20040632 Ver 1_Complete File_20040422

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) w-.•f
Project/Site: F: \ i a "? 19 B ' 5 7,7
Date:
Applicant/Owner: r o T County:

stigator C h +^?'
Inve

State•
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? a No E
Commun
Is-the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Ye Transact
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Ye Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
, ? r•? C,
1. FR. ? y r ? Fr ( uJ 9. --
I
2. 10.

3. 11.
rA t, 12.
S. t.i ?U.•ru+ f? Ffi(L, 11 r 13.
6. 14.
7. 16.
B. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC•)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY,
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
-
-Aerial Photographs Inundated
taturated in Upper 12 Inches
Other
,-
??W??tter Marks
g
?No Recorded Data Available ?
r ft Llnes
Sediment Deposits
:Eorainage Patterns in Wetlands
Feld Observations: Secononry Indicators (2 or more required)-
-'Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 7?(in.1 -
FAC•Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 7 (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
rlp? e >n c.l' w
U
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Date:
Applicant/Owner: n r>'I County:
r
Investigator: .. SKi7 State: !n(
Do Normal Circumstances exist an the site? o Community ID: MW? Fai?_4'
Is-the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID: SA - 10
Is the area a potential Problem Area? - Yes Plot ID: W:4)iwa
_
(if needed, explain on reverse
vCr_n•A-rtnnt
Dominant Plant Species S tratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum d'cat

2. 10.
3. 1 )e.v?_ C? F X'C,cJ 11.
12.

p Fm t 14.
7. Cit; T u r.' 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or } S?
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
`
-Stream. Lake or ride Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs -Inundated
- Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Other
il
bl
?No R
A
d
d D Water Marks
va
a
e
_
ecor
ata
e -Drift Linea
-Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns i etlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicator34 or more required):

d -Oxidized Roof Channels in Upper 12 Inches
1)n.)
Depth of Surface Water: Water'Stained Leaves
-
Local S
oil Survey Data
Depth to Free Water in Pit: in.I -
PAC-Neutral Test
y.
Depth to Saturated Soil: / lin.)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
5-1151
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name 3 -3` 51 PAJ CYAek Nearest rod A )30(p
County_Dwyr m iAM Name of Evaluator Date ?O
Wetland location
_ on pond or lake
on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
other
Soil Series C'6w.MJA ? NCw m CIS
_ predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
X predominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
_ steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
wetland width >/= 50 feet
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
forested/natural vegetation %
agriculture, urban/suburban _°/o
impervious surface %
Dominant Vegetation
(1) 15AXi;IL4'J y?llcni cq -
(2) UImAJ ?Mbrq
Y??^??n?q
(3) FV4)1'A
Flooding and Wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
_ intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
4 Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
,r Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
_ Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin _ Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage 4 = i -
Bank/Shoreline stabilization S * 4 = 26
Pollutant removal * 5 = 2S
Wildlife habitat 2 = g
Aquatic life value 4 = i_
Recreation/Education 12 * 1
Total score
37 -
Add I point if in sensitive watershed and >I 0% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream
s-3N5'1
F1,? i- A 4
N?)AVJ
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
? cal S /? ??
Project/Site: (3--3451 Date: q- a - O V
Applicant/Owner: IV4 0 County: M V t KAw?
investigator: ana SIM --Jt^
nces exist on the site?
t
Ci State:
Community ID:
a
rcums
Do Normal
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes
Ye Transact ID:
Plot ID:
an d
(if needed, explain on reversal
VEGETATION

41-111
112M =1 P
S
'
Stratum
?em
?M,„b N
2. C
3. T-
LAP, C
? W

6.
8. QdnV%(AU P t+A AJ (.IG?b t
percent of Dominant Species that we 081.. FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Dominant Plant Snecies
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
1s.
fO
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY -
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarksl:
Stream. Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
4-No Recorded Osts Available
Reid Observations:
Depth of Surfsce Water: (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in•)
Welland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
_Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
-Water Marks
Drift Unes
-Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary indicators 12 or more required):
Oxidised Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_Wet"tained Leaves
_Local Soil Survey Data
_FAC-Narral Test
Other (Expialn in Remarks)
Remarks: 1
h?Rnd
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WE'T'LAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 1?
Applicant/Owner:
15r?b
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed. explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
1. n?t5 ies stratum
2. ffl.1u1 vt.? ?? 1, ' "" __VkJ_ ACA 3. ??, lP) v V%6
A
CLll?
6.
7.
8.
Percent of Dominant Species that ars O8L FACW or
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream. Lake or Tide Gauge
-Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Date Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil:
k__ Date: q-1-00
(In.)
-0n.)
fin.)
County:
State: (-
Ye Community ID: ?ttra?? ?trt?sT
ea o TransectlD: Sh -ALP-
Yes o Plot ID: ?V4
Dominant Plant Species
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
16.
18.
U "
Wedand Hydrology Indicators:
Printery In,dicaat?tors:
reSenuated in Upper 12 Inches
Watar Marks
!.-Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
-Drsinpa Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary indicators 12 or more required):
_ebxkiizad Root Charnels in Upper 12 Inches
-Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
_FAC-Neutral Test
nthm Mznisin in Remarks)
Remarks:
I WAM OMM 4LES
I
j Aj?
\\
%%b . o
rn ?
?Z I
rn ?,

o < cn
-? D v

Cl 3 a, 0

ao C ^ o
a W
.p 0 °,
Z co pp
o
_
=
°, a
ngo
c
CL
c
- n
??co
m ?

