wetland impacts were calculated as follows: Fill in wetlands (0.27 acres/0.11 ha),
Mechanized Clearing using Method III (0.32 acres/.13 ha), and Temporary Fill in SW (0.06
acres/.02 ha). NCDOT's Construction office has agreed to use Method II for clearing &
grubbing which will decrease the amount of acres impacted. Standard ratios will apply for
mitigation.
Mitigation should be at the reservoir/on the lake property. The abandoned roadway of
Farrington Road (SR 1109) will be used to restore wetlands.
Recreation Access and O~oortutity
Loss of existing parking will occur during, and result from, construction. In order to provide
safety for those parking on the shoulder of the road, and to provide mitigation for loss of
recreational access, NCDOT will construct a gravel parking lot located on the north side of
SR 1107 approximately 900 feet (275 meters) east of the bridge. "No parking" signs will be
posted along the shoulders of the road in the vicinity of the bridge. The parking lot will
remain property of USACE Operations. The parking lot will be maintained and managed by
WRC and USACE Operations Branch.
Wildlife Habitat (Wildlife Passaee)
Lengthening the new bridge has provided an increased area of passage for wildlife under the
bridge.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over
the Section 4(f) Land X
b. LocaUState/Federal Agencies X
c. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits) N/A
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are
involved N/A
Page 5 of 6

SUMMARY__AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable to
this project. There are no feasible or prudent alternatives which avoid use of the Section 4(fj
land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that the
measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
3 -~ 03
Date Manager, PDEA, NCDOT
a ~ G3
Date ~yDivision Administrator, WA
Page 6 of 6

~ ~
B-29b3
FIGURE 3A
:~ ! 1 ~'
E I'
'r
.,~ 5
~ '
_~
(, ~ i

} i
~
~ :i
`
;
.

,~'~ `
~
4 { ' ~
`
- 1
~ ~ ,

;
'`
F;
~i
_
~I j
' {u
~
. f
~.
~'.
j

!1'
? i
}
i
i
i
7
(,

a
~;
i
~.
;,.
;.
(' '' .
~,
Looking West from the Bridge

North Face of Bridge
B-2963
FIGURE 3B
~.
~:
i
,.
i
r~ i
South Face of Bridge {with Gaging Station)

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh held OtEice
Post 0t6ce Sox 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 276363726
October 9, 2002
Robin C. Young
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear P.~Is. Young:
This letter is in response to your letter of October 2, 2002 providing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) with the biological conclusion of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), that the replacement of Bridge No. 111 on SR 1107 over New Hope Creek in Durham
County (TIP No. B-2963) will have "No Effect" on the federally-listed smooth coneflower (Echinacea
laevigata) and Michaux's sumac (Rlius michauCii). 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 survey was conducted of the project area on
July 22, 2002 and no specimens of the two listed species were found. Based on the results of the
survey, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the proposed bridge replacement will have "No
Effect" on the smooth coneflower and Michaux's sumac.
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 the 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).
Sincerely,
~~~~
~ C~~
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
David Cox, NCWRC, Northside, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

~. I Y~(~I(ICcXY ~
J. J ~. 1
,~ M ,,I; ~ - Il
~~.y{ ~'
Y ~'.. ;
•~~Vr__'iiII~WII• ~
..ry.
.~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary kffrey J. Crow, Director
March 27, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N. C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 1 11 on SR 1 107 over New Hope
Creek, Durham County, B-2963, Federal Aid
Project BRSTP-1107(4), State Project
8.2352201, ER 96-8363
Dear Mr. Graf:
~~vEa
~'
MpR 2 `' 1996
~~ u~.;~5
1~J^! YS
On March 26, 1996, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, v~re look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Ralrigh, Noah C'aralina 27601-2807 r?~~

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
j~ ~
/~
avid Brook .
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: `'~. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

.~
~ICt~RC ,HCP ,FALLS LRKE
TEL ~ 919-528-y~oy ~'ldr ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~~ ~.~ . ~.,., ... _
~ North Carolina ,W~>dli,fe Resources Cor~unission ~
512 N. Salisbury Smet, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
Ivfi~MOxnNnuM
TO: Jeff ingham
Project 1'lannini; F.nginoer, NCDOT
FROM: T)avia cox, Highway Project Coprdlrr~tar ,
Hahitat Conservation Program `/~, ,. J~ C~
DATE: March 21, 1997
SIIl3JCCT: Bridge No. 1 I I replacement in Durham County, North Carolina. TIP No. R-2986.
We have reviewed the information provided by NCDOT and feel that the following treasures would
provide adegttttte protection for NCWRC Gamelartds and the subject waterfowl impoundment.
1. The }turner access to the waterfowl impoundment locatrd un the west side of tltc cxistir-g bridge
must remain opon from Stptcmbcr 1 to January 3 I.
2. NCWRC personnel must~have access to the impoundment at all times.
3. The narking lot at the impoundment will not be available for use as a constnrction staging arcs
ny the contractor.
4. Disttrrbnnce of the area during the waterfowl seueon must be kept to a minimum (i.c. loud
noises).
5. Miligaliurt sltuuld take one of two forms; either purchase an appropriate arnottnt of Innd adjnccnt
to the property, or add 6 inches of gravel to the parking lot at the impottndmont and stabilise all
newly grnded slopes with weeping lovegrass.
G. 'T'his property was not acquired with Pittman Robertson funds.
NC:llU'1' should use Best Management Practices to control sediment at this site. We wish to attend
the prccunstrtrctiort mectins for this project to discuss our concerns with NCDOT construction pcc~onrtcl
and thn wntractor.
If you have arty further yucstions please call meat [phone].

t
~ ~ ~
oe-uca .a 1«. ,~
~~1~1T' ~~': C200~25 ~'~~ ~~,~~~`': x-2963
w
0 0 0
.~ ~ _
A ~ ~ N N ~ ORANOE
O o ~ o ~ _ _ ~~ ' ~.. y~COUNTY _ cB cB
c Fp o c y ~m p ,.~` ~..
n
"' c~ o y H O ~~ Z ~ '~~ ""r° ! W 9
+ ~ e
~" O ~ = o=~ ~ . o
_ ~^^ t
aR ` 47 Z ~ ~i~d`'' ~~.
n u u u u u x Q o ~ ~
;~ ~ ~1
O p A p O w V b m Q C ~~ ~ ~~ \
~ ~ ~ O O ~ Q ~ ~ ,~
aR O O ~`'
70 T ~,
• p n D o~~
n
-~~~ ~ ~ c
~~~ ~ Z o
n o
o C ~
dab , ~ ~' `~
~ C ~G o m
v~~ b ~° `m G1
~m D ~ ~ ~ ~
Sao y o
N~ ~ ~ ~
wNN ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ n u •NO
~ H
N P
O C O w ~
r
T ~ ~ V ~~ O
° r' ^ rrr--------~ i~--~
o.m `4 ~IJ
~ ~ ~o ~ ~ --
ti ~
` ~ ~ ~~F y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
N ~ " ~ ~ ~ '~-- NEW HOPE CREEK M
~ ° ~ ~o ~ ~' ~ ~ ~
~ N~
~~ - ~
P
fl d ~ ~ ~ pm ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ o ~by ~_
^ ~ G V~ ^
YY m > -.!
~, N 1•`trTt JJI
m
o ~~ ~ M
r h
~~ ~
y
~~ ~ 0~ w
b ~ ~ +
~ ~
~ ~ y V
~O
v
{ ~ ~
~-~ ~
~ ~~
Ma,~ ~~ N
~~ W
~~ ~
o~
a ~~
o~
V V V
O ~
~ p
p
O p
~ ~ ~
~ N

~ ~ a
~ ' ~ w ~
0
V 0
V o
V
i
,.

m
n
~
z

-~
~
~~
~ ~ . i~ ~

0 tt
~
z 3

a
I I I.
I
00-DEC• tp
3.WP 018397
en
I v
C ~'
u ~
~ a m ~ - `~ ~
>~ ~ ~ I ~ ~
~~.. _ D ° ~ ~QQn
~ v ~ r j ~ ~+,' ~ N
~ m [m~ z
~' m y i z ..
O Q ~ ~
a Z Z ~ I-~ N
I
c r ~
° p OZ ~ ° ~ ~
v ~
O~~ ~ //)//I ~ ~
Y, 4 /~~' /...
I A
II
I
I
< ~
I ~•~ ~~ A ,
'I i ~ ~
r
I
i
~ ~, ~~ ~ N
I ~' I~ i '~
I _~ f~ ~ t s ~ ~ ~~
~ I ~ ~ -~ I ~
~ I ~ r s ~~ :. D ~ ~
~ ~ to ~ ~ '~ I iR
rn I r m ~~ m ~ rn ~ ~
Z I Z ~ p-.-I ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
I ~ Z ~m
Z Z ~ (~ ~ Z ~
O / O ~ I a~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ O ~ ~ ~ yq
~Jl (~ ~" I ~m ~~ 1 Fi
a ' I ~ ~ ~
I '
~~ ~
I ~ I `' N
I I ~ 1
\ ~~
~~~~ C ~ o ~' ~'
oom~ rn ~ ss C ~' ~' zt ~" ~ C
++00 N -i ~ ~ ~NO o ~ ~O
o ~ O~ ~10 r ° ° + ~ r
~ ~ m ° N o a ~~~ (rn~
Z ~ ~ m .o y, u~ =i
o ° ~. ~. ~ 5
Z '~' Z 1 fN.1 Z ~? r' o O Z $~ ~~,
O -,~ 1 iYi~ idX~
m N ° -n
~ O + Z 'T1 ~ O ~ '>
w O ~ ~~
~ $o ~ N~
~ S ~

O .

O O Q
b

O
O I
O ~

O
~
Q ~
~
'
o
O ~ a
~ ~
Q
Q Q

O -
O
z c ~ -i ~ m
N m
r v
N v
~ ~
N n
....
^>~
y m.
A o+
' aspp
r> sppv
~ o'.-p(,
~~
~ -,
~ asp
Z
~ spy
~
m H ~ -_
j t
-1*'O '0 R1 In oo
CO >
'0 1
. V

rm ~ ~ s rig so zw~~ coo • ms. >o
~ ~ my
~ m• '
v . m~
p rf ~ f r
'
AAA a
o>
,r -1-1 >
a _
2A-i p
'> r
~ W
>
wsx AN
> ,
a x s
,
>x p
>.
_
7~~ o -Zi r~i ~mN mN io
s z~
~ s
ma m~; ,

~y t
m
O
~ p
'~1S <
~ '
p
<S o
S'~l~ D
~11>A <~
r,
i
~ '921•i
~
S
d I~1
p=> m vii ~
i =s'} >'f~
C zone as=
Or
S
OZ
g'I ~Np~
tA:C ~n ~f~iff
N>~ tnA
~ -fir tp7
r
N
~ .~
W -
I
A
Rf N j f
~1
f
l /~p
{
~
Cl ,Am r~m ~p*,m $
m x7
Dm A~
i ~ m
~~~ ~`~
m vNiim
A '"-z+
°~a oA
> o
~~g °~ =
W
v ~~ N~m ~>
~ ~
N t
ii HC
s n ~ 1'1
+
_ r
A g o
,~ ~ Nan A m ~m >~

• vta
u o z-~m
y ~m ~9~ ~,~
=U N m c ==N ~~
20w ~ ~~ir°+ ~ ~° t
a
o co :° s ~ ~ °'
;D r. ~
-•
mm
~ o
:U , N ~

= W
A.

i
-~
0
m
N
m
~ ~ N~
~~~ p~~
N ~ ~ " Q O Z~ Y
~~o}~ ~~~~~~~ ~
Nm ~, .~> ~~~
y'j ~ L ° O 7~ O ~ O
~D3$~~~u~~~~a
~~
~3' ~
~ ~ ~~
b
O$~
~' ~~
x_
V
n~~~~N
II II A II II (/~
O
~~A ~~
~Ln~ U
~~
~~~~~oD~
~Il~u~u~cn
~~ y o
z a ai
c,,~„w
~~~~~$8~
~ §~~
r
~~~~m~
u~ll"ry1
w~~~~+
~~.
~~
O ~~
x
r
\ ~ Y
p fog
\ ~ S $ Q .
\ ~ z~
~ ~ ° r ~m0
\ \ ~ ~m
\ \ ' oF-orr-.-t
\ S D
NQr
r n -.
~ ~ ? q.
1D ~~ ~s~
Z~'N' Bs.
a~
v
~~
~~~
1
n~2
~x
+~a
~~~
~~
~~
,~ o
00
~~ ~ ~
~~t
~w
~~
~~
~ ~ ~ ~
~.
MATCHLINE -L- STA 23+25.00 SEE SHEET 5

MATCHLINE -1.- STA 23+25.00 5EE SHEET 4
f ~-_ ~ ~ 1~
I~ ~ m
~ ~ N
OOm
{~rl ~n N
z=~
~~~
V P C
N
O
.'a
C
fsOn
Z
N
~ -+
-1 !`ll
H
r ~ ~
N,{~
4~'W
F ~.
mfr
o \
~~
R E p'
r iY ~'/.
icy? I
E~~ 1
~$ ~
N ~
~.8
u . ,y,
~ $ IF4
N ~
S a 4
N V
O ~ ,
~~~
1, ~ K'
W
u o `
0
~x~
H
a~$
a
~_ ~~~~~
tiH
Z N ~ y ~ H
~K~ ~
o
m
o -- f
A +
U
µ
f
s
8
t H
~Z I ~
~,°~ Uo
~ O ~ ~ °' ~
N ~
~ rZ~
g„ ~r <
_ ~ ~ ..~
w
O ~~ ~o+
~Zo
~ 1~
% i
N ~
H
r
..~_ ~ aee crrux
N
tP
x
fl
m
~-
_I Z
. I
m
1X fF
O

IF If
/ H~
'x~
~mr
IF N
~ L
8~
O
Qi
V
N
t~ ~
0
oz~
~° ~
~~
~g ~
~ J~
~~~~
25 0~p::~
P1 J N
DOO
A N N_ Q
1 1
a SQ
gN ~
fIS ~ ~n
ny
1" N `ni
K ~ ~
O J ~
~-~ O
O N
~~ IOC~
i O
9
~ ~
>^
.~
~~
~~~Gm~
N H
II pp11 ~ II II
ZN `jlNp ~(N
~~~ S*
~~
. .
oN~ti~op~
~~u~u~uo
~~~w
~~~~~$~+
a §~$
{
~~y~m~
by
... u
^~o~
'fix
~~~
aka
~e
$~~
~~
0
00
S j ~I
~Z
Z
O o
~~
~~ ~

8/23/99

)8-DEC-2003 14:05

DEC-2003 14:07
Prof\N~}~_j,py,41t5..p1 aio~ioo

I-DEC-2003 14:08

.i,

B-2963 FLOOD STORAGE Ai~D WETLAi~D
MITIGATION PLAN
TIP Project No. B-2963
State Project No. 8.2352201
FA Project BRSTP-1107 (4)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
~~U~ NORTH cA~O!
~~e' ~~.~
~ ' ' r ~ ~^r
.~ 26
v ~,:.' z~ ~' Z
A O
,.,
~~'~. ,`P
FtiT OF TRANSeO
December, 2003

Prepared by:
~~~a~
,,..•
~''Q'~N.... R.
~O,.oFES s~~
~ 28432 '7 Q
~.
~{~ FNGINE~ `~~'\°
FN h1. N`
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
Kathleen M. McKeithan, PE, CPESC
Project Engineer
Brad G. Fairl~~, M
Project Scientis
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE REPORT CONTAINED HEREIN WAS PRE
OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION.
BY ME
SIGNED SEALED, AND DATED THIS 4T" DAY OF DECEMBER 2003.
KATHLEEN M. MCKEITHAN, PE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is replacing Bridge 111 on SR 1107
(Stagecoach Road) over New Hope Creek in Durham County. The existing one-lane bridge will
be replaced with atwo-lane bridge constructed at a higher elevation to reduce flooding. The
replacement project, which is known as B-2963, will result in the loss of 0.5 acres of riverine
wetland. The B-2963 project will also impact the flood storage capacity of Jordan Lake.
The B-2963 Flood Storage and Wetland Mitigation Plan presents the plan for mitigating the
impacts associated with the replacement of Bridge 111 over New Hope Creek in Durham
County. The report describes the proposed methodology for restoring the wetlands and flood
storage capacity lost as a result of the B-2963 project.
The B-2963 project is located within the Jordan Lake Property. As a result, the US Army Corps
of Engineers (USAGE) requires NCDOT to provide in-kind mitigation for any fill reducing the
flood storage capacity of the Lake. In recognition of this fact, NCDOT modified the design of the
B-2963 project in order to minimize impacts. NCDOT reduced the amount of fill below the 240-
foot contour by lengthening the bridge, removing a portion of the existing roadway fill, and
excavating roadside ditches. These measures reduced the amount of fill by 2,556 cubic yards,
leaving approximately 7,330 cubic yards of fill for which mitigation is required. With the USAGE
and NCDOT agreeing to a 1:1 compensation ratio, NCDOT is required to remove 7,330 cubic
yards of fill below the 240-foot contour within the Jordan Lake Property.
The B-2963 Mitigation Site consists of an abandoned portion of the roadbed for Old Farrington
Road that was vacated when Jordan Lake was created. The old roadbed is bisected by Morgan
Creek. The mitigation project will involve the removal of the fill associated with the roadbed of
Old Farrington Road below the 240-foot contour. In essence, the natural grade will be restored
below the 240-foot contour.
When the project is complete, approximately 2,560 cubic yards and 4,850 cubic yards of fill will
have been removed from the west portion and east portion of the Mitigation Site respectively. In
total, approximately 7,400 cubic yards will be removed below the 240-foot contour within the
Jordan Lake Property. A 1:1 credit ratio has been established by the USAGE for fill removal.
The B-2963 Mitigation Site will provide approximately 7,400 cubic yards of flood storage
mitigation -sufficient to mitigate for the flood storage impacts of the B-2963 project.
The B-2963 project will result in the fill of approximately 0.5 acres of riverine wetland. The 6-
2963 Mitigation Site also provides opportunities for wetland restoration. Approximately 1.6
acres are present on the east portion, and 0.9 acres on the west portion. The USAGE has
agreed to a 2:1 ratio for the restoration of the wetland resulting from the removal of the old
roadbed. The B-2963 Mitigation Site will provide 1.25 acres of wetland credits -sufficient to
mitigate for the wetland impacts of the B-2963 project.
Impact and Mitigation Credits Summary Table
Type of Mitigation Impacts Yield Ratio Credits
Riverine Wetland <0.5 acres 2.5 acres 2:1 1.25 acres
Flood Stora a Ca acit 7,330 cubic ards 7,400 cubic ards 1:1 7,400 cubic ards

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1
1.1 BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................1
1.2 PURPOSE .............................................................................................................1
1.3 THE MITIGATION SITE ..........................................................................................1
1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING ...........................................................................4
2.0 FLOOD STORAGE MITIGATION ....................................................................................6
2.1 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................6
2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................6
2.3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................7
2.4 PROPOSED CONDITIONS .....................................................................................7
3.0 WETLAND RESTORATION ...........................................................................................14
3.1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................14
3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................14
3.2.1 SOILS ........................................................................................................14
3.2.2 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES ..................................................................17
3.2.3 HYDROLOGY ..........................................................................................19
3.3 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................19
3.4 PROPOSED CONDITIONS ..................................................................................19
4.0 CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................................................22
5.0 MONITORING ......... .......................................................................................................23
6.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY .................................................................................24
7.0 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................25
8.0 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................26
TABLES
Table 7.1 -Impact and Mitigation Credits Summary Table ... ................................................. 25
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1.1.1 -Project Vicinity .............................................. ................................................... 2
Exhibit 1.1.2 -Bridge Replacement and Mitigation Site Location .............................................. 3
Exhibit 1.3.1 -Project Location .................................................................................................. 5
Exhibit 2.4.1 -Flood Storage Mitigation- West Portion .......... .................................................. 8
Exhibit 2.4.2 -Flood Storage Mitigation- East Portion ........... .................................................9

Exhibit 2.4.3 -Existing 8 Proposed Profile- West Portion .........................................................10
Exhibit 2.4.4 -Existing & Proposed Profile- East Portion ..........................................................11
Exhibit 2.4.5 -Example Cross-Sections- West Portion .............................................................12
Exhibit 2.4.6 -Example Cross-Sections- East Portion ..............................................................13
Exhibit 3.2.1 - NWI Map ...........................................................................................................15
Exhibit 3.2.1.1 -Soils ..............................................................................................................16
Exhibit 3.2.2.1 -Vegetative Communities .................................................................................18
Exhibit 3.4.1 -Wetland Restoration- West Portion ................................................................... 20
Exhibit 3.4.2 -Wetland Restoration- East Portion .................................................................... 21
e~o~tin~rcc
APPENDIX A - B-2963 MITIGATION MEETING NOTES
APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX D - WETLAND DATA FORMS

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is replacing Bridge 111 on SR 1107
(Stagecoach Road) over New Hope Creek in Durham County (Exhibit 1.1.1 and 1.1.2). The
existing one-lane bridge will be replaced with atwo-lane bridge constructed at a higher elevation
to reduce flooding. The replacement project, B-2963, will result in the loss of 0.5 acres of
riverine wetland. The B-2963 project will also impact the flood storage capacity of Jordan Lake.
The B. Everett Jordan Dam and Lake were created in 1981 and 1982 by the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE) to provide flood control, water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife
enhancement to surrounding areas. Normal pool elevation for the lake is 216 feet above mean
sea level (msl), with a maximum flood storage elevation of 240 feet above msl. As a result, the
USAGE has acquired all land within 5 vertical feet or 300 horizontal feet (whichever
encompasses more area) beyond the 240-foot elevation surrounding the reservoir (USAGE,
1992). The USAGE purchased the land to ensure control over any development activities
occurring below the 240-foot contour. All land within this contour is referred to as the Jordan
Lake Property.
B-2963 lies within the Jordan Lake Property making its replacement subject to the USACE's
requirements for development within the Jordan Lake flood storage area. The USAGE has
ruled that any activity that impacts or reduces the flood storage capacity as defined by the 240-
foot contour requires mitigation. The USAGE prefers that any development activities that affect
the reservoir and its associated flood storage area be compensated for with in-kind mitigation
whenever possible.
NCDOT modified the design of the bridge to minimize impacts to both wetlands and Jordan
Lake flood storage capacity. However, even with the design changes impacts remained. The
B-2963 project will result in the loss of approximately 0.5 acres of riverine wetland. In addition,
approximately 7,330 cubic yards of fill will be placed below the 240-foot contour. NCDOT is
therefore required to mitigate for lost flood storage capacity and wetland acreage caused by the
B-2963 project.
1.2 PURPOSE
The B-2963 Flood Storage and Wetland Mitigation Plan presents the plan for mitigating the
impacts associated with the replacement of Bridge 111 over New Hope Creek in Durham
County. The report describes the proposed methodology for restoring the wetlands and flood
storage capacity lost as a result of the B-2963 project.
1.3 THE MITIGATION SITE
NCDOT conducted a search for potential mitigation sites for the B-2963 project and identified
seven abandoned Secondary Roads (SR) located within the Jordan Lake Property. NCDOT
ultimately selected the portion of the abandoned roadbed of Old Farrington Road lying east of

North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Project Location
Cape Fear River Basin
Durham County
Chatham County
B-2963 Flood Storage and Wetland
Mitigation Plan
Chatham County, North Carolina
Project Vicinity
Not to Scale Exhibit 1.1.1

i'.11 ~° ~~ ! / ~::~` f rrM ..o ;` ~ '.,a t Y ~r. ..~ 1, `~~ %;:. ~ frl ,x„1Y}L~ r~l
,i I1 r S ! ur ~ ~ e ! ~ I i ~ \ ~~s~ ~p tit ~:
~;i ...~~ ,~ 'ile ~ i ~ ~ as -a y V .. ~a ~;° .7 S ~ „~.-~..r~ 1, ~..~~`•//~G:j, .%
"' /:: .'~ :~ ly Iee~ Z~ _ ti j \ `• C r Cdr/Irr j T~-~'e i
i_• ..,. ~,:~ . '; l! r ~ .: r t v ~ ~" j ^ '~/ .~ ~i );~ ` ~ ~ ,.:.yam f,'~{S~~-!' 1
.~- al \~ ~.. ~ \~`y 1 ~J r ~ ,/ l~ ~ ~ aid- ,~ - f `~ ~tt~: ~~i~~ r.i '?~
. if ~~Y ~ ~ ~ 1 ;: ~v ~'~ ~~"~ 1~ I ~ ~a.~-.~'~~r ~ L./ ~ / ' / 1 ~ ', ~ i w'R ~ C ~ Zti ~'/,
\ ~ ~i ~ '° ~ ! fi''~ ~ I. ~ ~ e % tl '~ ~ ~~ C ~^,Fr' e.. ~` " 1 ,f~ti r L ~N'i
°s` - 'I`mo ~_ * ~ r -:'; ~.....~•~~• ! tt ~ ~ r- ~ ;- r t l(t. \ \`~ hl Irt~ 1r
~,~~ •,,,~. I J ~ -, : ~ J ~ JI \~ ~~'~ v~~ ( ~.~', ~ F~ 'p l/{V _. - - fA~ ~ ~~ t~'~r~.~ r (r`~~tl
~ ~ b . ~ ~_ i ci ~ \ n J +C' ~?- ((ff 11 +tf rr~~. i' / F ~ _ 1: ~-r'.Z • ~ i ~ S .l
< ( '.''~ .
~J ~~,~~tt,~l.)~- + -~ '~ i _1 I~- / -'t r~ ~ ~ r_'I'Y:" 51 i ~.. ,rF ~.
r3Jt ~h~-"~ ~ S'~~ ~ ~ ' f~ ~' ~ / k'- 1 ` l 1 ~~7 'L ~ .'~ " ~r1 ` ~ c C- '.~ ':
~~~ 1 ~ t t .,~r /r. v ` ..`1 ., ,. ,f 11~% tel.. A~•.. ~ ~ .~A
~ ~ ~ ~ n/ .! ~ .l l
,~ r_ , .~
~~ ~ ~ I
~ w Iy t
rt- t } r Yl~'~j l t-i _2.. I ~~`I v S -_ // P ~t. ~~ .: f :~.,
~~,,~ ~( _~ \ v~%a~ f ' `: ? r i ,`-'~ ~" ~-' JOf n L KQ~..+f`~ r :•3 ry,'Y
g rr \ .'~',,~ ,r ~'* { lad i, '~~~ 1 ~ v. ~ ,/~
Legend
Bridge Replacement
Mitigation Site
Flood Storage Capacity
Major Hydrography
,~ : North Carolina
~''~ Department of Transportation
B-2963 Flood Storage and Wetland
Mitigation Plan
Bridge Replacement Location
and Mitigation Site Location
Scalp: 1" = 4500' Exhibit 1.1.2

1 ~;
~• .;
' ~~
Jj ~<\\
l)
~-~.~/
~, l~
.,: r ...'qtr
'~ _ _ I i f .k ' ~ AJ !Ir
/~ ~ +n
~ ;, ` ,~ ~, ~ ,~_ N '~ r ~:, .fir y ,
l - (-;~ ~ - _ - - =; t J ii : M ~ ', .CSC F'
r' `~
-~- _-- _ a5 __ ,~
.F - _ - - - -_ .. - - ~ ~ 4 ~ / ~
_.
.~ - ~ - -
_ __. __ - - - - - - ~ I
_.
~.
,:
v ~ .. -
_ ___
L (
1 ,l ~ ~ L.~
`~ ._., --
.. ~ _ .'4.
._
~..
., ~, ~ J
... - .
t ~ M _f y~~
'~?9~
t
f , v
Legend
Flood Storage Capacity
Morgan Creek
Mitigation Site
EVorth Carolina
Department of Transportation
B-2963 Flood Storage and Wetland
Mitigation Plan
Project Location
Scalc: 1" =1250' Exhibit 1.3.1

community consists of species typical of disturbed areas, such as sweet gum (Liquidambar
sfyraciflua), red maple (Acerrubrum), blackberry (Rubus sp.) and smartweed (Polygonum sp.).
The detailed survey of the Mitigation Site revealed 2,560 cubic yards of fill in the west portion
and 4,850 cubic yards in the east portion.
2.3 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for restoring the flood storage capacity lost through B-2963 is fairly
straightforward. Following the installation of appropriate erosion and sediment control
measures, NCDOT plans to remove 7,400 cubic yards of fill lying below the 240-foot contour
associated with the roadbed of Old Farrington Road.
The fill removed from Old Farrington Road will be disposed of in an appropriate manner.
NCDOT conducted a geotechnical investigation of the east portion of the roadbed and
determined that the fill was suitable for embankment construction (Appendix C). As a result,
NCDOT intends to use the 7,330 of the 7,400 cubic yards of fill removed from Old Farrington
Road in the embankment required to raise the roadbed for the B-2963 project.
2.4 PROPOSED CONDITIONS
The Mitigation Plan recommends the removal of the fill associated with the roadbed of Old
Farrington Road below the 240-foot contour. In essence, the natural grade will be restored in
the area below the 240-foot contour.
Exhibits 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 show the plan view of the fill removal areas for the west and east
portions of the project, respectively. Exhibits 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 show the existing and proposed
profile of the west and east portions of the project, respectively. Exhibits 2.4.5 and 2.4.6 show
example cross-sections for the west and east portions of the project, respectively.
When the Mitigation Plan is implemented, approximately 2,560 cubic yards of fill will have been
removed from the west portion of the Mitigation Site. Approximately 4,850 cubic yards will have
been removed from the east portion of the Mitigation Site. In total, approximately 7,400 cubic
yards will be removed below the 240-foot contour within the Jordan Lake Property. Using the
1:1 ratio established by the USACE, the B-2963 Mitigation Site will provide approximately 7,400
cubic yards of flood storage mitigation. This is approximately equal to the 7,330 cubic yards of
mitigation required by the B-2963 project.
7

o:~r c-r~
u:\/IIL4:v11`iy\Lr ans por tet~un \des~gn ~tlrrtlge neplecementv~Ylbb1'7n_screem_eu5l.dgn q~~7~q~
W
m
_~
~ Z
+ A
0
m
1
~ I;
E 1995854,8147
E3 n
pOrlgb.11+1539 p
cn ~ z
~v~ "~
m ~ ~a 12+8458 ~ `~ B o
~ v_ P~
~N
5O ~
{[~j 4
Q ~ mz~YoO[
'Z p 'ami,~im
-~ Z j ~, ~ z
o $ ~ ° ~ 8 ~ ,15+`x'33
~Sta
~ ~Z ~ 15
0
N
4
S zN~o JZ
m ~~~~ ~5~a, x+30
D L7 ~r~u~
Z ~p
t~D ~ o~
O Z
N
p~~Q, 0+9135
0
z
~rn^
V • pOfSYa 19+0193
mmD~
o ~ v ~ 20 p0i'SYo. 20+4&39
cnzrno
oOn
N Z = (A
+~m~
0
NN(7O
SOD
Y' ~ y3+8499
on
zm
~~ ,
0
°z
m
0
o .,,... ~~, 25+1998
Do • ~`
m -
m
o ,.
~,
,~
r .
,,
~_
~--- _
~~ ~'M0~/
MOROAN CREEK
"T1
O ~~
O -I~ MATCHLINE PLAN SHEET 5
0 ~w
m ~~ ZrT--
-~~ ~o ~o m
W ~O =~~ ~v° fil
-I Om Ocn m~, Z ~~
~~ -Dio <o ~ C~ w~ ~ ~~
O~ ~~ ~~ N ~~ ~ JJ
Z~ ZO m ~
~ -om ~
Z Zp ~ m c ~~
..
O ~
Z
N
~ ~ ~ ~
H ~. 7i G ~
2
y
6 yy
tl
~
~
~
~
~
~ yy
M1
~ =a
~~
Z
ti
$
m

~ ~ ~ ~ m p 6 ~ ~ ~ ~~

~ tg
g

~ R
0

~ 0
m

~ R
r

~ a
~
~
m +i
~
a
~ +
a a
a
a
4 a
G

~
T

..:\714!~7d1 8\t. enspor to UOn\design\8ridge Reptecamant\71000198_s treem_e.242.dgn q!;7/y~
m
D
-~
~No
.~~
m~
v
mm
o'~
~z
o ~'
~~
nD
o~
z
~z
no
O~
~D
Z
O
cn
N
0
0
mmD~
zmwm
oG~-os
~z~CoC
D~Df11
z°~aF
N Z = D
+~my
v O
~~~0
°OD
~~
~O
~~
m
n
ODD
Z D
~ Z
v
0
z
m
v
0
g
m
0
~ '~
~,
i
45
Po7'S7o.
N 76r?a
E /9972;
P+D7'S7iz 46t~4A55
tn°
-n
O
~W
O ~w
z
m m~' ~
m ~~ ~o

~m ~~

N -~~
~~ ~o
~~
z vm
~
~D
z zv

„~ r
~o m
~o ~
~~ m
0o Z
~~ ~
t7
m
m'
Ni
O
O
Z
U
0
~n o
s
m
i
55
ss

g
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~
y

y
V ~ ~ ~ 4 2Z
Ly7 ~
S~
i i i i i
~
Q ~ ~ a
p
p ~ k
M ~i
rn r~ n, rn

~~~8~'~~
~~
a

. ,,
-: .... ., .I .: O ~.I,t ~1 ... i..~i ,_, ` f..,_.+ I_~.' I t.:i .-r; ,,: ~.I I, :; II ~I .1 I _
.. _ _ ~' I '
a ,_ .. .
I I
... :. i :. ,J I I. ti.:I:.. t I }.Ilt .I 'Ill ;1' i 'i I~ _1, i Il~ 11}~~.it 1 i,l? Iii: ~I 11 IJ:I :11~ t ~ 1 ..Iii'. I~ ~ ... ':. ~ i ~~ .I -
.... :_...~.._.:. ~... ..~_ _ _.~~___ ,.~1.~~_,~ :~_1 ___~ ~ra1Jy.:: 1,_._,l w ._ :I ~.1. 1.. , .~~ .i. ,: ,
~~.•~,~~
I
I I

i
N_
N
N
N
N
~
N
N
N
I
N I
I
I ,

~ ,
f
I
j O O O O O O O O O O I ! i
- ---^---- ~ '
'
' 1 f ; I 1, ~ ! I

I .
i ...

t

rr+..
. ~ _,

,:.+i..
I.