I
II
I I
I 1
I 1
I
Ir
I I
I I
I I
1 1
1 1 ?'
??1 I
I 1
I i
v
0
0 O
m
o ?
0
. AN

C
I
1 '
I .
?I
D i
II
I ?
j 2&W
I ?- 0
I
I
I
1
1
I
I

i
1
?
per 6(o,3
pdM STNF o
ww
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 2761 1-5201 LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 7, 2005
Contract ID: C200852
TIP: B-3451
Federal Project: BRSTP-1306(13)
County: Durham
Description: Bridge over Prong of Mud Creek & Approaches on SR-1307
Subject: Environmental Preconstruction Conference Confirmation
Mr. Jason Williams
C.C. Mangum Inc.
P.O. Box 31768
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622
Dear Mr. Williams:
This serves to confirm the Environmental Preconstruction Conference for the above referenced project is scheduled for
2:00 P.M. Tuesday, March 22, 2005, at the Division Office located at 2612 Duke St. Durham, North Carolina.
It is requested that you invite any proposed subcontractors deemed necessary. By copy of this letter, I am inviting various
Environmental Department representatives and Permit Agency representatives having involvement and/or interest in this project.
Should you require additional information on this matter, please contact this office at [phone].
Sincerely,
A. V. Earwood, PE
RESIDENT ENGINEER
AVE:alt
cc: Mr. E. C. Powell, PE
ec: Mr. T. N. Parrott, PE
Mr. Donald Pearson, Roadside Environmental Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, Division Environmental Officer
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
Ms. Nicole Thomson, DWQ
815 STADIUM DRIVE„ DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27704 [phone]
,pha if .
P?MENT 00 ry United States Department of the Interior
Q?r 'yM
n FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
CH 9 `sag Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
June 16, 2004
Phillip Harris III
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Mr. Harris:

This letter is in response to your letter of May 17, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 119 on SR 1306 over Prong of Mud
Creek in Durham County (TIP No. B-3451) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the
federally listed bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata)
and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). 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, surveys were conducted for the three listed species
on May 14, 2004. No specimens of any of the three species were observed. Based on the
information provided and other information available, the Service concurs with your
determination that the proposed bridge replacement may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect the bald eagle, 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 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).
7ncSi ely,
Off-
4, r /j
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
08-05-`04 15:47 FROM-DENS-EEP 9197152219 T-412 P02 U-870
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
August 5, 2004
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Ecosystem Enhancement
Project:
TIP#:
County:
Bridge Replacement over Mud Creek Creek
B-3451
Durham County, Central Piedmont Eco-Region,
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide 1.85 acres of riverine wetland stream preservation as compensatory
mitigation at a 10:1 ratio for the 0.185-acre of unavoidable riverine wetland impacts of the
subject project. The preservation site that will be debited for this mitigation is:
Allen Site (Wake County) 1.85 acres
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
dated July 22, 2003. The compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance
with Section IX, EEP Transition Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Hannon at [phone].
Sincerely,

William D. Gilmore, P.E,
Transition Manager
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3451
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1652
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
AUG-5-2004 THU 14:23 TEL:[phone]e93 NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 2
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
AM.A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Ecosystem Enhancement
Project
TIP#:
County
(9 qo0z-
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
AUG 0 9 ,2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
Bridge Replacement over Mud Creek Creek
B-3451
Durham County, Central Piedmont Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide 1.85 acres of riverine wetland stream preservation as compensatory
mitigation at a 10:1 ratio for the 0.185-acre of unavoidable riverine wetland impacts of the
subject project. The preservation site that will be debited for this mitigation is:
Allen Site (Wake County) 1.85 acres
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
dated July 22, 2003. The compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance
with Section IX, EEP Transition Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
'e-00-0, K'4"ew' to, 6ao-"
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3451
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer
August 5, 2004
??
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
August 5, 2004
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: Project: Bridge 119 over Mud Creek
TIP Number: B-3451, Durham County
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide compensation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by
you in a letter dated June 30, 2003, the impacts are located in CU 3030002 of the Cape Fear
River Basin in the Central Piedmont Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riverine Wetland Impacts: 0.185 acre
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The ecosystem enhancement for the subject project
will be provided in accordance with Section IX, EEP Transition Period, of this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
C 4CO-1
/,.: -- 4/0 ?-- - ?/ ? ?
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE-Raleigh
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3451
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program One
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652 NorthCarolliina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/ ;Vatmrally
7
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY L.YNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 30, 2004
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E. WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
.JUL 13 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
Dear Sir:
Subject: Request for EEP Confirmation of Mitigation: Bridge No. 119 over
Prong of Mud Creek in Durham County, Division 5. Federal Project No.
BRSTP-1306(4), State Project No. 8.23 T.I.P. No. B-3451.
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) provide confirmation that the EEP is willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the
project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the
USACE, the NCDENR and the NCDOT.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No 119
over Prong of Mud Creek in Durham County. ). The new bridge will be replaced on existing
location with a longer bridge (110 feet in length) with a deck width of 42 feet. This will provide
for two 12-foot travel lanes. Wetland impacts total 0.185 acre of PFO1 C riverine wetlands,
consisting of 0.161 acre of permanent fill and 0.024 acre of mechanized clearing. These impacts
will most likely require 2:1 restoration.
RESOURCES UNDER THE.JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404 AND 401 OF THE
CLEAN WATER ACT.
We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible as described in the permit application. A copy of the permit application can be found at
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/AppIications.htm1. The remaining impacts to
jurisdictional resources will be compensated for by mitigation provided by the EEP program. We
estimate that 0.185 acre of wetlands will be impacted.
The project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin (Hydrologic unit 03010002).
The wctland impacts, summarized in Table 1, totals 0.185 acre orriverine torrested
wetlands. We propose to provide compensatory mitigation for the wetland impacts by using
the EEP for the 0.185 acres of impacts.
Table 1: Summary of Jurisdictional Impacts
Permanent Wetlands (ac) Streams (ft)
Section
Riverine Non riverine
12+55 TO 0.185 NA NA
17+75-L-LT
Please send the letter of confirmation to Eric Alsmeyer (USACE Coordinator) at U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers Division 5 Regulatory Field Office, (6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite
120, Raleigh, NC 27615-6814). Mr. Alsmeyer's FAX number is [phone]. The current let
date for the project is January 18, 2005 for which the let review date is November 30, 2004.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ (North
Carolina Division of Water Quality) requires a formal letter from EEP indicating their
willingness and ability to provide the mitigation work requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT
requests such a letter of confirmation be addressed to Mr. John Hennessy of NCDWQ, with
copies submitted to NCDOT.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Carla Dagnino at (919)
715-1456
Sincerely
Gregory J. /orppe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
PDEA Branch
Cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Jon Nance, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E. Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E. Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Ms Stacy Baldwin, PDEA Engineer
2
M ?[ q?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road/Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615-6814
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
April 23 2004
0
Al Ob
Regulatory Specialist
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit Application 23 and 33 for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 119 over Prong of Mud Creek in
Durham County, Division 5. Federal Project No. BRSTP-1306(4),
State Project No. 8.235290 1, T.I.P. No. B-3451.
Please find enclosed three copies of the Categorical Exclusion document for the above referenced
project, along with a PCN form, project site map, permit drawings, and roadway design plan
sheets. Bridge No. 119 will be replaced on existing location with a longer bridge. The
replacement structure will be approximately 110 feet in length and will have a deck width of 42
feet. This will provide for two 12-foot travel lanes with 9-foot shoulders. During construction
traffic will be detoured along existing area roads.
PROPOSED IMPACTS
Since the replacement bridge is a spanning structure, no permanent impacts are proposed to
Mud Creek (DWQ Index No. 16-41-1-10) Class C NSW. However, the construction of the
bridge will require the use of temporary rock causeways consisting of Class II Rip Rap with 1.5:1
slopes (see permit drawing sheets 6 - 8 of 10). The resulting temporary surface water fill will be
0.003 acre. Reference elevations are available for the area of proposed placement of the rock
causeways. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated. Proposed impacts include
0.161 acre of permanent fill in wetlands, 0.014 acre of temporary fill in wetlands, and 0.024 acre
of mechanized clearing (Method II) in wetlands. Note: this project is located within the
Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030002, therefore riparian buffer rules are not applicable.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEEISITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH, NC

BRIDGE DEMOLITION
The superstructure of Bridge No. 119 consists of fifteen lines of steel 1-beams with a timber deck,
and an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of timber caps and piles. Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed to avoid any
temporary fill from entering Waters of the United States.
RESTORATION PLAN
The project schedule calls for a let date of September 21, 2004 with an estimated date of
availability of approximately 41 days later. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start
construction of the rock causeways shortly after that date. The temporary surface water fill
resulting from the construction of the causeways will probably be in place for less than twelve
(12) months. After the temporary causeways are no longer needed, the contractor will use
excavating equipment to remove all material within jurisdictional areas. All material will become
the property of the contractor. The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for
removal of and disposal of all material off-site.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
As of January 29, 2003 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists three federally
protected species for Durham County: bald eagle, smooth coneflower, and Michaux's sumac.
No species have been added to or deleted from this list since the completion of the Categorical
exclusion document where descriptions and biological conclusions of "No Effect" were given
for each species. A re-survey of the project site was conducted by NCDOT biologists on
July 31, 2002 and no listed specimens were observed (see attached August 2002 re-survey
memo). The biological conclusions for these species remain valid.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
The Corps of Engineers has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
wetland mitigation policy that 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 the Waters of the United States. Mitigation of wetland and surface water 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). Executive Order
11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and Department of Transportation Order 5660.1 A (Preservation
of the Nations Wetlands), emphasize protection of the functions and values provided by
wetlands. These directives require that new construction in wetlands be avoided as much as
possible and that all practicable measures are taken to minimize or mitigate impacts to wetlands.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION: The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all
reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to
provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional impacts.
Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and NEPA compliance stages; minimization
measures were incorporated as part of the project design.
Jurisdictional impacts were minimized and avoided by proposing to replace
Bridge No. 119 with a bridge. Also this bridge will be replaced on existing
alignment. During, construction the road will be closed and an off-site detour
will be used instead using an onsite detour.
COMPENSATION: The primary emphasis of the compensatory mitigation is to reestablish a
condition that would have existed if the project were not built. As previously stated, mitigation
is limited to reasonable expenditures and practicable considerations related to highway operation.
Mitigation is generally accomplished through a combination of methods designed to replace
wetland functions and values lost as a result of construction of the project. These methods consist
of creation of new wetlands from uplands, borrow pits, and other non-wetland areas; restoration
of wetlands; and enhancement of existing wetlands. Where such options may not be available, or
when existing wetlands and wetland-surface water complexes are considered to be important
resources worthy of preservation, consideration is given to preservation as at least one
component of a compensatory mitigation proposal.
FHWA STEP DOWN COMPLIANCE: All compensatory mitigation must be in
compliance with 23 CFR Part 777.9, "Mitigation of Impacts" that describes the actions that
should be followed to qualify for Federal-aid highway funding. This process is known as the
FHWA "Step Down" procedures:
1. Consideration must be given to mitigation within the right-of-way and should include
the enhancement of existing wetlands and the creation of new wetlands in the highway
median, borrow pit areas, interchange areas and along the roadside.
2. Where mitigation within the right-of-way does not fully offset wetland losses,
compensatory mitigation may be conducted outside the right-of-way including
enhancement, creation, and preservation.
Based upon the agreements stipulated in the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District" (MOA), it is
understood that the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), will assume responsibility for satisfying the federal
Clean Water Act compensatory mitigation requirements for NCDOT projects that are listed in
Exhibit 1 of the subject MOA during the EEP transition period which ends on June 30, 2005.
Since the subject project is listed in Exhibit 1, the necessary compensatory mitigation to offset
unavoidable impacts to waters that are jurisdictional under the federal Clean Water Act will be
provided by the EEP. The offsetting mitigation will derive from an inventory of assets already in
existence within the same 8-digit cataloguing unit. The Department has avoided and minimized
impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent possible as described above.
The remaining, unavoidable impacts to 0.199 acre of jurisdictional wetlands will be offset by
compensatory mitigation provided by the EEP program.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
It is anticipated that the construction of causeway will be authorized under Section
404 Nationwide Permit 33. We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33
for these activities. All other aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b). The
NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10,
pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002). We anticipate 401 General Certifications numbers
3403 and 3366 will apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are
providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their records.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information please call Ms. Heathof-Merit}e at [phone].
C,arkt DMynrp
Sincerely,
w
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Jon Nance, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, Division 5 DEO
Ms. Stacy Harris, P.E., PD&EA Engineer
n, %.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 6, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Protected Species Re-Survey for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 119 on SR 1306 over a
prong of Mud Creek, Durham County. Federal-Aid
Project No. BRSTP-1306(4), State Project No.
8.2352901; TIP No. B-3451.
This memo serves to document a protected species survey for TIP project No. B-3451.
On July 31, 2002; NCDOT biologist Heather Montague and Alexis Baker surveyed the
project area for the presence of smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigala) and Michaux's
sumac (Rhus michauxii). A plant by plant survey was conducted in all areas along the
project alignment containing potential habitat for these species and no specimens were
found. Additionally, a review of the Natural Heritage Program database (last updated on
May 5, 2002) revealed no known occurrences of smooth coneflower or Michaux's sumac
within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area. Therefore, the biological conclusions
of `No Effect' remain valid for these species.
Stacy B. Harris, P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineer Unit
Heather W. Montague, Natural Systems Specialist {SAW
Office of the Natural Environment YAW
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
cc: File: B-3451
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAUL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27899.1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WESSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23 and 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Dev & Environmental Analysis Branch
Attention: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 8
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Bridge 119 over Mud Creek on SR 1306
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3541
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Durham Nearest Town: Durham
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): from I40 WB take exit 270
(15-501) north towards Durham. Stay with 15 BYP-501 BUS. Take the Cornwallis Road
Exit, head West- away from town, then make a right onto Erwin Road (SR 1306).
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35° 59'48"N. 78° 58' 16"W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): approximately 1.6 acres within fill limits
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Mud Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at h=://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mgRs/.)
Page 2 of 8
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Existing land uses include maintained and forested
communities. The area has a mixture of residential and woodland landuse. SR 1306
(Erwin Road) runs through the project with Bridge No. 119 serving residential uses
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bridge No. 119 will be replaced on existing location with a new bridge using heavy duty
construction equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work:
To replace inadequate bridge.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
Page 3 of 8
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: temporary surface water fill will
result from the use of rock causeways.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to Nearest
Stream (linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
Site 1 Perm fill 0.161 yes Adj. to Mud Creek Bald Cypress Swamp
Site 1 Temp fill 0.014 yes Adj. to Mud Creek Bald Cypress Swamp
Site 1 Mech clearing 0.024 yes Adj. to Mud Creek Bald Cypress Swamp