4
I ~

..t.FI

I
,.
,
f.
11
:
1
..
):1t
:..:
, L.
-
_C
1.
'

L
i i
-
;..,
~,.J , ~

'i _1
,a -t, I La

+.
~ 1

I
_~~i

-

I
., ,.~

:J ..
~ i

14 j
'
.la• I

i . c

1ir.`
4: -:

: ,
l~l, r

~~'~~

~{ t
t 1 -
~ i
.# _;;

I

i.

I I

1.
. j

Ii. I
II, I.

~

.I ' I

I

.__..._ ,__~.
f

,.

.1

-}-
-
._4._.
,I. .
...
.
IL,

,.

,.I

~

-.

t

-1 -
~

-,

~

J

-

,~,

a{

.

f<
'
--
14i

'

t ~,+

,~

t

I
'

;
' ._._._.

~~

._._~
;;
~

~

L-
:.I

:~. ~~'
~ ;. :.
- ,
,.
:;
I i I.,

!

Ct is
L
:
~ ~

L ;
1
1 a

; _
# J
~
L::II

I '

---~-

~,~
~ ~

-
_#
~

tJ_
•

1
I

~.Jt

'. I.r

I ':1=+

II, .
;r :.
;Jtl I
II it i ,

;I Il.l

; ;

:I I
A .
I . . .... . - . ..
.
- , - .
r . -
1
I f *
-
-~
- N
I
I i
.
,
k i
I
1
~
I I
I
j
~.
~. {
~~
:

. ~~ . ..

........:
'.I
_ ,

.~:~~..!~
,
. .

!-. ~.1..

....

i.{

I . .

.i.J~.l , .}

..r.l i_ .L- 1

~.1{
l ~ l:.i
~.
_.I. +..

.. i

y

... ,_. _.

._-~. ,.
YY
~1 .. ~.

. .A

. I

tY r~
.
I4i. ~

+ . , ,

..,..{ .

Il_~1 ; ,

I,.:I .

, f

.I-II I.I. i
I
' i.
i

'

...I ,
I
I I
1 I

I

-

-- -

I '
__.

I ~:
T~LO ~
~~7
~:<.
I

1
i.1i
L I
11~ 1

l :
:,:,

'
#
L

4
I ~,
_.

1
I~t t:
;
'.. 1.1
11 • '
1_f'

.
,,

11
•J

I l
, ,

I
11-1

.. ,
,~

.,

:
+ '

.. -
_
-,ri

CTI~

O
I !.,

.ia_ I T

.~ •i,

I...L L..

.LI .4_rit. - '

~/4r .. S

~ t

1
+ - '

1 k `

~

4 ~..,

IL 4

.
.il• '. '

l.I 1;'

({

-fill

f~ ,'

1 i!?

F~+ .tlf
.,,
,_
, ,:~

al, ~'

y I;

-

__

~

___
.
I ~
Til T
-~Li ~ i
~
(,7 t~=.: , i
t:
J
' 1' J( •
J.1.~
i ,, , _ :,.
J :1- ,_
. t 1. ._
:.
_ t
_ -'_, ; f_
,1.1 _ + ,
~ :I L- ;
i I I :~t
::1~- - ~-. ... .:.
:~ f _
I, •;- -1
r l
t + i.' , , ~
E ..L: ~ I
i-.: ~. ,
I ~. , 1~-
r;
r ' ~
I + I
~ ;
~ ~ ~
~ i ~ I
I 1
I
A I ...; .
.
I
:ZI_ .
_
.
: 4.4. .-. f)
. 4;+1 1 • ..
...
, . i
._ J
~ .
.,
_ +
.,_. + •..
7 :.4_. y
(
,- ,
~ ;, _
~ ;. y
# .1.
1
_~_
1 ~ L 4
r'
#
,_
~ F
; , f~ , ~.
I + to
4 ~.,
, ~ I ,
1.'1

. 1
I I .
I i
I I 4
i . ; l I ~
,1 1

'~
I ,
Imo` I
, , , I
I A
~~
~D m
: I _,_ ~
~ .
, _ 1
. t, -~
~z c
a
~ _
~_
~ r ~-
1 :
~
_ it ,, I I fll~
r ,,~~ ~
' , ;
1 I,. ~+
~
r
m: 1--1 J r t I
: rr . _
~! , , +
J
i~ ~ '' I . ; I , I - _ ; . ~ ` ,
~~
+.. ,_ 1-~.. , ,_
'
,
~ ~~_ . 1. l
I. a .
.; , . , ;
+ 1 i.., ,, i ... ;. .:I
~ ,
:I I

~--,-

;m

I
. ~J
©I

+

' .....w

;1# 1

1; I

.,'I'

~ _

-~ ••

# i LL.

'r~ _-~

a 4
_

_

(r? _

_i:

-

fi

j

,

•I.

;t

J
..

i,:t•

}I

1'

t{I

(~

li ,

1.;~

"

~
,

;,I'! ,

II

j
_

i
'~m

~~
~
7r

~ `y
+
r ~

i
I

(

I(

t

'

i~

II
I
--- ~
y
_ 1
' 1.;1..
., 4 L.,
I . /..l
.,. ,.,
"
- 1.{L.. I--,...
:_x ..
1 ll
:~ - ...
.
. I_I }~1.
r.{-+ . ._ ~ w
- _
- -,
t:~
+l~
;J4 ~li.
;
Itl .J
,, -
.j: r
I1 •
,fl I
.
j
-. I
I _
_ , .
_
>_~ ;

_ ;_ - ~ ;. ,
,
;

I N;

n
?y.i~

,

1,

m

m.l. ~~

, 1''+

.

i it?'.

~

I a t

#

,I~ j:~

.

I
~ a

~ ,I

~

. .
a;

I

1
1;-

t

.,
, ~+ ~

t ~

r :#;1

. I;.3

.

a 7

. l~r

~
.J;
+ I I

, '~YY

1

' + ~ ~

1 li}
I Lf `

, } l
1

1

, t1,1 I '~i i

y

I

- --

.

A .

i
~!
-~
z
1
~~
'o:lo
,.
I.: ,

.I i:('l

.: #i i

,_

, rj.~i

; :i i'

I,~r ; ~

_ ~

, :. ,,
,. {. _:
I, ~:~a !.

- ~

_ ,~:

f, _

~

I ;

(-
+
-
,i. I:

_, 'J•.i

''I t'

;a( !_i

,III _

a L:f

tl, i i

Ilr~ ' ,+

,~
I I

it ,ii

a. , I

I I I,

i

~ I ,I

__ ~ _.
A ___y~__1
1

:

:
1 .._
,_a

- ~ ~ t

i

/^~
~ ....

, ...

-

I
I ..t

_
I
, _+..

I I
j ~ a L-;.
..14
~ I

11
..}
I
4 ~ ..

~

~ . 1 1... t

I..1.
a
t .
. ~ I_ ,. (

i 1I-:i_1.
111 __ _

.
r :l'
, • I , +

i ~.
~ !
. J +

t
' '
. I , i~

I . , J.

1 ! 1 I r,.
~_{

~ J t
~-.-L ~
r l I
i_.I
I I I '..

»_.`. _ I '

~
..~

.. ~ ,

__ __
..... i
__.
.
.
I ,D
_
_.~. ~~
:z'~'..''
I
_, .
~
1...
;:::I I

' '- ;ta

~'.-L 4 •I
..
-{.;.:I iI

_L~ r-,
~_
,i_J:~

,

~fi .
~ _
:
J.
t__I l
4
,l ~f +

~;

t~

~-}.

h~. I
J ::
~ It ,'

+ .i 1

;_
G
I-, ,

I~ C-JiI

. i

'I-i. i C

,.., ~-:_l..

i,,~ •~ .
I
„i + I :

.

:
J
,;
'

;.
I
f .

~

t

t
~: _..,
~, ,.
..~.L:~:
~
W
' , I :,
.,
;_ 1i :
..
i..l .,.,l1
,..
,_I I r,
,. I
..; I.L.;. i I
J
ili +
'...j
~ 1
.:..
j:71 J.
1 .
..
t~
... . ~

© ,f,~l
P' :.

` _I
~I

:'
J..y

T ;
i
r...
...I i.
. ~. I, ;'
:.:1 1.1~.
~I r ~
~irS_. ~
_
I
' ,... I

A

. l ..i
I .

I O
~

~', _ _ ..:
I

~ .:

J # '1

~.: ~i I
,-,

'J: it.f
:. 1.,

f _, .~

~ I I
I.'.
j,.,
L:, i •!-

1(
~tl
I 1,
II

1

: r

~;
l

I

~ +++
l .i

W r
t j+I
.I

,. .I`

Ali
l

ll,~

1
i{ I

(1
,.

,
i-I
I
~
~ II
1( ,

J
t

1
1.
~I,

I
.,

I
,...

I ~
t
„I: ~ , I

-'.I

.. i
I
:{, I

1
I

t

+

i
.-
'I 1

~
+Ji

i
ti
I+i

I i

I

,:,
`
' 11

J

4
'
~~:':.
~ ~
{I
I

_ i
~
J.t.

,

~

V
1 ,

1

i

:
N

i I ..}

I
tII; , , I

1 - I
I
,

_

'
~,
f
I
I.:,,

- 4 I

1

1
411

I:{ I , I.i ,

1
i T

I

~

1

.

:

,

, ,

_
I
I
.,.
. , ~ + 1 .,
-
~
._~

.:.:

_ _ ' i :

is _

N..

1_. J., I

i
~ i ,.'

I•
.+ ._7.. ,+

~-.

"- 1 t

~...
~ I~

I
J .:1

i ~+

1
#

~ l: -f.I

~ C:'

: ' J'

I 1

-

.

, ,
.
J +. ~ ' i ItI

a. I1

_ qp

! ~ I

- .

1

~ ..

_ ,

__
~ 1
lr
O,t l
O '
,:;:
O I
i:;:
'tl

.+,
~;:I:
li,'I
h•

,
CI
l
i.
.-(
I:

~

w
,I

L
„

~
`.l_

r

`

I
I
..L :.

__ .I , I. (~

I ;

1 .,
r is ,

-
._. ,

y I
,

-
~: ,,

~ ;

~ I
I

{

. j

,

~ 1

.

~

~

t ,

~

~

~
,
I I
I
~

I
I
,
I

'

~

..
~(

- ~,
~
~„ M,4T HLIN 15 ~~+ ., I
; :
:I .:1'

I
: ;

I : : ,:: I _:,
:~ ;
: : I _ /i :

' +
_- --

I
A.

.

i ._

+

I

.~I

.I:':.

1
.

I
r ,I
.

.

,.

,

I

....f...
V

f

~i
• I

,

~

~
: ,

~

.f

I

, t. I

~~ J.i

r

I

I

Y

1 ,

I

A~

1

:

_

I-'

~

#

:

I

a

I

.

_

1

r

7

^ (

.

I

:1

f

.

~
I _

' ~.

A : I: ii.. l ~

1 1~_ .,

,.. I. I

.. .I ~

++..

i I .
... i ~~

+. I ~

,.

..
.{ .k.

,,

,.

..

., ~}
._
..I .~..1i
I .I ' I
1 I

. ..., _I

+ I .. ... 4

~ 1~

~

t 1.

~ '11

Y
iIt 11.:

Y
~

i
,..

1

~ t..'; ~

l I.

(

.

1

,

4 I II

:)

I
i I ~ J I

i

I

,:

i. ,:

,,:
`

1
...

.I
:_,,,

,,:;
...;:

,

+ii~
,_#

I . '

f_I .,

k
J :.1.11

; I
~f_~ a_,. J

f
„ II

k ?
II

~
"
;11

~

i I, t.

If L{ I

, t
,,,. J 1

+I~
J ,r

{I
Ir

I

,r 1
rr

i i+l

I _

,

~

-

-
-
_ _.
_. .
--1
f u ~- 1~: ,•

1

, ,-.

~ , ;~~

tfi
' III

~ 1'i-

of I' ~

if.
l
; J';~

4

II t

! J.
I

!
'
,

~

I ;; ~

t ~ r . .
_, _, ; ,-; I . _ ~-~If i; ; .aJ , -~~ ~,-f rtL{~
~ I
-
t 1 ~J. ~ ,

-.. ,
,
~~ ,, JI
;, ~ ...
,-~.. .,,: ,
I~
: I
~ li,.
t , J
C~t
(t 11L { ~
: ;l
z2 J I ~.~
tl ~;
L
I I
~
1
I
A I ..: .,~. ,,
~ r 1
_
~ I~, , ... ,,, _
.-,. L J J
. _ ..__.
_ ,_. _
.:
!. ,: ~. 11
, I I
i.
ELI , ,:

I
'.~
~I , l
ii::.:~ 4. . f 1
}~1~.1.F{

._
fi.,

.

I
~
~ :.
'::: 1 J
~:. i t
s#~

~ , J l 1 .'

~
,: i 4 1
~i (1

J
t~ I

1 !
I i
,.

I i I
~,
I _ J L 7 k .,
,~ . :+. I '
.t .: , .
(,
_.~_ . __ ~

..:_

_:_:_I
i.
.:.
I
~-I 1 ~1
...

t
I

1

.~

~

',
_

i

~,
I

_

I

..

. _

I
I

-

-

-

I

, ., . ,

t
~.
; i
t

~al

~

?

~
I

I
~

,

i

L
i
l

r

I

I

`

A

..

_
. .
_.
is

I
L'a. i ~
i-t :.
.. I ~
:'.:I . ;.f:i:
1

I
:..i
:`

.
.

.
i
.

,
i.:
C
l

W

.
J
O
.

,
, ~
Z I ...
~-

~
..
~° - ELI '

~ .I.t -.

,..~1 ''li

j

4 ' +i ',
_i

.
1 ~ I

t'~ I
+
t f'
I
~~ l.

,
L'] :;

:~

i

;
L i
i , #f

1 ;

.I1

( = ;
,

1 :.

1

' #

~ I

1 p
. I, ~

, '''

+:;

u

1

,, J:' 1

i:'
1_,

~ l;l

,I I

II

~

i
I I
I ,

,1.! I

.
r I '

I'

I
.._ 1: :
~ .. 17. _ tI ~
F,t .. J. .
- _ i ,. ~ , I ,
I T i

. ~

i

1..'.
.I
, .. (1.:.+

l ~~
.4r, ~ ..III

I I ~.~ I

~ (Iii

l, J J ..#l

1. ,, 1
r
i 1..'..
J .. t;
j
t
1 .1 I.

~ .J ! i.. ~

I. i r '

I L

{

t I

4
~

,

,

.,

; , '

1 .
+

1..1 Q I +• 1

, i II

I 1l

I l J +
.

~

O

I
..: + :.. 1:1

~ , ~ L ..: ...... 1 .. i i '. t l ~

,

11
.,..
ta. .}. ~. I.

~__I l

l /•-:.: .. I

{
:J- I
,. _ I.

I

I

l i.

1
,.

... '.1

t

,•_ :'

a.
~.,

. J l L 1.