• List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at htto://www.fema.stov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.4 ac
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.199 ac
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
temp causeways rip-rap 0.003 Mud Creek 20 ft perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net losstgain),
Page 4 of 8
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358.9616, or online at
www.usas.aov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.tonozone.com,
www.mayauest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 0.003 acre
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): [] uplands E] stream wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Jurisdictional impacts were minimized and avoided by proposing to replace Bridge No. 119 with
a bridge. Also this bridge will be replaced on existing alignment. During construction the road
will be closed and an off-site detour will be used instead using an onsite detour.
Page 5 of 8
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
hgp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP,)
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Page 6 of 8
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* (squImpct are feet) Multiplier Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
N/A
Page 7 of 8
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
The guidelines for the NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Sensitive
Watersheds" will be followed. These include minimizing the project footprint and diverting
stormwater away from surface water supply waters as much as possible. Provisions to preclude
contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval will also be strictly enforced
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).

? ??I ay
Allplicant/Agent's Signature ' Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

u- W '
13
0?
,, I

1320
,
BEGIN `6
PROJECT _
ki81
END
' PROJECT

1385
i1308

13? l..-1 1 601
Durh m City i - -
i
130 ?.--

NCD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECTs L2U2"1 (B-3461)
?? /((? l f))? BRIDGE NO. 119
1" 11 I OVER MUD CREEK
ON SR 1306
SHEET 1 OF 10 S/23/03
NORTH CAROLINA
WETLAND LEGEND
•--WLB-- WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
WETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
-? -? FLOW DIRECTION
T8 TOP OF BANK
"-"-WE - - EDGE OF WATER
-- C -- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
®DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
®DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
• CLEARING
---F -- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-7Ac- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
--- NG--- NATURAL GROUND
---EJ--- PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
--EAB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
--EPB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
...................... WATER SURFACE
xx x x x LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
? I CORE FIBER ROLLS
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
0 SINGLE TREE
.. .. WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
}.?,
RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
WITH LEVEL SPREADER (PSH)
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
GRASS SWALE
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2352901 (B-3451)
BRIDGE NO. 119
OVER MUD CREEK
ON SR 1306
SHEET 2 OF 10 5/23/03
z
O Li
° `Ir' L dO P .LHHHS HD.Lvlq `
o ?, ..
MW N I I I• ?' , M
J H J I '? i3 F ao o?
IX ce
O
wa i C7 0 V
U_ - Az
\ )\ 8?M \"\ o O a
o
O A.
O
M
Ln I \ \ \e?
C> o
+ \?. \ W
_ ? 3 I I • \ N
MW \ I • \ Z
O R'W ccr_ • •• \\ =V
w LA- Z L+. I ?N? WU
a
? W
0
I N O
V) C\j
V) t-0
I
LL <
?v IA,l . .
_IN?
,l ` ?y cJ w 3 . •.
1 O
1 ?
in z
1' I L W o
3 iO> ?a
\ I I ! 03:3
VH F
c? Q Ltd O I.- 3
? Y O
w I W
i
I ? O
P I I I Iw ir
O y a 11%
Z
-!
O y
v 06
?I
II I o c c
Z I I 31' o a
z 4 I ?? m
o ? I N as
o? w
om
N
II
o
Ad
n- LL.
,
' `'' ~
? o
c? o
?A/ I I ? Q W
r w 0
Q U.
a z r..,?
?U- I I ,
cc
1
I CL
I
U-
I
I ?y LL
a
'? ' I u??
0
LL I i ? ?\'0 ,?, Wo
L dO 2 .L33HS HDJLVl t
2.5
B
15"
B
PLAN
15"
CLASS I RIP RAP
EST 2 TONS
W/ 6 S.Y. F.F.
1.25 ft
FILTER FABRIC
SECTION B-B
PIPE OUTLET WITHOUT DITCH
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECTtSZ62901 (B-3451)
BRIDGE NO. 119
OVER MUD CREEK
ON SR 1306
5 ft

I
? I
I
I
Z
LL.
E
-
OLA LI
ocr. I
I
m
C
W I
I
Q J I
O Lj_
--'' ?t m
3
__
gru
IL

V
0
o I ?Y
3
o r
J ?
H ?r
W

py Lil
O ;
ox a I
co O
O Q o ?y
I
Y
W I
V) C L

C L
Z

o,? gy
I i
?I
I
I
H
FI
I
d
\

I? \

I
I ''r ! P+ ? a4

I
,
®
=
U
Fi OIL)
••
Z;
y
C In

g

Z
o
a z
a c 0
p 0 ?s
I '? o a
I ?
Q O
m Q- N
'il N
l w
i
J
H I ?y
I
I
O ?
? N
O ?
?. g
i 0
M
VW
'y .J:3
V?
d' \
Q
CL Z
C0? ?+

}
?o
a ?,
O J
LL CL
D W Z W
NI- Ws
a
z; viz
4. Z ELL
I \
o ?.
z z) a a ?. m
A C6 ?,oy
Uo?
Z OG O
' O d
' I
a =
I ?
Q
' I
tp Q
' 1 k
I
' W
°vn
i
i
i
W Cc)?
' Q- \
C?7 i 02 ? ?? II ?
N
O ? Q
?c 3
O W ?
0 ?
N N N
O o
Vz
® zy 0
oa?> 40
s o
Y D CL
O ?
LLJ
m
W
M
v
T v cr-
a
m
v o =
:: 11
CL CL to
.S % d Q
Q D
m U
w d EL rn
C
ui F-
p - i it Q - c O
ui Q N N
U i UN N Q QU-)
?i UJ W U U l0
U-
0 Ni 3 cr U O 0 U- 4
W oil O N 0 0
N >i -i w w Q E
o ? i i- 2 w+
O Wi H J Q W
V; Qz o
3 Q
Z:
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO.
NAMES
ADDRESSES
438-01-001-50 DUKE UNIVERSITY ATTNe JUDD EDERBERN
402 OREGON STREET
DURHAM. NC 27705
442-01-002 CHARLES B. GRIFFIN 3912 ERWIN ROAD
DURHAM. CN 27705
NCD®T
DIVISION OR HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2552901 (B-5151)
BRIDGE NO.75
OVER MUD CREEK
ON SR 1306

rM
m
o
N
F U
U
a

N co
a'
W O
N
N ° c" )
N
LL z
o
O Z
m o m ° H M O
N m
d = ?
?m Z? p? o
N
?E
t
° =
?
N
U.
V LL Z S O W
0 IX
L: >
I
?
O
c c U
w > w
vl .ytCpm o
c~i u'SU E a z
Qa Z w
? = C7
Q
W CL !N m p o co o