. i ,

,
, ' ~

.
: .. '
i I
. }
1 T
o ;._.. '!'i ., ,. :i,l ' J;. I
' ; ,
1 i I:,

- +
? ~ , i (. ~
:,
. v ,
-,, rt
k ' ~ I~ t
it
i
:' I , I
i
I
, I I ,
.....::..:
_. ...._
~ ..... ._L.-..
;. ... I 1 ~I
i 1 tt
, _,.. h'
1 .. ~ ..a
._ _L~ . t..,
11. .
; 1 ' ~
_..r, .:.
~ ,4'
J .!_ I -
I +
? I
.:: ~
'i -:. , +}4
' t
-,- ~ ..(-
1

i`
t,.
:{ 1

r
I 1
_{ , J _
t .,.
_
C I t
i I
I ,_. -;
,
. ,1
,. _: ,.,, , : . I ..
a
I

.
I

.

~

J
~~
r . - it . 1
1 ,, ,
... ,.
1 .: ,
I~i l~
r ~;.
! ~
I
L.
:
~
?

(
.,
~..

-
l
1
.4.

:
:
'.a, 1 ,.
(1 ..

,
, I
,.::

4
~
1 ;;.

!
I ~-I~

_
I

~
I - , ! , ; ~ I
_ } J , ~
. I a l I
i
~~ :l .r I ! I , l I I
., ,I ., r. f .
( ;
;.
. ,

~
~
I : :~
;L.

. j
I I

,.
. ..I

'
' t

. _ i t rlr. t
,Jtl

E I~
,1

'

'

j

t
r~

~1 J .
Jj I

_ _

, I ;;

'
' I

~
; 1 I

..
I

1 + ~

r4 I

t

1

'
~ . I'

t
.i ii

' '
~ ..
. .
,
.1.
' .
.;1 I /~,
~ ., t ai'1 i..l_.~ T `F{FI
~
~Y
~ { I t ``
h
` i
~ 1
t 1 I
~ '
~ .'(
( J
' ` r i .,.1
I' (' ri
; I I ;
1 ~
, :: :, :.1
,
1 ~ I
.. ~. , I i
~ :. J.. #
:. ( :i:.I:.
_ _~. i
I I
1
11
F' :, 1
I [
1
I
l..l :
1 1 ', L I
I I . 1
4.
I. f
l I
{ l 1
, a ' I i
iil I I 1
1-}~
'
l' i.
~

I.

.

~

`

'
~,
-!;.

;

+ r.

;.,,I

T`T
I
!, ~

I;l:;:

,

II

,

,

1

.~

_!

+

,
I

_ ..

:
t.

~

~

!I'~

I-rt

~
I+

} ~

I:l

.
,;
il 1,

~;

II

I

:

r
:i
it

#

I{ ,

'
ii~ 'I

.
I'

~- ,"1
'

f' t

i*
IIi
I,:'!

_

I,'

;iII

'

fYtt

t
1

t,

'

1
__'I_y .'

'I:

f

-

„

i ~._ ,
~.
I
.,J. ,
., :
_,.
:,i, I

ll 1
?.tll
.'
1 :,
r.:l; ..
._( 1
1:7.2 ,
4.
,.. ..,
I:-4.
.: .

.I~
k.i

i

,

I

~
, .:
(
~
~
.,
:.I
I i

1 J

f
I
I.'

.
I~
I
i
+
i:,,
~

lll,

~:
'{

, I .II;

,
i
tI
I :r
'

.;I?' ~M
i.

~
N I t~. ~'i_;

I Jt

t ,~:-

k -i ~ ':-
t t :
.
r (
J I
. I
, ,
, I ~,
, ::
. It i.

~
; ~ - 'L' ~'~ '~' ~ tl I '(II '
I!~J I:

I ';I' :;;ij i .~~ I -

m .t ,._. a .f
J.
-f I. ;

+I'~ ~ J

~ ~:
,
f-.

~' };

~I I _ ,

i... J.

1 1 !

f _,
-
~....

:~

+

~-

.t..

.
~ .
,
.. ..

:.

,.
,.

~~!I _

i1 „

:

-F
i.
I .

1

,

I +

1...,-k

r

~..j~

1i
i, .1., .I. ~_, .~, I , :. J l f
I
__ . i,.. . ..
~ J-
~,

Z

I
.>_
'

.
f
y

1
-li-I.-~

1
~' -1 t-.~
~t I '

1
t
I

I

I
*

~
+ I

~ c,:l.

1 I

1 ~..1 ~

,
I

I

i ` ~~_

i

,

~ I
,..L,J
t
1 :.1
..
1~
+~,..,~
! _:
(

:
~ ..Il
I
: i r
~
f i
l
~ i
f
i i
~
~ ' 1
~
~ ,
t { i ~ .. . 1: i. } :~ ~.

cn W

~

.._,

I I

. ,.
t
J#.

,t,,

, ~

f I ,
i I _I

, i. ;; I

_
W ,~
mD
~1 DZ z~ II:#

~f`
'
' ' .:.'I #'

~_ !{

~

~ II,
.
~ ., `I+

" . i t 7 .

f i ~ ~

~ ;~ ~'i

~
' A
o

I: :i

'1 ,##,:

'"'~`

! F'

- ,;

~I `
_
( li

.
~ '- i

{
_ "'~'O ~O :t
~
i" -iJ ~. 1 J -
!
I~ ' , '.
.
,
I ri ; .,
r I

~ L

, _...

... 1 +

i # j
i f4:~

' I 'I
_
Q7 'D .~ 0 1,., I
_ , , ~ ~ L
._ t i I i ~ :t t
. , ;: .
If :I., t ~ L I
G7

D .1 : ~

t f
.,

c
C 1

J
I

'
n~

O

~ { t

f i 1J I +I 1 . .1
. _,
.1, #
_
f
_
.~.
1 4
µ ~
_

I
~ ;

I
I - -

~

N ~
Zv ~~ .
LIJ
`+ , , i
._tl I ~
.,~
~ .
J. _,
a i
I - .
.~
.'
,
L
, 1_ ,.;
is
~_.
,
1
;
i'•. 1
:
'
~~

A
~ m
-~
r~
-
, i,
. ,
.
.
,
;
~
; ..I_
f .
1
,.

.
}

1
tl

I
I
~ ~
~
, ' 4
.
J,~

~
H
~p

l
t
;;
I ~I I .
~I

r
O ZZ I,'. II .. I
.. ' : 1 ~:
Ii i i ..: I I + , ; l I~ l I;I ill ~ l
I
. ..
r' I
m
~
N
W
A
Uf
N..
N
W
A
l11 I ;
!
I
O O O O O O O O O O i 1

3.0 WETLAND RESTORATION
3.1 BACKGROUND
The B-2963 project will result in the fill of approximately 0.5 acres of riverine wetland. Following
a visit to the proposed B-2963 Flood Storage and Wetland Mitigation Site, the USACE agreed to
a 2:1 ratio for wetland restoration. This means that NCDOT is required to restore 1.0 acres of
riverine wetlands.
3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Approximately 2,350 feet of Old Farrington Road lies within the riverine wetland associated with
Morgan Creek. According to National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping (USFWS, 1999), this
wetland is designated a palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded,
diked/impounded wetland (PF01Ah) (Cowardin et al., 1979) (Exhibit 3.2.1).
3.2.1 Soils
A geotechnical report was provided for the east portion of the Mitigation Site by NCDOT
(Appendix C). The report revealed that the soil present on the east portion of the Mitigation Site
consists largely of coarse sandy material. According to the soil survey for Chatham County
(Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, 1933), the entire Mitigation Site occurs on a loamy substrate.
This is indication that the material to be removed from the Mitigation Site is fill material brought
to the Mitigation Site in order to raise the road surface during construction of that portion of Old
Farrington Road.
Four soil types underlie the Mitigation Site. The Mitigation Site crosses White Store fine sandy
loam, Altavista fine sandy loam, Wehadkee silt loam and Congaree silt loam (Bureau of
Chemistry and Soils, 1933) (Exhibit 3.2.1.1). According to the Hydric Soil Series List -Hydric
Soils of North Carolina (NRCS, 1995), Wehadkee silt loam is a hydric soil. The 1933 Chatham
County soil survey identifies most of the wetland area as occurring on non-hydric soils,
however, the construction of Farrington and Old Farrington Roads and the Jordan Lake
Reservoir have altered the hydrology of the area.
Hydric Soils
Wehadkee silt loam (V1/e) is a poorly drained soil found on narrow flood plains. Infiltration is
moderate and runoff is slow. The seasonal high water table is at or near the surface.
Wehadkee soils are flooded very frequently for very brief periods. This soil is found along the
floodplain on either side of Morgan Creek.
Non-Hydric Soils
White Store fine sandy loam (V1Is) has a very fine textured surface layer. This increases the
runoff potential, and decreases the permeability of the soil. This series underlays the upper half
of the eastern portion of the Mitigation Site. This series grades into Altavista fine sandy loam
closer to Morgan Creek.
14

Legend
~- Morgan Cnaek
Mitigation Site
NWI: PF01Ah: Palustrine, Forested,
Broad-Leaved Dedduous,
Temporarily Flooded, Diked/lmpounded
B-2963 Flood Storage and Wetland
Mitigation Plan
NWI Map

,}
• ,, i
North Carolina
Legend ~ ,Department of Transportation
® Hydric Soil: We (Wehadkee silt loam)
Non-Hydric Soil: Ws (White Store fine sandy loam)
Am (Altavista fine sandy loam) 8-2963 Flood Storage and Wetland
Ci (Congaree silt loam) Mitigation Plan
~~° Morgan Creek
~ Mitigation Site 50118

Altavista fine sandy loam (Am) is a moderately drained soil on stream terraces in the Piedmont
region of North Carolina. Permeability is moderate and runoff is slow. The high water table is at
or below a depth of 2.5 feet. This soil is found in a narrow band along the flood plain on the
east side of Morgan Creek.
Congaree silt loam (Ci) is a well to moderately well drained soil found on floodplains or at the
base of slopes. Permeability is moderate and runoff is slow. The high water table is below five
feet, but the soils are subject to brief flood events during winter and early spring. This soil
occurs within the flood plain of Morgan Creek, and borders the creek on the east and west
portions of the Mitigation Site.
3.2.2 Ves~etative Communities
Two of the vegetative communities present on the Mitigation Site can be classified according to
the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). These communities
include a Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest and a Piedmont Swamp Forest (Exhibit
3.2.2.1). The third community type is a disturbed, early successional hardwood community that
is emerging on the abandoned roadbed. Due to the transitional nature of the roadbed, the
community does not classify within those described by Schafale and Weakley. USACE Routine
Wetland Determination forms for the Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest and Piedmont
Swamp Forest communities are located in Appendix C.
Abandoned Roadbed Community
The vegetative community present on the old roadbed is typical of an early successional
hardwood forest that has developed as a result of disturbance. The community is present on
both the eastern and western portions of the Mitigation Site (Appendix B, Photos 3, 4, 5 & 6).
The old roadbed community includes: red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambar
styracitlua), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), pawpaw (Asimina triloba), redbud
(Cercis canadensis), river birch (Betula nigra), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides),
muscadine grape (V~tis rotundifolia), and smartweed (Polygonum sp.).
Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest
A Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest community is present on both the eastern and
western portions of the Mitigation Site. In the western portion of the Mitigation Site, the
community occurs on both sides of the old roadbed (Appendix B, Photo 7). In the eastern
portion of the Mitigation Site, the community is present only to the south of the old roadbed.
The Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest community includes: red maple, sweet gum, river
birch, willow oak (Quercus phellos), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), lizards tail (Saururus cemuus), and
false nettle (Boehmeria sp.).
Piedmont Swama Forest
While a Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest originally dominated the flood plain of Morgan
Creek, the hydrology of the Mitigation Site has been altered by the construction of Old
Farrington and Farrington Roads. These two roads have inhibited the drainage of the area
between the two roads east of Morgan Creek. Frequent standing water has caused the
Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest in this area to transition toward a Piedmont Swamp
17

Legend
~~ ~ Abandoned Roadbed
~,'-~' Piedmont Swamp Forest
Piedmont Battomland Hardwood Forest
~----- Morgan Creek

Flood Storage and Wetland
Mitigation Plan
Vegetative Communities
Scale: 1" =575' Exhibit 3.2.2.1

~~~'~~~~~~~ North Carolina
'Department of Transportation

Forest community (Appendix B, Photo 8). The community present north of Old Farrington
Road now includes: sweet gum, red maple, green ash, willow oak, river birch, tulip poplar
(Liriodendron fulipifera), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), sensitive fern (Onoclea
sensibilis), common arrowhead (Sagittaria sp.), lizards tail, woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), and
winged elm (Ulmus alata). The removal of the roadbed of Old Farrington Road will facilitate
drainage of the Piedmont Swamp Forest community and encourage the re-establishment of a
more typical Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest.
3.2.3 Hydrolocty
As noted in the previous section, the hydrology of the Mitigation Site has been significantly
altered. The hydrology of the area surrounding the Mitigation Site was originally dominated by
the flooding of Morgan Creek. However, it appears that changes within the watershed of
Morgan Creek have caused Morgan Creek to down cut, lowering the water table under the
Mitigation Site. The changes caused by the towering of Morgan Creek have been offset by the
construction of Old Farrington and Farrington Roads, which impede drainage and help maintain
hydrology. Jordan Lake represents an additional influence on the hydrology of the Mitigation
Site. The Mitigation Site lies within the flood zone of Jordan Lake, resulting in periodic flooding.
3.3 METHODOLOGY
The methodology for wetland restoration at the B-2963 Mitigation Site is straightforward. The fill
associated with the old roadbed will be removed. This will expose the underlying wetland soils
and help restore the natural drainage of the Mitigation Site. After the fill has been removed, the
area will be ripped to reduce the effects of compaction and facilitate the revegetation of the
Mitigation Site. The Mitigation Site is long and narrow and located within an established
Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood community. As a result, the USACE has stated that planting
is unnecessary. It is expected that Mitigation Site will quickly revegetate from the existing,
adjacent seed source.
3.4 PROPOSED CONDITIONS
A temporary seed mix will be planted on-site as part of the erosion control plan. However, it is
expected that a Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest community will quickly establish on the
Mitigation Site. Exhibits 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 show the areas of wetland restoration on the west and
east portions of the Mitigation Site, respectively. The west portion of the Mitigation Site will yield
0.9 acres of wetland restoration and the east portion of the Mitigation Site will yield 1.6 acres of
wetland restoration, a total of 2.5 acres. Based on the agreed upon ratio of 2:1, the B-2963
project will yield 1.25 acres of riverine wetland credits -more than enough to mitigate for the
impacts of the B-2963 project.
19
11

5133HS N`dld 3NIlH~1VW
Haaa~ nroaorr
W
t
U
O N
0
z
0
w
o:
o °
z
W ~,
W
J
oz
Z
Ill O
~Z
~° ~Z
~°

0
a
0~
~~ ~a

O~
~ m
_
Op p
Z w
~
~g ~
m~ ~
N
fn
W

0
0
8~
o~
z
O
QO
~,,, U
y }
~[O
O
W
z0
N~
J W
a~
w
J O]
o °'
~~~
z`~cn
c~ ~ W W W W ~ L~ W
a ~ * ~ a 3 ~ ~

wy~
Vm
F =
yy
qq

h/(I/8
u6p•tyExe-woenc'B6f0001L\Zuaweov~dea e6ptap~u6tsep~uoryal~ods.~a~z~BY~J0fi~21h ~•~~

E
!'
~ !9

~+CS10d
y5 '
~~
~,
OS
z
0
lL
0
N
w
Z Z
w
W
J
w

m
~,

~~ o
w
z
0
0
mss a(S1Ad ~ o
~W
o~
~~ o

SY UUN
NO~'+ $O
Div
n QUO Z
~
~¢Fo
~ ~
¢~
~
¢F
¢~¢
N
OW FU
~m
Z
a-
w
wz
~
t v~
m¢mw zo
~~
i J
I a~

.; ~
F-m
~~~ rr^^
V,
z
~
.....
~ ¢ ~

w~.
I r,. ....
.. 6:r Z 1
1 ,
W
y.
~
U
OL'SIfOY 'lI/~~ :
F
^L
VIA '-T (n
* ~
+
e. ' + U
O

3• ,
~ ~ W
t
.
+
a
~

7
i
r
''
r ~
~
. ~
~ r
,. i- a
r
a
~
.,
'
t
SL'
' Y ~:a ~~
i

f
1.
i

•.
T
~
W W W f

~ 1 t ! i ti j
j r.

~ _f
: ~F
Y'
! l
~ +
y
1~ T
- .. r
}
i
r
~
r

~
~~~~~ N r