Q
m C

f-
Cl

O _

U.
3 o

=m ° w
y LL v 2
U)
La
5 m m o
Z
LL

c
c
G app l01 0 N
C 'SU 2?7 O O
o
D Iff
Cl)
U
a
b
12
m
a o S m m
3 °

N
g

m y?
m
E
m3 25
o 8
c c
c
?- c
? ? O
V N
O M fD
?p
3
° O
o r
0
0
LD
, 3 3
CO)
.9

p 0 ? O , O J
J J
' iJ
F
N O
i
M O N
+
LL r Ip r +
(p t0
r n
"
L
o

DURHAM COUNTY
SR 1306 (LEMUR LANE)
BRIDGE NO. 119 OVER PRONG OF MUD CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-1306(4)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2352901
T.I.P. NO. B-3451
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
ATE f 1_william D. Gilm e, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch,
NCDOT
7 0
D E Nicholas L. Graf, P
Division Administrator, FHWA
DURHAM COUNTY
SR 1306 (LEMUR LANE)
BRIDGE NO. 119 OVER PRONG OF MUD CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-1306(4)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2352901
T.I.P. NO. B-3451
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August 2001
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
_?Z9 -7 -i -I.
J
Tommy Re I Dat
Project M ager
'i 1kiiAR01/op
MOO%
a
ZZ/O I? SEAL
W. S. Hood, PE Date oF 14509
Principle-In-Charge
B Is S. 00 %AoO
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Stacy B. Ha 's, PE
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Durham County
SR 1306 (Lemur Lane)
Bridge No. 119 Over Prong Of Mud Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1306(4)
State Project No. 8.2352901
T.I.P. No. B-3451
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No.23 Conditions, the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency
Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition
and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of
Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Roadway Design, Structure
Design, Roadside Environmental, and Division Engineer
A 15-foot (4.6-meter) dry land passage on each side of Prong of Mud Creek, with
sufficient headroom for wildlife movement will be provided.
Categorical Exclusion
August, 2001
Green Sheet
Page:I
i
Durham County
SR 1306 (Lemur Lane)
Bridge No. 119 Over Prong Of Mud Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1306(4)
State Project No. 8.2352901
T.I.P. No. B-3451
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 119 is included in the 2002-2008 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) 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".
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 12.2
out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and
structurally deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more
efficient traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 119 is located on SR 1306 (Lemur Lane) in Durham County, approximately 0.3 miles
(0.48 kilometers) east of SR 1308, near the western city limits of Durham. Lemur Lane is classified
as an Urban Minor Arterial. Land use in the project area is primarily suburban residential. Much of
the land surrounding Bridge No. 119 is part of Duke University Forest. Lemur Lane is a two-lane
facility that currently serves local traffic and commuters between Durham and Chapel Hill.
The existing bridge was constructed in 1951. It consists of two 25-foot (7.6-meter) spans, for a total
structure length of 50 feet (15.2 meters). The bridge has a clear roadway width of 24.5 feet (7.5
meters). The superstructure consists fifteen lines of steel I-beams with a timber deck, and an asphalt
wearing surface. The substructure consists of timber caps and piles. The steel I-beams are painted
with aluminum over red lead paint. The bridge has a posted weight limit of 24 tons (24.3 metric
tons) for single vehicle (SV) and 30 tons (30.5 metric tons) for truck-tractor semi trailer (TTST).
The approach roadway has two l0-foot (3-meter) travel lanes with a clear roadway width of 20 feet
(6 meters). The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour (mph) {70 kilometers per hour (kmh)).
The surrounding area consists of woodlands and swamp. However, there is a middle school
approximately 600 feet (0.18 km) east of Bridge No. 119. Overhead power and telephone lines are
located upstream of the bridge. There are no utilities attached to the bridge. It is anticipated that the
utility impacts will be minimal.
The 2001 estimated average daily traffic (ADT) volume is 13,400 vehicles per day (vpd). The
projected ADT is 23,500 vpd by the design year 2025. The design hourly volume (DHV) and
directional distribution (DIR) of traffic for the design year is 65% DHV and 12% DIR. The
percentages of truck traffic are 3% DUALS and 1 % TTST
SR 1306 is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the TIP as needing incidental
bicycle accommodations.
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 119 during the period from January 1, 1995
to December 31, 1997.
Four school buses cross Bridge No. 119 twice per day, for a total of eight trips.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
Based on the preliminary hydraulics report the proposed replacement structure for Bridge No. 119
will be a bridge approximately 85 feet (25.9 meters) in length. The new bridge will have a deck
width of 40 feet (12.0 meters). This will provide for two 12-foot (3.6-meter) travel lanes with 8-foot
(2.4-meter) shoulders. The length and opening size of the proposed structure may increase or
decrease as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined, by a more detailed hydraulic
analysis to be performed during the final design phase of the project. Mud Creek is considered to be
a vital wildlife movement corridor. A 15-foot (4.6-meter) wide bare earth passage will be provided
along the banks of the Prong of Mud Creek.
The proposed approach roadway will consist of two 12-foot (3.6 meter) travel lanes and 8-foot (2.4-
meter) shoulders, including 4-foot (1.2 meter) paved shoulders (See Figure 4). The proposed grade
will be approximately the same as the existing roadway.
The 8-foot paved shoulder on the new structure and the 4-foot (1.2-meter) paved shoulders on the
approach roadway will adequately provided for any future designated bicycle route.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
Three alternatives were considered reasonable and feasible for this bridge replacement. A
description is provided below.
Alternative A (Preferred) consists of replacing the bridge in-place with a new bridge
(See Figure 2). The roadway approach from the west is approximately 160 feet (48.8 meters) and the
roadway approach from the east is approximately 155 feet (47.2 meters). Traffic will be detoured
off-site during construction along the following route, SR 1308 (Cornwallis Road), US 151501, and
NC 751 (Academy Road) (See Figure 1).
Alternative B replaces the bridge in-place with a new bridge (See Figure 2A). The roadway
approaches from the east and west are approximately 280 feet (85.3 meters) in length. An on-site
detour will be utilized to route traffic flow during construction. The on-site detour will be a
temporary bridge approximately 60 feet (18.3 meters) in length located south of the existing bridge.
Alternative B was not selected as the preferred alternative due to the impacts to the wetlands and the
plantation of bald cypress.
2
Alternative C replaces the bridge in-place as well (See Figure 2B). The roadway approaches from
the east and west are approximately 300 feet (91.4 meters) in length. During construction, an on-site
detour will be utilized to route traffic flow. The on-site detour will be a temporary bridge
approximately 60 feet (18.3 meters) in length located north of the existing bridge. Alternative C was
not selected as the preferred alternative due to the impacts to the wetlands and the plantation of bald
cypress.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
Alternatives eliminated from further consideration and specific reasons for elimination are discussed
below.
Replacing the bridge on new alignment was not considered a reasonable and feasible alternative due
to the following:
? The existing roadway currently has a straight horizontal alignment. Any attempt to realign
SR 1306 would introduce back-to-back curves,
? The surrounding land at the NW, SW, and SE quadrants of the bridge crossing are part of the
Durham Division of the Duke Forest,
? Duke Forest is owned and operated by Duke University as an outdoor laboratory for teaching
and research projects,
? There is a plantation of bald cypress upstream and downstream of the bridge dating back to
1933,
? There are wetlands upstream and downstream of the bridge.
The "do-nothing' alternative was not considered reasonable and feasible because it will eventually
necessitated the closure of the existing bridge and road.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicated that rehabilitation of
the existing structure was not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative A was selected as the preferred alternative because it maintains the existing horizontal
alignment and reduces the environmental impacts by providing an off-site detour along SR 1308
Cornwallis Road), US 15-501, and NC 751 (See Figure 1).
The Division Engineer also concurs with Alternative A as the preferred alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives, based on current prices are as follows:
ALTERNATIVES
A (Preferred) B C
Structure Removal (Existing) $ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000
Structure Proposed 221,000 195,000 195,000
Temp. Structure 0 76,800 76,800
Temp. Approaches 0 70,500 100,200
Roadway Approaches 84,800 85,900 75,500
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 141,000 213,000 216,000
Engineering Contingencies 67,200 97,800 100,500
Right-of-Way 49,000 75,000 77,000
Total $574,000.00 $825000.00 $8521000.0000
The estimated cost of the project as shown in the NCDOT's 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program is $600,000, including $40,000 for right-of-way and $480,000 for construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Southwest
Durham, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) mapping (Southwest Durham, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), USFWS Endangered,
Threatened, and Candidate Species and Federal Species of Concern in North Carolina (February 26,
2001), United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-
NRCS) soils mapping (USDA 1971), and recent aerial photography.
Bridge No. 119 was visited on September 7, 2000. The study corridor was walked and visually
surveyed for substantial features. For purposes of field surveys, the study corridor was assumed to
be approximately 400 feet (121.9 meters) in length for Alternative A and 600 feet (182.9 meters) in