• ? r '
W 1 LNNi L~'OS'fg~ ~~1~ ~' w.
~ - t
Ha3a~ nroaow ~ ' ~
b 133HS NVId 3NIlH~1t/W
Z
Qg
Z
a ~
/^
V Z
O a Z
INI.
N
O~ ~O ~
c!1-
~ W O
lY I_
~
~ 0 ~
Z Q _
W
~Z
g gw
M
°~
N
m ~
,.,,r cov_ ,.,... ., dnineein.....W...,.i.,.a . , :.d~,..,,,.,r~.,~,...,....,:,.,..,.N~~in ~,~~~:,,
Pld •Ci~~ZO

~ $
W
W
J
t
~~ p N
n

4.0 CONSTRUCTION
In order to minimize damage to the surrounding area, the easement granted by the USACE for
construction on the Mitigation Site restricts machinery to the old roadbed. With a limited number
of places to turn equipment around, construction will be difficult.
The east portion of the Mitigation Site can be accessed off of Old Farrington Road. An NCDOT
installed gate controls access. With the exception of some trees that have fallen across the
roadway, and some saplings growing on the roadbed, equipment can be driven down the old
roadbed. Access to the west portion is more difficult. The west portion is accessed from the
shoulder of Farrington Road, just west of the south guardrail for the bridge over Morgan Creek.
It will be necessary to construct a temporary access road for the west portion of the Mitigation
Site. There are some young trees and fallen mature trees on the west portion of the roadbed.
Most of the Mitigation Site is located in a jurisdictional wetland. As a result, erosion and
sediment control will be an issue. The plan must be rigidly enforced to prevent any violations.
The contract for construction of the B-2963 project will also include construction of the Flood
Storage and Wetland Mitigation Site. This will ensure appropriate use of the fill removed from
the Mitigation Site. The 7,400 cubic yards of fill removed from the Mitigation Site will be placed
in the embankment for the new bridge.
22

5.0 MONITORING
The B-2963 Mitigation Site is located within a wetland and so successful restoration is almost
guaranteed. As a result, the USACE has determined that monitoring will not be required.
23

6.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY
As noted in Section 1.1, the B-2963 Mitigation Site is located within the Jordan Lake Property -
the land acquired by the USACE when Jordan Lake was created. As a result, the USACE
currently owns and manages the property on which the Mitigation Site is located. The USACE
has granted NCDOT a temporary right-of-entry and easement to complete the B-2963 Flood
Storage and Wetland Mitigation Project. When construction is complete, the easement will
expire and management of the Mitigation Site will revert to the USACE. Ownership by the
USACE will ensure that the Mitigation Site is protected from future development.
24

7.0 SUMMARY
The impacts associated with the B-2963 Project included 7,330 cubic yards of flood storage
capacity for Jordan Lake and 0.5 acres of riverine wetland.
NCDOT identified the abandoned roadbed of Old Farrington Road as the preferred Mitigation
Site because it would generate sufficient flood storage and wetland restoration credits.
Following a site visit by the regulatory agencies, it was determined that credits for flood storage
capacity would be issued at a 1:1 ratio while wetland restoration credits would be issued at a 2:1
ratio.
Following a detailed survey, it was determined that the B-2963 Mitigation Site would generate
sufficient credits to mitigate for the project impacts. Table 7.1 shows that the B-2963 Mitigation
Site provides exactly the amount of flood storage capacity and about 0.75 acres extra of riverine
wetland credits.
Table 7.1 Impact and Mitigation Credits Summary Table
Type of Mitigation Impacts Yield Ratio Credits
Riverine Wetland <0.5 acres 2.5 acres 2:1 1.25 acres
Flood Stora a Ca aci 7330 cubic ards 7400 cubic ards 1.1 7400 cubic ards
25

8.0 REFERENCES
Bureau of Chemistry and Soils. 1933. Soil Survey of Chatham County, North Carolina.
Cowardin, L.M., Carter, V., and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior.
Office of Biological Services. Washington, D.C.
NCDWQ. 1999. Cape Fear Basinwide Assessment Report. North Carolina Division of
Environmental and Natural Resources. Division of Water Quality.
http://www.esb.enr.state. nc. us/bar. html.
NRCS. 1995. Hydric Soil Series Lists, Hydric Soils of North Carolina. United States
Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
http://soils.usda.gov/soil use/hydric/states/nc.htm.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
USACE. 1992. B. Everett Jordan Dam. US Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington District.
Water Management Unit. Coastal, Hydrology, and Hydraulics Section.
http://epec.saw. usace. army. mil/capefear. htm.
USACE. 1999. Annual Fiscal Report. US Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington District.
Water Management Unit. Coastal, Hydrology, and Hydraulics Section.
http://epec.saw.usace.army.mil/annualrp. htm.
USACE. 2001. Annual Fiscal Report. US Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington District.
Water Management Unit. Coastal, Hydrology, and Hydraulics Section.
http://epec.saw.usace.army.mil/annualrp. htm.
USFWS. 1999. National Wetlands Inventory GIS Shapefiles. National Wetlands Inventory,
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the Interior. St.
Petersburg, Florida.
USFWS. 2003. Chatham County. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States
Department of the Interior. http://web.ncusfws.orQ/es/cntylist/chatham.html. Last updated
February 5, 2003.
26

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
B-2963 MITIGATION MEETING NOTES

y r
s~~s~
~`w+/'
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
October 1, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Project File
Robin C. Young
PDEA, Project Planning Engineer
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
;,
SUBJECT: B-2963 Mitigation Meeting, Durham County, Replacement of
Bridge No. 111 on SR 1107 (Stagecoach Road) over New Hope
Creek, State Project 8.2352201, FA Project BRSTP-1107 (4)
A meeting for the subject bridge was held in the NCDOT Board Room of the Transportation
Building on July 18, 2002. The following people were in attendance:
David Cox
Isaac Harrold
John Hennessy
Howazd Hall
Rob Ayers
Joseph Cotton
Eric Alsmeyer
Michael Hosey
Carol Banaitis
Chris Militscher
Scott Pohlman
Jerry Snead
Kathy Lassiter
Clint Morgan
Heather Montague
Lubin Prevatt
Robin Young
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
US Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
US Fish & Wildlife (USFWS)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) -Regulatory
US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE Ops) -Operations (Falls/Jordan Lake)
US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE Ops) -Operations (Falls/Jordan Lake)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
NCDENR -Natural Heritage Program
NCDOT - Hydraulics~Unit
NCDOT -Roadway Design Unit
NCDOT -Roadway Design Unit
Project Development & Environmental Analysis (PDEA)
Project Development & Environmental Analysis (PDEA)
Project Development & Environmental Analysis (PDEA)
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss mitigation associated with replacement of the
subject bridge. The following is a summary of the topics.
Flood Storag~(fill below 240 ft msll
Initial fill mitigation was calculated at 9886 cubic yazds (cy). By increasing the length (span)
of the bridge, removal of part of the existing Roadway fill will account for 1850 cy of fill. In
addition, 706 cy of excavation for standard roadway ditches will account for fill. This results
in total flood storage mitigation of 7330 cy.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMIN~.>TON STREET
1548 Mgll. SE?VICE CENTEF I~l~c5SfTE: i-1`v114CNCD0?.0~'C I?gLEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

There are seven Secondary Roads (SR) that enter the flood pool of the lake on the Jordan Lake
Property. These 7 roads need to be evaluated as possible sites for mitigation. There may be
potential for fill along the old roadways to be removed in order to restore flood storage as well
as wetlands. If NCDOT is able to access these roads with their equipment and if the elevations
of these locations aze within a range that is usable, it is possible that these will serve as our
mitigation sites. If it is feasible, NCDOT will be able to use material from these sites and haul
it to the project site to use as fill.
,,
Wetlands (Water Quality
As of April 25, 2002, wetland impacts were calculated as follows: Fill in wetlands (0.267
acres), Mechanized Clearing using Method III (0.318 acres), and Temporary Fill in SW (0.059
acres). Since that time, DOT's Construction office has agreed to use Method II for clearing &
grubbing which will decrease the amount of acres impacted. Standard ratios will apply for
mitigation.
Mitigation should be at the reservoir/on the lake property. There are seven Secondary Roads
(SR) that enter the flood pool of the lake on the Jordan Lake Property. These seven roads need
to be evaluated as possible sites for mitigation. There may be potential for fill along the old
roadways to be removed in order to restore wetlands. There may be more areas along the upper
part of-the lake, near Highway 54, and/or I-4b. WRC would like as much "in kind" mitigation
as possible. To the knowledge of the attendees, Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) is not
doing any projects on Jordan Lake.
An onsite meeting-was held on Friday, August 2, 2002 with the US Army Corps of Engineers
(Regulatory & Operation Branches), Division of Water Quality, and NCDOT to evaluate
possible mitigation sites. An old roadway was evaluated. At this time, it appears the roadway
can serve mitigation requirements. The area must be surveyed to determine exactly how the
cubic yazdage will match up to the mitigation needs.
The green sheet should include a commitment stating all temporary clearing will be re-
vegetated with appropriate plant species.
Recreation Access and Opportunity
ACOE Operations is concerned about the loss of existing parking during construction. Duck
hunting season is September 1 -January 31 (Deer season may be extended through August)
and all driveways should be open for the hunters to access.
Currently, visitors are parking on the shoulder of the road, just past the existing bridge;
construction of the new bridge will eliminate this parking. Agencies feel NCDOT is taking
away this roadside parking and should provide a new parking azea in the northeast quadrant of
the project (NC 751 side of bridge). This pazking area could be attached to the WRC's existing
service road, be a gravel lot, and provide parking for 5-6 vehicles. Elevation of this area is
higher than the roadway and could be used as restoration and "in kind" mitigation.
Mitigation Meeting (7-18-02) Minutes Fage 2 of 4
R-~4F3 T)nrham ~'.nnnty

Should NCDOT mitigate for the loss of parking along SR 1107? If NCDOT agrees to
construct a parking area, who will maintain it? The agencies feel NCDOT should build and
maintain the lot so it can be open year round and provide safety to recreational fishers and
hikers in addition to the hunters. Apparently, the Red Mill Road Area of Falls Lake in Durham
County has one parking lot that was constructed in addition to a realignment project and is now
maintained by NCDOT. Since the land in question is recreational, publicly owned, and
another agency (WRC) is willing to maintain the parking area, NCDOT agrees to build a gravel
parking lot that will accommodate 5-6 vehicles. WRC's primary concern for this aria is access
during hunting season. WRC stated they are willing to overtake and maintain the parking
facility. At this time, WRC does not have the staff or the funds to maintain the lot year round.
Outside of hunting season, ACOE Operations will coordinate with WRC concerning the
parking lot. Once the parking lot is constructed, it becomes full responsibility of WRC and
ACOE Operations.
ACOE Operations feels development in the area will increase recreational use and safety
should be a consideration.
Wildlife Habitat (Wildlife Passage)
Lengthening the new bridge has provided an iricreased area of passage for wildlife under the
bridge. There was a concern about the rip rap drawn on the design plans. It was explained that
the rip rap would be placed on the slopes of the bridge approaches and will not interfere with
animal crossing in the area under the bridge. There is approximated 50 feet between the rip rap
and the stream for passage under the bridge. ' '
Critter Crossings/culverts were discussed and have been deemed not feasible at this site due to
the location of the waterfowl impoundment, topography of the area, and lack of means to direct
animals to particular crossings.
ACOE Operations stated in the last eight years, there have been 15 vehicular crashes in the
vicinity of the bridge. One of these crashes involved a deer. The question arose, should
wildlife signs be placed in the project vicinity? WRC stated to their knowledge, there were not
many deer in the project vicinity, especially during peak traffic times. However, they would
not be opposed to cautionary signs going up. At this time, the traffic representatives have not
responded. If it is decided the signs are warranted, this will be stated in the Addendum to the
Categorical Exclusion.
USFWS wants to make sure there is an updated survey for the plant species, Michaex's Sumac.
All threatened and endangered species need to be re-surveyed and have obtained the USFWS
approval.
Other
Mark Helmon with NCDOT's Right of Way Department has contacted ACOE Operations.
There is a sewer line running along the north or south side of SR 1107. The bridge design calls
for a pier location that will be within one foot of the sewer line. The sewer line owners are
Mitigation Meeting (7-18-02) Minutes Yage 3 of 4

looking to re-locate the line. Any utility re-alignment within the project area should be
permitted with this project. ACOE looks to NCDOT to coordinate the easement of the new
sewer line location, especially if it will be outside of the project limits. ACOE has their own
real estate branch with their own regulations and may have to be included in any new location
of the sewer line. The sewer line design is currently being handled and a final design is
expected in a month. or so. The sewer line location will be included on the drawings for the
permit application.
~,
ACOE wants NCDOT to look at methods of slowing down traffic along SR 1107, especially in
the vicinity of Bridge No. 111. One suggestion was reducing the speed limit from 55 mph to
45 mph. After checking with the Assistant Division Traffic Engineer, the speed limit can be
reduced to 45 mph due to roadway alignment between NC 751 and SR 1110 (Farrington Rd).
NCDOT Division forces will go ahead and handle this.
Pavement markings for crosswalks were discussed. Since currently there are not hiking trails
or greenways that cross the road within project limits, crosswalks are not warranted.
Before ACOE Regulatory can verify a permit, ALOE Operations must have everything they
need.
Mitigation Meeting (7-18-02} Minutes Page 4 of 4

APPENDIX B
PHOTOGRAPHS

a
I '~ `.! 1
A: ' y
k'.
~~
.~ ~
j
5

rtion of the
ast portion.
r
i
~~
Photo 2. View of the access point for me east p
is hanging from the gate that blocks the e~
I
Ian Site.

Piedmont Bottomiand Hardwood Forest con
roadbed in comparison with t
by

Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest. Tt
portion of the Mitigation Site, where the
adjacent gr
was taken at the easternmos
was nearly level with the
.~
,~ ~

.~ a . .
s

~A~
+
~
~ ~
`
~ II~
rl~~
~~d p r '
~~ ~ ~ ' ~1
i~l w.~i
i V ~k~0~y L'i" rtl~ II"~

.r
t: ~

n~
_'

.
~ ~ ~;
~
,~ ,~,
_rr
,g{
~~

removal of fill associated with the old
Stte, allowing it to transition back tc
Forest
..,.

APPENDIX C

.' ,.
~ r ~, RttEC!<NED ~~
'~
'•---~'' AUG 2 2 X405
STATE OF I~10RTH CAROLINA -gig 1uAK ~~~
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI ~~ , --"'~
1VI[CHA£L 1'. EASLEY t'.O. BOX 252uL RALEIGH,N.C. 27611-i20t ~~~~Y~TT
CIt)VERNOR ~-'
J
.4u;ust 19, 2003 ~""FY.L n~j{..1
--~~W~pISCUSS Y~ ---
STATE PROJECT: 8.2352201 {B-2963)
FEDER.A.L PROJECT: SRSTP-1107 {4)
CO>/TNTy: Durham
DFSCRIP"['ION: Bridge No. 111 over Ncw Hope Creek on SR 1107
MEMt)Rr~NDUM TO: Bruce Payne, PE
Project Design Engineer, Roadway Design Unit
FROM: J. I. Milkovits, Jr. • •
Project Geologist, Geotechnical Engineering Unit
SUB,iJ/CT: Evaluation of soils on Old Farrington Road in Chatham County
In response to your request for the suitability of the soils along the Old Farrington Road in
Chatham County, the Geotechnical Engineerin; Unit drilled several borings along the abandoned roadbed.
The soils iu the e~cisting embankment of Oid Farrington Road are suitable for embankment construction.
Attached are the soil test results as provided to us by the ivtaterials and Tests Unit, Soils Laboratory.
DNAi,fIM
Post-IY Fax Note
ys~~

Y~
F.~ x ~.~1- ~v 2
ti LI• jl I ~ ~ ):'. j L~i I. CT r'10~1 c~rr'~t~_nr~ G Tc . on ~ , ~4...-. .,. ~_.-_.._._ _ - -

M ~ 7 Form 503
NOR"11.1 CARULitNA D1EPAiRTMENT Uk"ixANSroKraTlOty
DIVISION OF HIGHWAY
M.A7'ERitAI.S & TESTS UNYT
SOILS LABORATORY
T. I. P. Ko. B-2963
REPORT ON SAMPLES OF SOILS FOR QUALITI~~
,'
Pru,ject 32780.1.1 Count~• CHAT>FIAM Owner
Date: Sampled 8,~1 I/03 Received 8/1.3/03 Reported 8/15/03
Sampled from By J. I. MILKOVITS, JR.
Submitted br N.W. WA.INAINA 1995 Standard Speciticatiuny
707089 TO 707097
RI t 9/03
TF.~T RFS1Ii,TS
Proj. San le No. S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6
Lab. Sample Nu. 707089 .707090 707091 707092 707093 707014
Retained #A Sieve "/" - - - - i -
Passin #10 Si~;ve "/o G7 100 89 100 94 98
Passin #40 Sieve °% 51 96 87 98 91 80
Passing #200 ieve % 37 79 78 64 C8 49
tvrTNttc rvn 10 tNRACTinN
SOIL MORTAR - I00°~b ;
Coarse Sand Ret - #60 °~~ 311.8 7.2 4.4 10.3 8.9 26.8
Fine Sand Ret - #270 % 16.1 20.9 12.3 29.8 22.7 28.2
Silt 0.05 - 0.005 tom °io 29.0 35.6 45.1 25,8 3d.2 20,9
Clav < U.0U5 mm % 24.1 36.2 38.2 3~t.2 34.2 24.1
Passin #40 Sieve % - - - - - -
Passin #200 ieve % - - ~ - -
L. L. 30 34 31 31 29 28
p I 12 16 13 14 11 13
AASHTO Cl3sslfiC~tion A-G(i) A-l~(11) A-6(9) A-6(() A-G(5) A-6(3)
Stallion
Hole No. #5 #5 #4 #4 #3 #3
pe ~ (Ft) 1.00 9.50 3.00 7.00 z.50 8.00
to 2.HIf li.t1U 5.00 9.00 4.00 10.00
cc~ J. 1. MILKOVITS, JR.
Soils Fi1c
ScTils En~u;trer F~~ge ,l

1vORTH CAR0I.,INA DEPARTMENT OF TRAlYSFORTATiOl~i
DIVISION OF HIGHWAY
MATER1Ai.,S & TESTS UNIT
SOILS LABORATORY
T. I. P. Nu. B-2963
M 8. T Form 503
REPORT ON SAMPLES OF SOILS FOR QUALITY
i
Pmjcct 32780.1.1 Couut)' CHATHAM Owner '
Date: Sarnplcd 8/i 1/03 Rcccived 8!13/03 Repotted 8/15!03
Sampled from )8y I. I. MILKOVITS, JR.
Sul-mitted by N.W. VVAINAINA 1995
707()89 TO 707097
R/ 19/U3
Proj. Sanzple No.
Lab. Sample No.
Retained #~ Sieve
Passing #10 Sieve
Pawing #40 Sieve
SOIL h40RTAR - l0U"/o
Coarse Sand Ret - #5U
Fine Sand Ret - #270
Silt O.US - O,U05 nun
Clay < U.U05 mm
Passing #4U Sia've
L. L. -
P. I.
AASHTO Classification
Station
Hole No.
TEST RESULTS
5-7 S-8 S-9
70711!~S 707(19(, 70709
°iu - - 1
100 1 UII 96
% 99 91 9Z.
/" 50 GO 76
MINUS. NO. 10 FRACTION
"/0 10.1 15.9 8.9
47.7 30.6 15.1
°/" 20.1 31.d 37.8
"in 22.1 22.1 38.2
o/" - - -
oi" _ - -
28 29 43~
8 1l ZG
A-4(11 A-6(4) A-7-6(19
#2 #l Akl
f,.UO 10.00 2.00
to 8.00 11.00 5.00
Standard Sparlficat~ons
Sc~ilc Engineer
page z

APPENDIX D
WETLAND DATA FORMS

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Pro'ect/Site: B-2963 Date: Au ust 1, 2003
A licant /Owner: USACE Count :Chatham
Investi ator: Lia M ott State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES NO Communi ID: Swam Forest Wetland
Is the site si nificantl disturbed A ical Situation ? YES ND Transect ID: ~
Is the area a otential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) YES f~ Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator
1 Acer rubrum Tree FAC 9 Ce halanthus occidentalis Shrub OBL
2 Betula ni ra Tree FACW 10 Saururus cernuus Herb OBL
3 Querous falcata Tree FACU- 11 Boehmeria c lindrica Herb FACW+
4 Platanus occidentalis Tree FACW- 12 Sci us c erinus Herb OBL
5 Fraxinus enns Ivanica ~ Tree FACW 13 Onoclea sensibilis Herb FACW
6 Quercus hellos Tree FACW- 14
7 Quercus alba _ Tree FACU 15
8 Salix ni ra Tree OBL 16
Percent of Dominant S ecies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excludin FAC- : 85%
Remarks:
Normal Circumstances do not exist on the site. The damming of Jordan Lake has created wetland areas where the
vegetation and soils are still in transition. Hummocks of Southern red oak and white oak can be found on hummocks
surrounded by two feet of Nvater. ,
This wetland plot was taken approximately 10 feet from the edge of the surface water on the northern side of Old
Farrington Road.
HYDROLOGY
[ J Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
( ]Stream, Lake, or Tide Guage
[ ]Aerial Photographs
[ ]Other
~ [X] No Recorded Data Available
FIELR OBSERVATIONS
Depth of Surface Water --T
~ Depth of Free Water in Pit
~ Depth to Saturated Soil
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
[ ]Inundated
[X] Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
[X] Water Marks
[ j Drift Lines
[ J Sediment Deposits
(XJ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
0 (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required)
[XJ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
8 (in) [X] Water-stained Leaves
[ J Local Soil Survey Data
4 (in) [ ]FAC-Neutral Test
Other Ex lain in Remarks

SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): White Store sandy loam Drainage Class: Moderately Well
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Thermic Oxyaquic Vertic Hapludalfs Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO

Depth Horizon Matrix Color
inches Mansell Moist PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Mansell Moist AbundancelContrast Structure, etc.
0-6 A 10YR 6/3 10YR 6/3 20% Fine sand loam
6-18+ B 10YR 7/2 10YR 4/6 10% Cla loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
[ ] Histosol
[ ] Histic Epipedon
[ ] Sulfidic Odor
[X] Aquic Moisture Regime
[X] Reducing Conditions
Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors [ ]Concretions
[ ]High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[ ]Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[ ]Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
[ ]Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other Ex lain in Remarks
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
H~rdrophytic Vegetation Present? _ YES NO
Wetland H drolo Present? ___ Y,;ES NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? 'YES NO
H dric Soil Present? YES NO _
Remarks:
The National Wetlands Inventory classifies this wetland as Palustrine, Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Temporarily
Flooded, Diked/Impounded.

f ~
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Pro'ecUSite: B-2963 Date: Au ust 1, 2003
A licant /Owner: USACE Count :Chatham
Investi ator: Lia M ott State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES NO Communit ID: Swa Forest U land
Is the site si nificantl disturbed At ical Situation ? YES NQ Transect ID:
Is the area a otential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) YES Nd Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S Gies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator
1 Pinus taeda Tree FAC 9
2 Quercus hellos Tree FACW- 10
3 Li uidambar st raciflua Tree FAC+ 11
4 Quercus ni ra Tree FAC 12
5 Quercus stellata Tree FACU 13
6 Toxicodendron radicans Vine FAC 14
7 Vitis s Vine FAC 15
8 As lenium s Herb varies ~ 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding.FAC-): 86%
Remarks: ,
This upland plot was taken North of Old Farrington Road in an area that has been previously logged and planted with
loblolly pine.
HYDROLOGY
( ]Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
[ ]Stream, Lake, or Tide Guage
[ ]Aerial Photographs
[ ]Other
[X] No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Depth of Surface Water
Depth of Free Water in Ptt
~ Depth to
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
[ ]Inundated
[ ]Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
[ ]Water Marks
[ ]Drift Lines
[ ]Sediment Deposits
( ]Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
0 (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required)
[ ]Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
N/A (in) [ ]Water-stained Leaves
[ ]Local Soil Survey Data
N/A (in) [ ]FAC-Neutral Test
Other Ex lain in Remarks

SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla loam Drainage Class: Somewhat poor
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO

Depth Horizon Matrix Color
inches Munsell Moist PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6 A 10YR 7/2 Fine sand loam
6-12 B1 10YR 6/4 Cla loam
12-18+ B2 10YR 7/2 Cla to m

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
[ ] Histosol
[ J Histic Epipedon
[ ] Sulfidic Odor
[ ] Aquic Moisture Regime
[ ]Reducing Conditions
Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors [ ]Concretions
[ ]High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[ J Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[ ]Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
[ ]Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other Ex lain in Remarks
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
~drophytic Vegetation Press
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soil_Present?
Remarks:
YES
NO
NO
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES N;Q

,'

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Pro'ect/Site: B-2963 Date: Au ust 19, 2003
A licant /Owner: USACE Count :Chatham
Investi ator: Lia M ott State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES NQ Communi ID: BH-W tland
Is the site si nificantl disturbed At ical Situation ? YES NO Transect ID: ~
Is the area a otential Problem Area? (~f needed, explain on reverse) YES NO Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator
1 Fraxinus enns Ivanica _ Tree FACW 9 Onoclea sensibilis Herb FACW
2 Li uidambar st raciflua _ Tree FAC+ 10
3 Betula ni ra _ Tree FACW 11
4 Platanus occidentalis Tree FACW- 12
5 Acer rubrum __ _ Tree FAC 13
6 Ca inus caroliniana
_ _____ Tree FAC 14
_
7 Quercus hellos ___ Tree FACW- 15

8 Cicuta maculata _
Shrub
OBL
16 _
Percent of Dominant S ecies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excludin FAC- :100%
Remarks:
This wetland plot was taken in an alluvial wetland area south of Old Farrington Road. Understory vegetation is non-
existent.
~;
HYDROLOGY
[ ]Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
[ ]Stream, Lake, or Tide Guage
[ ]Aerial Photographs
[ ]Other
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Depth of Surface Water
Depth of Free Water in Pit
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
( ]Inundated
[ ]Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
[X] Water Marks
[XJ Drift Lines
[ ]Sediment Deposits
[X] Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
0 (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required)
[ ]Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
16 (in) [X] Water-stained Leaves
[X] Local Soil Survey Data
12 (in) [ ]FAC-Neutral Test
Other Ex lain in Remarks
Depth to Saturated Soil

SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Wehadkee silt loam Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Fluvaquents Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO

Depth Horizon Matrix Color
inches Munsell Moist PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-6 A 10YR 4/4 2.5YR 3/6 20% Fine sand loam
6-12 B 10YR 4/2 2.5YR 4/8 50% Sand cla loam
12+ C 10YR 5/2 2.5YR 4/7 50% Cla loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
[ ] Histosol
[ ] Histic Epipedon
[ ] Sulfidic Odor
[XJ Aquic Moisture Regime
[X] Reducing Conditions
X Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors _ [X] Concretions
[ ]High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[ ]Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[X] Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
[ ]Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other Ex lain in Remarks
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
H dro h tic Vegetation Present?__ __ _YES NO
Wetland H drolo ~ Present? YES NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES NO
H dric Soil Present? _____ YES NO
Remarks:
The National Wetlands Inventory classifies this wetland as Palustrine, Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Temporarily
Flooded, Diked/Impounded.

i ~'
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Pro~ect/Site: B-2963 Date: Au ust 1, 2003

A licant /Owner: USACE _
Count :Chatham
Investi ator: Lia M ott State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES O Communit ID: BH-U land
Is the site si nificantl disturbed At ical Situation ? YES 0 Transect ID: ~
Is the area a otential Problem Area? t~f needed, explain on reverse) YES NO Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator
1 Quercus falcata Tree FACU- 9 Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
2 Quercus alba Tree FACU 10
3 Li uidambar st raciflua Tree FAC+ 11
4 Pinus taeda Tree FAC 12
5 Cercis canadensis Tree FACU 13
6 Querous ni ra ____ _ Tree FAC 14
7 Ca a labra __ Tree FACU 15
S Ulmus alata Shrub FACU+ ~ 16
Percent of Dominant S ecies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excludin FAC- : 44%
Remarks: -
This upland plot was taken South of Old Farrington Road.

HYDROLOGY
[ ]Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
[ ]Stream, Lake, or Tide Guage
[ ]Aerial Photographs
[ ]Other
[X] No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Depth of Surface Water
Depth of Free Water in Pit
~ Depth to Saturated Soil
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
[ ]Inundated
[ ]Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
[ ]Water Marks
[ ]Drift Lines
[ ]Sediment Deposits
[ ]Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
0 (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required)
[ ]Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
N/A (in) [ ]Water-stained Leaves
[ ]Local Soil Survey Data
N!A (in) [ ]FAC-Neutral Test
Other Ex lain in Remarks

SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Congaree silt loam Drainage Class: Moderately Well
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Oxyaquic Udifluvents Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO

Depth Horizon Matrix Color
inches Munsell Moist PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-9 A 10YR 4/3 Sand loam
g+ B 10YR 3/6 Loam

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
[ ] Histosol
[ ] Histic Epipedon
[ ] Sulfidic Odor
[ ] Aquic Moisture Regime
[ ]Reducing Conditions
Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors [ ]Concretions
[ ]High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[ ]Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[ ]Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
[ J Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other Ex lain in Remarks
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINA'~ION '

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh F;eW ORIu
Post OtSce Box 3gT36
Raleigh, North Carolina 3763746
October 22, 2003
Brett Feulner
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Feulner:
This letter is in response to your letter of October 13, 2003 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusions of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) for three federally listed species for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 111 over New Hope Creek in Durham County (TIP No. B-2963). The biological
conclusions are as follows:
Common Name Scientific Name Biological Conclusion
bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus No Effect
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii May Effect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata May Effect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
The following comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Due to the lack of habitat, the Service concurs with the "no effect" conclusion for the bald eagle.
Also, due to the negative results of the surveys conducted on August 23, 1996 and July 22, 2002,
the Service concurs that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Michaux's
sumac and smooth coneflower.
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 maybe 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).
Sincerely,
ay./~/~ 3~i~c~
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmore, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

( (%
NORTH CAROL NA
i~~~,
~':Y~'_
~ ~"
~~~.5rai~~~ ~ t.
~ ry~~~~ G+c.'kx
r +~ ~.a ,~
~-~_.._,. Em

a~r~
~.,
~~j
~Y ~~~LN~T~
1.°ll~~
<N®T T® SCALIE)

~rankFF;
Yi;urt~~
r
~~ ~ .'
~'~~ ~~~~ a I ~a
l~
~~~,_ . r
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2352201 (B-2963)
BRIDGE NO.111 OVER
NEW HOPE CREEK
ON SR 1107
SHEET 1 OF 6 DATE: 1,~ 15,E 02
~~:~~,-~ ~~1
~ t ~a tip.'
~ ~U;~
~ ,,
4 ;~
,;;~;~~

,~ ti o ; ~ ~ .. c `~ r `
~P r / ~~ j ~ r ^~s ~ ~ kt^ Yom..!-~ ~' j I w ~ ~ ~5'~ ~rr-~s~i f: .,~•- ,
p~ /y / r ~ ~..'"`~.
1 ~ ~Is~! ~`~~ 1 i l ~' .c'. :E' n { +yr,~ ~~ f` C f t 1 f 1 / L~~/ , J~11~ ` ~ j~ -r q ~ ~ ~ 1 V 'r~~~ /JI~'~v' ~~+~
`l IR j (r ~ [ ~/ '4ry ~.r ~•~~t ~"%'~ n „1„M..~ ~.,`` / ~ 1~~~ (_ ,\ J , ~~'~~ S~eSF $ t'-T'r~'~u~P } ~, rt~ f ~ ~.~,.~1 1` 1~
V A 1
rr' l fin. _ ^~cP
'~y
11 , ll
\
„
~/
'~ 1 NT .r,5': E - ~ ~ 7 ~' ~ j'~~ ~ ~~~ `~~-~ h~'ir.`~ psi wad ~ ~~w ~ y `,

I _ ~ ~'.. ~ ~ ..,.)
-
J
v
- ~
~
..
„~ r ~ ti `~ j ~ti ~
~ P
ti - ,~ ~,.~ L. l o j
~ ~.
,_
I
~

~ tirJl ~ l
l 'J w.14 +F W
~~` .~
~1 1~Ltj
~ ~
~
j'
~
'
1
//
~ s~ F~
~~~T}t 1 / ~~~ti} / ~ %
~
I (
~ 1~r o ~ ~~ tiy~~ ?~
i
' ~:
~ ~
~
,.
fi
v.,.,, r , t. .r. :.f '.7r ~ .( - /~ l; 1` `~" ~.L~S~'~V !~ I f. f'``'
~~/~ ~ /"^y ~ '.. wt1.
l~
~
~
I~
M`t~~n
--
~~
l ~~i
~
,'If
(~
r
~
~
.
~
~
}
r
u
_.V
r
~.
~
,~
`
`
/
~
/`
a.,~ x 3
' „!~.. ~
Cdl l ~ ~"~r'Tf ~
_.__-~1`ti`` .e~~~~ 4~~z
~`~;; ~ ~; ~
tf
~
~
~
;
~
. ~
7
.~
/
f !
l ~'
~
g
~ 1 '~ If
w~ '"..~ 1 ~ ~ t ~~ ~ ' V ~~ ,,J~~ ~. ti `i~'i^~:~ iL+'~ ,,~' ~ °t~ ?~ ~,, j ~~ ,; 'l ~~ ! (i ~ ~ l Q~ 1 f
f :.
t J
y
~ ~
~
~
~
`''y ~
? 1
~ /~f 1~1
~3,y~ .~
y^~Y1 ~ ~2bp~'"3t~_ ~.' ~ ~,.i..~ +~ry Wrk.~ ~.l "~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ 'S •' !' ''~'~.Y' ~`...__. ~~"-
'^' _
~ +
~y
~ I i (rl •. ~+ ~r
~`*~-"'~ 4, ;,
r i.
l
»°;~
~~
~-
i ~
~4'.
'
"
' ~~
~
~ ~
\Y f ~
r~
f
~"`
. ,
~
X
~
,~
S
~u
p~
~
~.1~
l
i
r
r
11 y~
~
~.._, 1. / ii~1 ~ - ~ ~(r ate. ,s-;,. ~'~..~ ~=~' s '{r?r%`_ ~d~'_ f{ ` (~"~..'~~ `( -:
r-1--c
-~-- '4 ~, ,
f
rl l ~ ;3/'1 Z.,/ ,y ..I.' ! ~ ~lry y' ~ ~~'L ~y ~ ~ .. T~N,S ~ 1 ~St 1 ~.. 1 f ~ ~ l ,~\ ~ t ~~ir f

al r - i P 1
_ _ . ~ ,"oT6,.,,~ ' l
.t ~ ; ~~: ~ f ~~
'~i:rj i I ~~ ~ Y I} !~
c 4,
~' %
1~'
~
l
: ~
~
° '
l
~ 1
'
~~
F
~~
~
' ~
~
J `
~\ ~C Y Ur+„
. ~S
r
:
~,,;
~ ~-~~ i n ,i _~'"l
1 1 7~:
~+~.~y'~, k._. .
A, ~y4~+.
~.~E.1' ~i y t L ~~'. ~'.ic ~.. t.t f a ~~ ~ 3~' - ~ i ~ / _ y ;;,miTry '` ~;'i ~ I~.' ~~\~•
~~ t ~ ~" .C ~ ~ - . -~ ~ Ir~1.. ~.. < _ I~
F ~~?
~`T.~
\).:. ~~ ~1 ..~ ` v i...'~ ~-.~ !7 ~ ~.._ ~ sF~r..I~T~~ r.. 1...~-~ 1L~ t~.. , ~ ( 1 ~.~
..
rte
7
'
~
~
, ..
.~,
\ ~} .
~
.
-n _ + I ~Q ' ~-' C 'r ~ ~ 1
~_'~~ ~ .`. ~\ ,. _... ~"./7 F l ~ ~I / "
~ ~'i
F l/J•~ ....-~ ~ z
s
_ ..,,,~
~~
~..:~
~~ ~~
~
_
_}
r r 3n. ~ y ~ 5 ~ 1',
.._
~
~ J~~ i ~
, ~~
f lr ~~ .!H ~ ~ x ,, <. ..r t~ a 1. ~.~ ~. ~r ~~. ~1 ~
~ 1Ck ~ 1r li i f 1~~3 ~ 'L _ ~ ~~ ~ `~'~, ~~ v ,,,` 1~ t ~ '~ ~--_ ,~r, '1``~ _ 1 1 ~!^ .. ~
/
~~ c,,~ ~--~. ;t~~.
`i ` ~~ ~ `"' "~: (r ,~ .` ,':
r% r `~ '~ ~.: ~ k ''`fir
y~. ~' 'y~~~; ~
.
~
/
•
' 4.~1 1 ~ l f_' ~ ~ir,_: ~ltaarti ~~.., ~. A~ '..Y 1 .ry. ,~_ t' ~ .t.~~ S ~-+_. y` /f , ~ ~ ~./`A--a _~r~'-s-ax~
I
I
ti' )
y
`\\
y.~
1(
~ ~
~
~
',}
`
~~
~
y \. _ ~S/
---'-~.;,W.,.,,,,,~ ~.
{\1 \
~
r~
1
1,
1
~
ti
V
~ ,
.,
~..
.
~ ~ 4
~' ~t - -R~
1
'
`
,
,
-
_
~ r ,~ C'~ r
t
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2352201 (B-2963)
BRIDGE NO.111 OVER
NEW HOPE CREED
ON SR 1107
SHEET 2 OF 6 DATE: 1615% 02

-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
WL
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
CLC1L11L~ DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
" DENOTES MECHANIZED
• «
• CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
TB
~- TOP OF BANK
•- WE- - EDGE OF WATER
- -C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F -PROP. L[M]T OF FILL
-~ PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- - PL - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - ~- - - - WATER SURFACE
XX XXX X X LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
CORE FIBER ROLLS
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
WOODS L[NE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD

R[P RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PS H)
LEVEL SPREADER (L S)
GRASS SWALE
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2352201 (B-2963)
BRIDGE NO. 111 OVER
NEW HOPE CREEK
ON SR 1107
SHE1;'C 3 OF 6 DATE: l~lfi% 02

o
O ~
~NI~ H~1dW ~ ~. ~ `.
F ~ a~ ~ x~
x ~ H ~ ww w
~- ~ ~ a O z ., y wFq'
r ® ~+ ~`'
Nz - ~ z ~ o o ,~~° °
m ~ x U ~
NN ~ F O ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ -, % p c~ U C7 3
,f> a ~ A ,~.~ p w '~
xz
p ~ W
~~ a U
~ `
3 \ ~ y~''~ = Z ~
~p ~
./ ~ z. Z
.~
o
~ ~ J a
~ U J
-H a F-
~~ S•d = ~ W
W 3
~I .- ~ ; p N
I_ '`I- ~ Z
Q
~I la ~ ~ = J
~ w
f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~' ~I I ~ ~
_„ ~_' a I~- a~
-H / ~, Y Y ~ __ ~ ~ Z Z
~ ~ ~ ~ I s Ib ~ 8 ~ 0 p
~ ~ ~ ~~ I~ ~ a ,.
k
I f •
_ M
~~ O ~ ~ o ~~ I~ ~ a ~ ~ ,•~
~; I. I~ w ~
~~ ~ _
~i I, ~ ~
~ I CIS
I I ~ I
I I I
~ I
I ~I
I I ~al °
I ~ I gal °
i
° w
~~
°~
0
°

0
z e
~ ~ ~ ~ :~
~' _ _ L ~~, ~ / ~ ~ ~ o
JN~ ~~b` //l~ / l/ F •L J~+ c~ W Q4 w
W 1
pl I I~ O z x U e°v oU° G
~ ~ -~ w
I~ 1 1 ~ w ~ ®°'~
.~ - I ~~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ z
0
-~ ® 3
~ - I w ~ a ° ~z H
I ~ A ca ~ w
'~ ~ I ~ x
d I
I ~~
~ ~~ ~ ~
u g
~, I
.„
I N
r ~
~ I • ~~ n
,~ +
~"1 +
~. \ I
o ~ ^ - -~
+ I
I
~ I ~
~ z
i
1 ~
3 I Q O
* F -~ W Z
J Q
¢ ( N ~--~ J
H
~ 0 W
• I N ~
I I W ~ Z
o ~' I I I- ~
~'
W
~ W
* • I ~ (J7 N
W W
• F- ~
O ~
W lit
I I ~ ~ ~ Z z
~~ ' I I I. ~ P o 0
_ yy~11 ~
'H (1
-" I I. l ~ g ~. «. W
~ r
N ~' ~ I I i - o
~ ~\ ~
P 8 - I I O
8~ ~ -I I o~~\ ~ o
~~ O ~ al I ' ~~7 y ii
V ~ _
~ ~ z ~I ~I ~ Irv ' „ o w
~ I WI I~ ~a ~~ a
I I I I I° N
CQ O
Lfl
~NI~ H~l~l
0
0

~ E C

~ N ~ ~ O
fU
Z ~ 0
~ c ~

jn ~ N ~
.
a O
x L
w U E
ii
~
a
~ o
E c ~-
m -
I-
~
a
c co ~ o
_- 4. ---
_,
i~
~
~
C ~ U
~ f9
O
_
~ Z v
~
Q
U
N ~
U M
p ~ 1~ N
m
N L~ L~
`~ O O O N
o
U ~ U ~
a~
a
C ~
~
O
C
~ ~ U
~ v
X
W
W c
a
O ~
Z
= -~
Q
~
U
J
~" N cU
W N O
?~ F- c
N
C ~
O
~
M
~
~ ~
O O O
N
(h
~~ V O O O ~
~
N O. W
~
F~' ~

~ N m
N
~ (n
~
N
~ o
°
~ O ~ O J O ~
-
«D o o
M .n
O o 0
(
O 0
~
~ +
O
+
O +

' ~
r t
V
v N ry N ~`
> N M

~ ~ J
Q
fn Z N O
H

~rs~~~r~trNi, ~, i~~.~t:~.~o

N4~£M1'b $4$C~b ~4R4~R

t~ bti'658 ;Y',TIMF y'EU~~69~
h RSU~
f N AM 4
F 46D(.N~49 MDti bbb Bb~6bb B1~b
Re
v
12/17
/4JN
b E . E '

- 1- - - - - -- - - - - - - . _. - _.. __ - _ . ~ -- .: -. _- .-- - -

-

- - - ~-. .

- - - I - - - _ _ - -- - _ - _ _" -. _- _ - - _- _ -_ -

_
- I
- _ _ _
r ~ I - -

- _ a

~~

Z
a
- _ ~
x ~

aSNtE9~M11~'684484

l~d~'p 7~!k 4~SY `J IMI ~9;Fl9
£'4'Db'69;'6'hb'69~M1~44~DGN'1 A'$~x't S'b4RSS84?b
'k10'b USLIiN(1Mf_4444

_ ... j _ __ _ _ _- -- _.. _ _ __ _~.. -.

__ _ _ - - _ -- i _ - _. _ .

.-
_I _ _ ~ _ _~ _ _ 1.
y _ _ ._ _ . _ _. __ _. __ _.. _ __ . _ ._ .. __ .. - . ~ _ _. . _

_ ._ - - - - _ _ - I _ .___ _ .__._ _. _

._ _ __ .
_ _ . I_ -_ _ I . __ _ _ . ~ _ __ - .. . -. _

__._ _
- _ _
--
__
_.
_.
__
_
._
i
-
__
_.
..
_
_
-

__ __ -
_ _

_
__
_ .

- _. ._ _ __ _ .. ..
~ ~
_ __ - _ - _: i __ _ _ _ _ : _ .:_ . _ __ _. . _ ._ _. _. ~i

_
._
__
.
i_
__
__
_.
_.
.
-
_.
.

_

_.

_

__.

.
__
_.
.

_.

._

.

__

-

._

_

_.

- m
Z
a-. _ _ __. _ _. . _ _ _ _ . _ .~ . _. _ _ __ . _ _ _ _ ~
__. X

_.
.
_
_
_
_.
_
_
_
_
__
__
_ -
__
_
_
__
____
_
__
_ _
_
r T
_ Z

B-2963 EMBANKMENT
NOV 97 APR 98 APR 01 OCT 01
ALTERNATE1 ALTERNATE2 ALTERNATE3 ALTERNATE4
EMBANKMENT OUTSIDE 529 CY 7934 CY 2854 CY 843 CY
EXIST RNV LEFT
EMBANKMENT INSIDE 454 CY 15328 CY 8671 CY 4679 CY
EXIST R/W LEFT
EMBANKMENT INSIDE 672 CY 18468 CY 9138 CY 4511 CY
EXIST R/W RIGHT
EMBANKMENT OUTSIDE 1086 CY 4845 CY 1900 CY 429 CY
EXIST RNV RIGHT
TOTALS: 2741 46575 22563 10462

I- ~ f
N. C. DEPARTMENT' OF TR~IBPORTATION ~ ~
TRANSMITTAL BLIP DATt
-/3/oS
TO` I / ^ ~ ' RtF. NO. OR ROOM, /LDG.
• .REF. NO. OR ROOM, ^LG6,
-i. _ 1. 1
^ NOTE AND FILE ^. PtR OUR CONVERYATION - 7
^NOT6 AND RET RN TO Mt
CI PER YOUR RtgUtlT
~
^ RETURNWITN ORE D[TAIL! ^. FOR YOUR APPROVAL
^ NOT6 AND 8EE ME A.OUT TN18 ^ FOR YOUR INFORMATION
^ PLEASE ANSWE ^FOR YOUR COMMENTS
^ PREPARE REPL FOR MV •IONATURt ^ •IONATURt
^ TAKt APPRO~RI TH/ACTION ^ INVt6T16ATt AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
.~r ~~~I.
~~'~~
~~r~ 0 z 2~s
DIV. OF 1NA1!ER QUALITY
DIRECT'OR'S QFFICE

1 AMSTAR' o~
• ~ n~
Q „
Pw+~•
`) ,t ' r ~ 1 c~l L'~'1
~-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARI~NT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
December 30, 2004
CONTRACT NO.: C200825
STATE PROJECT: 32780.3.2
T.I.P. NO.: B-2963
FEDERAL NO.: BRSTP-1107(12)
COUNTY: Durham, Chatham
DESCRIPTION: Bridge over New Hope Creek and Approaches on SR-1107.
MEMORANDUM TO: J. G. Nance, PF,
Division Engineer
FROM: Phillip Johnson, PE, PLS ~,~
Resident Engineer
SUBJECT: Preconstruction Conference Meeting Minutes
LYNDO TIPPETT
S[CRFTARY
A preconstruction conference for the above referenced project was held on Thursday, December 16, 2004 at the
Division 5 Conference Room in Durham. The following persons were in attendance.
Representing the Department were: Tracy Parrott, Phillip Johnson, Eben Miller, Rick Nelson, Heather Montague,
Steven Mallory, Katie Simmons, Scott Taylor, Bill Massinger, Richy Narron, Charles Washburn, and Kifah Kamil.
Representing the Prime Contractor, C.C. Mangum, were: Steve Allison and Jason Williams.
Representing the Grading Subcontractor, Narron Construction, was: Michael Vaught.
Representing the Utility Subcontractor, Pipeline Utilities were: Johnny Blankenship and Keith Burke.
Representing the City of Durham Public Works were: Jim Harding, John Rives, and Tony Thomas.
The Resident Engineer (RE) for this project is Mr. Phillip Johnson, PE, PLS. All correspondence should be directed
as follows
Mr. Phillip Johnson, PE, PLS
Resident Engineer
NCDOT
1901 Harrison Avenue, Suite 100
Cary, North Carolina 27513
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone]
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone]
RESIDENT ENGINEERS OFFICE - HARRISON AVE
1577 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
RALEIGH NC 27699-1577
~.~ ....,~ ~I°Y
,IAN ~ 1 X0(15
4! ~.„ ,
OCATION:
~~ ~~
1901 RRISON AVE
tA~1 ~ ? 2005 CARY, NC 27513
DIV. OF WATER QUALITY
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE

Mr. J. G. Nance
Page ~
December 30, 2004
Deaartntents Kev Personnel:
^ The Assistant Resident Engineer (ARE) for this project is Mr. Eben Miller.
^ The Lead Project Inspector (PI) will be Mr. Scott Taylor.
^ The Assistant Project Inspector (API) will be Mr. Bill Massinger.
^ The Survey Party Chief will be Mr. Charles Washburn
Contractors Kev Personnel
The Project Managers for C.C. Mangum on this project will be Mr. Steve Allison and Mr. Jason Williams. C.C.
Mangum's project superintendent will be Mr. Ricky Creech.
The Project Manager for Narron Construction on this project will be Mr. Michael Vaught. Narron Construction has
yet to appoint a project superintendent.
The Project Manager for Pipeline Utilities on this project will be Mr. Keith Burke. Pipeline Utilities has yet to
appoint a project superintendent.
RIGIIT OF WAY
The Division 5 Right of Way (ROW) Office provided copies of the Right of Way agreements to Mr. Johnson and
Mr. Miller.
It was confirmed that all Right of Way on the project site has been acquired and that the sole property owner was the
U.S. Arrny Corps of Engineers (USAGE).
Kirby Warrick is the Department's ROW contact for the project.
Mr. Parrott raised the question as to whether an agreement with the USAGE had been reached over access to the
mitigation site. Mr. Miller will confirm that such an agreement is in place.
UTILITIES BY OTHERS
Mr. Miller reviewed the utility relocation which will be taking place on the project.
BellSouth will be relocating their aerial facilities on the project as necessary. This relocation will be coordinated
through the RE's office. The contact for BellSouth on the project is Mr. Shane Burns.
MCI will be relocating underground facilities on the project beginning approximately the first week of January 2005.
This will include a new bore underneath the creek and the lowering of fiber-optic lines at approximately Sta. 15+00
Rt. of -L-. This relocation will be coordinated through the RE's office. The contact for MCI on the project is Mr.
Eric Crane.
UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Allison stated that the sewer line construction will most likely be the first operation performed on the project.
Mr. Thomas raised a possible dispute between the Department and the City of Durham over the municipal
agreement. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Narron both advised the City that any changes to this agreement would be handled
by the Department's Utility Coordination Unit.
Mr. Thomas noted that the City of Durham would require as-built plans for the sewer line prior to acceptance.

Mr. J. G. Nance
Page 3
December 30, 2004
Mr. Miller advised the contractor that the Department would be available to assist in locating the existing sewer line.
The contractor and the City of Durham's representatives both raised questions over the proximity of the existing
sewer line to the proposed drilled shafts. Mr. Nelson determined that this distance was approximately 3 to 4 feet.
Mr. Rives stated that due to this proximity it would not be allowable for the contractor to begin drilled shaft
operations prior to the relocation of the sewer line.
Mr. Thomas raised a question over the proximity of the proposed sewer line to the proposed drilled shafts. Mr.
Kamil assured the City that this had been taken into account during the design process and that no conflict would
exist.
Mr. Williams raised a question as to whether variations in the proposed sewer line elevation would be accepted. Mr.
Kamil stated that minor variations in the plan elevations would be acceptable.
Mr. Rives asked what the existing sewer would be filled with. Mr. Miller responded that flowable fill would be used.
Mr. Rives and Ms. Montague both noted the need to protect the surrounding areas during this operation.
PERMITS
Ms. Montague distributed copies of the initial permit application letter dated February 5, 2004 to the RE office.
Ms. Montague reviewed the Project Commitments (Page 21) and the permit documents (Page 105-116) of the
contract with the following emphasized:
1. The Contractor is not to use the existing impoundment parking lots as staging areas.
2. Clearing will be performed by Method II.
3. The Contractor is to maintain access to the waterfowl impoundment for the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) at all times.
4. The contractor is to prevent any green concrete from being placed in the creek.
5. Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented. No components of
the existing structure will be dropped into the creek.
6. 1'he Department will contact the NCWRC to coordinate relocation of the gate at the access road to the east
of the bridge
7. Tlie Department will contact the NCWRC to coordinate regrading of any of the access roads.
8. No parking signs will be posted along the shoulders of the road in the vicinity of the bridge. These signs
are not shown on the plans.
Mr. Miller raised a possible concern over the placement of erosion control devices within permitted areas and
beyond the clearing limits as shown in the erosion control plans. Ms. Simmons agreed that the Department's
Roadside Environmental Unit would provide assistance to the RE's oft7ce as the need to adjust these devices is
necessary.
Ms. Montague and Mr. Parrott both requested that the RE's office stake out the limits of the temporary causeways.
Mr. Parrott requested that the RE's office determine if no permit is required for the mitigation site.
Mr. Johnson noted that the Division Environmental Engineer (DEO), Mr. Chris Murray, had advised that he would
be available to assist in delineating the limits of construction within the mitigation site.
Mr. Taylor raised a question as to how much clean-up of existing trash would be required at the project site. Mr.
Johnson and Mr. Parrott both stated that clean-up would be required within the defined construction limits.
Mr. Miller requested that the contractor review the proposed permit modification, which will be required for their
staging area within Pern~it Site number 4. "The contractor's only request was that the width of this staging area be

Mr. J. G. Nance
Page 4
December 30, 2004
increased to 40 feet. Mr. Miller noted that this 40 by 70 foot area would be submitted to the USAGE for a permit
modification.
Mr. Parrott re-emphasized the need for strict pern~it compliance during the life of the project.
SURVEYING
Mr. Washburn noted that,due to his projected workload, it would be important that the contractor utilize the survey
request forms that he has provided.
CONTRACT /PLAN REVIEW
In review of the contract documents the following items were brought to the Contractor's attention:
^ The Date of Availability for this contract is January 5, 2005 through March 15, 2005.
^ The contract time is 240 days.
^ The liquidated damages for this contract are One Thousand Dollars ($1000.00) per calendar day.
Contractor's Plan of Operations
Mr. Allison noted the following:
^ Tlie contractor would begin the project by making the necessary submittals for the sewer line construction.
^ The contractor will most likely start construction between February and March of 2005.
^ During construction of the structure the contractor intends to begin with the drilled shafts and work out to the
end bents.
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS (GENERAL)
Major and Specialty Contract Items (Page 1-2)
Mr. Johnson noted that there were no major items in the contract and that the specialty items consisted of items for
construction of the drilled shafts.
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (Page 5)
Mr. Johnson provided the Contractor tivith the disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) goal of 10%. Mr. Allison
noted that the actual DBE percentage had not yet been determined by the contractor.
RetainaQe and Prompt Payment (Page 14)
Mr. Johnson noted that the Department will not deduct and hold any retainage form the Prime Contractor on this
project; however, the Department will withhold an amount sufficient to cover any anticipated liquidated damages.
The Contractor may withhold up to 3%retainage if any subcontractor does not obtain a payment and performance
bond for their portion of the work.
Contractors at all levels; prime, subcontractor, or second tier contractor shall, within seven calendar days of receipt
of monies resulting from work performed on the project or services rendered, pay subcontractors, second tier
subcontractors or material suppliers as appropriate.
Failure of any entity to make prompt payment as defined may result in a withholding of money due that entity in the
next partial payment until such assurances are made satisfactory to this provision; or removal of an approved
contractor from the prequalified bidders list or the removal of other entities from the approved subcontractor list.
The contractor and the Department agreed that the monthly estimate would close at the end of the month.

Mr. J. G. Nance
Page 5
December 30, 2004
Domestic Steel and Iron Products (Page 16)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the Domestic Steel and Iron Products provision.
Mr. Miller emphasized that the inspectors assigned to this project be aware of the need to review product
certitications on the project to a~surz that this provision is followed.
Submission of Records -Federal Aid Projects (Page 17)
Mr. Johnson noted that this provision would require the contractor to submit completed FHWA-47 forms.
Mr. Allison asked if payroll information would be required as well. r. Johnson responded that it would be necessary
for the contractor to submit certified payroll for this project.
Contractor Borrow Source (Page 17)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the provision, noting the need for Skaggs Method analysis.
Mr. Allison and Mr. Vaught both raised the possibility of extending the construction limits at the mitigation site and
utilizing the entire old roadbed as a borrow source.
Mr. Miller stated that he would explore the feasibility of this proposal with the DEO and the USACE.
Subsurface Information (Page 18)
Mr. Johnson stated that subsurface information is available on the structure portion of this project only.
Plant and Pest Quarantines (Page 18)
Mr. Johnson stated that, since the project is located within a quarantine area, the contractor must thoroughly clean all
equipment prior to leaving the site.
Safety Vests (Page 19)
The general provision was reviewed.
Twelve Month Guarantee (Page 20)
The guarantee special provision was reviewed.
Outsourcing Outside the USA (Page 21~
The outsourcing special provision was reviewed.
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS (ROADWAY)
Roadway Construction Lump Sum Item (Page 22)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the special provision and reiterated that all payment for items included in this provision would
be made under the Lump Sum Roadway Construction Line Item.
Mr. Parrott discussed how this item would be quantified during the course of the project. Mr. Miller noted that he
would most likely be generating a percentage for this item based upon the materials received.
Clearing and Grubbing (Page 22)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the special provision.
Burning Restrictions (Page 23)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the special provision.
Shoulder and Fill Slope Material (Page 24~
Mr. Johnson reviewed the special provision.
Restrictions on Construction of Embankment (Page 24)

Mr. J. G. Nance
Page 6
December 30, 2004
Mr. Allison requested that this provision be waived due to the minimal fill at the end bents.
Mr. Nelson will investigate the possibility of waiving this provision with the Department's Geotechnical Unit.
Mr. Parrott stated that, while waving this provision might be a possibility, the contractor should try to arrange his
schedule such that this provision is met.
Asphalt Pavements - Supe~pave (Pace 27 through Page 42)
The following articles in the contract were reviewed:
1. The spreading and finishing article
2. The surface requirements and acceptance article. It was noted that any unsatisfactory laydown or
workmanship would result in operation under limited production procedures and acceptance in accordance
with Article 105-3 of the Standard Specifications.
Mr. Allison stated that C.C. Mangum would be performing the paving on the project.
Mr. Williams raised a question as to how reductions calculations would be computed due to the lump sum payment
method. Mr. Miller and Mr. Parrott both stated that any reductions penalties would be evaluated as needed.
Mr. Parrott stressed the importance in still following the QMS records keeping procedures despite the lump sum
payment method.
Asphalt Binder Content of Asphalt Binder Plant Mixes (Page 42)
Mr. Johnson stated that Asphalt Binder Content would be established by use of Superpave mixes with approved Job
Mix Formulas.
Single Swing Gate (Page 42)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the special provision and applicable details in the Roadway plans.
Guardrail Anchor Units, Type 350 (Page 44)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the special provision.
Mr. Allison stated that Bulington would be the guardrail subcontractor.
Mr. Parrott noted the importance of submitting necessary certifications and paperwork related to this and other
guardrail items.
A~Qregate Production (Page 45~
Mr. Johnson reviewed the special provision.
PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS (EROSION CONTROL)
Mr. Allison stated that State Construction would be the Seeding and Mulching subcontractor.
The project special provisions were reviewed.
Ms. Simmons noted that Roadside Environmental would be making monthly visits to the site and would be available
to assist in locating erosion control devices. She also stressed that seeding take place in a timely manner and the
importance of properly constructing weirs.
Mr. Johnson stated that the inspectors assigned to the project would be making weekly reviews of erosion control
and providing them to the contractor.
Mr. Parrott stressed to the contractor the need to be proactive with erosion control problems, especially due to the
high environmental profile of the project.

Mr. J. G. Na-ice
Page 7
December 30, 2004
Mr. Miller noted that there would be two sets of working erosion control plans on the project, one for the project site
and one for the mitigation site.
PROJECT SPECIAL. PROVISIONS (STRUCTURES)
Drilled Piers (Page 61)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the project special provision with the following areas of emphasis:
1. Mr. Johnson noted that a drilled pier preconstruction sequence plan must be submitted for review and
acceptance 30 days prior to the beginning of construction.
2. Prior to the beginning of any drilled pier work a preconstruction conference must be held. Mr. Johnson
noted that a more thorough review of the drilled pier requirements would occur at this future conference.
Mr. Johnson noted that the use of Bentonite slurry is prohibited on this project.
Mr. Allison noted that Gemini would be subcontracted to perform the drilling work.
Submittal of Working, Drawings (Pag_e 95)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the project special provision.
Mr. Johnson also requested that the RE's office be copied on any letters pertaining to working drawing submittals.
Construction, Maintenance, and Removal of TemQorarv Access (Pa eg 101)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the project special provision.
Mr. Parrott noted that the contractor would need to perform every reasonable effort to remove all rip-rap from the
creek.
Mr. Allison stated that the contractor would likely place fabric underneath rip-rap placed in the creek and may
pursue use of a turbidity curtain as well.
Removal of Existing Structure Page 102)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the project special provision.
Mr. Johnson noted that Best Management Practices must be followed.
Mr. Miller stated that he was in the process of having the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) pursue removal of the
gauging station.
Construction of Superstructure (Page 103)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the project special provision.
Mr. Nelson stated that it would be required that the contractor place tool joints in the concrete parapet rails to aid in
minimizing cracking.
Mr. Nelson stated that bond breaking tape was no longer to be used to protect lateral joints; however, a method of
protecting these joints during asphalt laydown would be required.
Construction of Substructure (Page 103)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the project special provision.
Mr. Nelson stated that the contractor may evaluate the possibility of carrying the drilled piers into the caps and
eliminating the columns.

Mr. J. G. Nance
Page 8
December 30, 2004
OPEN DISCUSSION
Mr. Miller noted that any off site detour would be signed by Department forces. He will coordinate the placement of
any signs with the District Traffic Office.
Mr. Miller noted that the striping on the project would be changed at the Division's request. The project is to be
striped with eleven foot lanes and a 5 foot shoulder. This change will not affect any quantities and the Department
will not be issuing a plan revision to reflect this change.
With no further comments from the participants, Mr. Johnson thanked everyone for their participation and adjourned
the meeting.
Meeting attendees are requested to provide in writing to this office any errors, omissions, or admissions to these
minutes.
cc: All Attendees
Mr. Shane Burns
Mr. Eric Crane
Mr. Chris Murray
Mr. Donald Pearson, EI, CPESC
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
Mr. Wib Owen
Ms. Nikki Thomson
File B 1
ec: Mr. Dennis Jernigan, PE
Letter No. MO l

poi,,. ~.
~c
(~: t ~ ~~- l ` /
Q'P~M "T s ly~'y United States Department of the Interior ~ :k , ; ~ , ~ ,; ~ . ~
a~
' FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
~ ~ Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
M~gcH ~ ~e-°' Raleigh, North Carolina 276363726
October 22, 2003 wET(gNpsl401 GRO
UP
ACT 2 ~ 2003
Brett Feulner wgTER QUq~~n,SECrI
North Carolina Department of Transportation ~N
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Feulner:
This letter is in response to your letter of October 13, 2003 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusions of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) for three federally listed species for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 111 over New Hope Creek in Durham County (TIl' No. B-2963). The biological
conclusions are as follows:
Common Name
bald eagle
Michaux's sumac
smooth coneflower
Scientific Name
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Rhus michauxii
Echinacea laevigata
Biological Conclusion
No Effect
May Effect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
May Effect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
The following comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Due to the lack of habitat, the Service concurs with the "no effect" conclusion for the bald eagle.
Also, due to the negative results of the surveys conducted on August 23, 1996 and July 22, 2002,
the Service concurs that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Michaux's
sumac and smooth coneflower.
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 maybe 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).
Sincerely,
/~~ ~~
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USAGE, Raleigh, NC
David Franklin, USAGE, Wilmington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmore, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

.*
STATE or NORTH CAROLINA ~y~y
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 31, 2005
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27609 ~ ~'(~ I
~.~4 ~ o sF~ ~o
~yo Fy,~ O~ /~
lcv~.,~
.~~~,,. s~~F oG ~S D
~ 9y0 ~~T ~ ~O O
~e
Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer,
NCDOT Coordinator
~-/..
Subject: Proposed bank stabilization associated with the replacement of Bridge No.
111 over New Hope Creek on SR 1107 (Stage Coach Road) in Durham
County. Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP - 1107 (4), State Project No.
8.2352201, TIP Project No. B-2963.
Reference: USACE Action ID No. 200220853 (NWP 23 issued on June 30, 2004)
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is currently constructing
Bridge No. 111 over New Hope Creek on SR 1107 (Stage Coach Road) in Durham
County (Figure 1). Please note that this project is located within the Cape Fear River
Basin. A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 was issued for this project on June 30, 2004
(Action ID No. 200220853).
The project is located downstream of an impoundment located along New Hope Creek.
Stream banks immediately upstream and downstream of the bridge are almost vertical
and subject to constant erosion. It is expected that without bank stabilization at this
bridge site, velocities of the floodwaters will lead to excessive scour along the newly
constructed bridge piers and end bents. The NCDOT is proposing to place rip rap along
60 linear feet of the stream bank (above and below ordinary high water) underneath the
bridge deck to stabilize the area. The proposed rip rap will provide permanent
stabilization to the site.
Summary
The proposed 60 feet of bank stabilization as described will disturb less than the 500 feet
threshold for requiring written notification and concurrence. Therefore, we are not requesting
written concurrence for this activity. However, we do intend to utilize Section 401 Water
Quality Certification (WQC) No. 3399 and Department of Army Section 404 Nationwide
Division 5, 2612 N. Duke Street, Durham, NC 27704
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

r ' ~ 2
r
Permit 13 for this activity. The NCDOT will comply with all applicable WQC and NWP
conditions for bank stabilization. If you have any questions or need additional information,
please contact Chris Murray at [phone].
. S~ Y~ r
-.~ ;
Jo G. Nance, P.E. ,
~'
Di ision Engineer
cc: Ms. Christina Breen, NCDWQ
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Phillip Johnson, PE, PLS, NCDOT
File (B-2963)