length for Alternative B. The corridor width was 150 feet (45.7 meters) to each side of centerline on
both alternatives to ensure proper coverage. Impact calculations are based on 60-foot (18.3-meter)
right-of-way widths. Actual impacts will be limited to construction limits and are expected to be
less than those shown for right-of-way. Special concerns evaluated in the field include 1) potential
habitats for protected species and 2) wetlands and water quality protection in Prong of Mud Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). NHP records documenting
presence of federal- or state-listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
When appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations.
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were
4
evaluated using the three-parameter approach following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a
classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat
requirements and distributions were determined by supportive literature (Martof et al. 1980; Webster
et al. 1985; Menhinick 1991; Hamel 1992; Palmer and Braswell 1995; Potter et al. 1980; Rohde et
al. 1994). Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived from available
sources (DWQ 1997, 2000). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
B. Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is underlain by rocks of the Triassic Basin within the Piedmont physiographic
province of North Carolina (Division of Land Resources 1985). Topography of the area is
characterized as rolling with some steep areas along major streams. The study corridor is located in,
and adjacent to, the floodplain of Prong of Mud Creek. Elevations in the study corridor are
relatively level and average approximately 270 to 280 feet (82.3 to 85.3 meters) National Geodetic
Vertical Datum (USGS Southwest Durham quadrangle).
Soil mapping units within the study corridor are Chewacla and Wehadkee, Creedmoor, and White
Store series (SCS 1971). The Chewacla (Fluvaquentic Dystrocrepts) and Wehadkee (Fluvaquentic
Dystrocrepts) soils mapping unit is approximately 60 percent Chewacla soil and 35 percent
Wehadkee soil. This mapping unit includes somewhat poorly drained soils on flood plains and
occurs as long, level areas parallel to major streams and rivers and is mapped adjacent to Prong of
Mud Creek. Chewacla soils are considered to be non-hydric in Durham County, but often contain
inclusions of Wehadkee soils which are considered to be hydric (NRCS 1996).
The Creedmoor series (Aquic Hapludults) consists of gently sloping to moderately steep, moderately
well-drained soils with slow permeability. This series typically occurs on rounded divides where the
difference in elevation is about 50 feet between the highest and the lowest points. Creedmoor soils
are mapped on the western side of the creek floodplain. The White Store (Vertic Hapludults) series
is moderately well-drained soils with very slow permeability. This soil typically occurs on narrow
side slopes on uplands.
The White Store (Vertic Hapludults) series is moderately well-drained soils with very slow
permeability. This soil typically occurs on narrow side slopes on uplands. The White Store series is
mapped on the eastern edge of the creek floodplain. Creedmoor and White Store series are
considered non-hydric (NRCS 1996).
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-06-05 of the Cape Fear River Basin (DWQ 2000).
This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002 of the Mid Atlantic/Gulf Region. The bridge
targeted for replacement spans Prong of Mud Creek with no direct involvement of additional streams
or tributaries. Prong of Mud Creek joins Mud Creek approximately 1000 feet (304.8 meters)
downstream of the study corridor. Mud Creek has been assigned Stream Index Number 16-41-1-10
5
by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ 1997). The area of the drainage basin at Bridge No.
119 is 2.5 square miles (6.47 square kilometers).
2. Stream Characteristics
Prong of Mud Creek is a well-defined Piedmont stream with low flow. During recent field
investigations, water flow was slow and turbid, and water depth (beneath the bridge) was
approximately 2 feet (0.6 meters). Upstream of the bridge, Prong of Mud Creek has been
impounded by a beaver dam that releases water through many seeps into the main channel just north
of, and adjacent to, the bridge corridor. The shallow ponded water contains scattered dead tree snags
and cypress swamp borders it to the west. Downstream of the bridge, the channel is approximately
20 feet (6.1 meters) wide and 2 feet (0.2 meters) deep over a muddy substrate. The associated
floodplain extends throughout most of the study corridor and supports wetland conditions such as
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and signs of occasional flooding. The downstream floodplain
is forested and supports mostly bald cypress swamp and some bottomland forest.
3. Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best usage
classification of C and Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) has been assigned to Prong of Mud Creek
(DWQ 1997). The designation C denotes that appropriate uses include aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes
wading, boating, and other uses not involving human body contact with waters on an organized or
frequent basis. The supplemental classification NSW refers to waters needing additional nutrient
management because they are subject to excessive growth of microscopic and macroscopic
vegetation (DWQ 1997). No designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur within 1.0 mi (1.6
km) of the study corridor.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed study corridor is
summarized in the Cape Fear River water quality plan (DWQ 2000). Prong of Mud Creek has not
been sampled and not rated for its support status. The Cape Fear sub-basin supports two major
point-source dischargers and seven minor dischargers. Total permitted flow for the major
dischargers is 26 million gallons per day (MGD) while total permitted flow for the minor dischargers
is 0.3 MGD(1.1 million liters) (DWQ 2000). No discharges are in Prong of Mud Creek.
4. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Proposed project alternatives include bridging Prong of Mud Creek to maintain the current water
quality, aquatic habitat, and flow regime. Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and
sedimentation will be minimized through implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and
the use of best management practices. The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to
erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control
of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NC DOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These
6
measures include: the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control
runoff; elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-
seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-
icing compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; avoidance of direct discharges
into streams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in Prong of
Mud Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-term impacts resulting from
construction are expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water resources,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly
enforced during the entire project.
There is little potential for components of the bridge to be dropped into "waters of the United
States." Therefore, no temporary fill is expected to result from removal of the existing bridge.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) will be
applied for the removal of this bridge in addition to NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs)
for the Protection of Surface Waters.
D. BIOTIC RESOURCES
1. Plant Communities
Four distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor: 1) Piedmont bottomland
forest, (2) cypress swamp, (3) scrub-shrub assemblage, and 4) roadside/disturbed land. These plant
communities are described below.
Piedmont Bottomland Forest: Piedmont bottomland forest occurs on the floodplain on the
southeast side of SR 1306 (Lemur Lane), east of Prong of Mud Creek. Canopy species include
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Subcanopy and shrub species
include slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), winged elm (Ulmus alata), arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum),
privet (Ligustrum sinense), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), and willow oak (Quercus phellos). Herbs
include false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum), and lizard's
tail (Saururus cemuus).
Cypress Swamp: Cypress swamp occurs to the west of Prong of Mud Creek on both the north and
south side of SR 1306 (Lemur Lane). The canopy is nearly pure bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)
(with possible pond cypress [T. ascendens]). Green ash is occasional in the subcanopy, and tag alder
is found in the shrub layer. Large poison ivy vines (Toxicodendron radicans) are found on many of
the cypress trunks. Herbs include false nettle, spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), cardinal
flower (Lobelia cardinalis), and climbing hempweed (Mikania scandens).
Scrub-shrub Assemblage: This wet plant community lies on the north side of the highway,
partially under the power line and extending beyond it. Shrubs include tag alder, black willow (Salix
nigra), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis). Herbs include soft rush (Juncus effusus), lizard's
tail, spotted touch-me-not, Japanese grass, climbing hempweed, and dodder (Cuscuta sp.).
7
Roadside/Disturbed Land: Roadside/disturbed land occurs along the present roadside margins and
under the utility right-of-way. Young tree species include tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima),
princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), green ash, and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). Blackberry
(Rubus sp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), ragweeds (Ambrosia trifda, A. artemesiifolia),
goldenrods (Solidago spp.), and grasses (Setaria spp, Paspalum spp) are also present.
2. Plant Communities within the Study Corridor
Plant community impacts are estimated based on the amount of each plant community present within
the projected 60-foot (18.3-meter) right-of-way of each alternative (actual impacts within
construction limits will be less). A summary of potential plant community impacts, both permanent
and temporary, is presented below:

PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED AREA
(acres/hectares)
Alternative A
Permanent Alternative B
Temporary Permanent Alternative C
Temporary Permanent
Piedmont Bottomland
Forest 0.03/0.01 0.13/0.05 0.05/0.02 0.13/0.05 0.05/0.02
Cypress Swam 0.04/0.01 0.28/0.11 0.06/0.02 0.28/0.11 0.06/0.02
Scrub-shrub Assemblage 0.07/0.03 0.11/0.04 0.11/0.04
Roadside/Disturbed Land 0.18/0.07 0.09/0.04 0.28/0.11 0.09/0.04 0.28/0.11
TOTAL: 0.32/0.12 0.50/0.20 0.50/0.20 0.50/0.20 0.50/0.20
Permanent impacts to the plant communities resulting from bridge replacement in Alternative A are
generally restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments.
Very little area of the other plant communities are anticipated to be impacted by this alternative.
Roadside/disturbed land constitutes approximately 56 percent of the total impacts and the other
natural communities approximately 44 percent.
Alternatives B and C call for onsite detours with a temporary bridge located downstream of the
present structure and upstream of the present structure. These alternatives will require encroachment
into cypress swamp and Piedmont bottomland forest producing temporary impacts to these two
communities constituting approximately 82 percent of the total plant communities. These impacts
are substantially larger than those for Alternative A.
From an ecological perspective, impacts of upgrading existing road facilities are minimal. No new
fragmentation of plant communities will be created, as the project will result only in alteration of
community boundaries. Much of the alignment is currently bounded by a maintained right-of-way
and utility line. Alternatives B and C have higher temporary and permanent impacts partially due to
the longer alignments. However, upon completion of roadway improvements, the temporary detours
will be removed and natural communities will be restored.
Roadside-forest edges typically serve as vectors for invasive species encroachment into adjacent
natural communities. An example of an undesirable invasive species utilizing roadsides is kudzu
8
(Pueraria lobata). The establishment of a hardy groundcover on road shoulders as soon as
practicable will limit the availability of construction areas to invasive and undesirable plants.
3. Wildlife
a. Terrestrial
Signs of three mammals; racoon (Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and
beaver (Castor canadensis) were observed within the study corridor. Other mammal species
documented as occurring in the cypress swamp area include muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) and river
otter (Lutra canadensis) (NHP 1995). Other likely common mammals may include meadow vole
(Microtus pennsylvanicus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), short-tailed shrew (Blarina
brevicauda), and little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus).
Few birds were observed in the corridor during the field investigation. However, many species
would be expected to use this wetland habitat, especially during the breeding season. Some
documented species (NHP 1995) include Canada goose (Branta canadensis), belted kingfisher
(Ceryle alcyon), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), indigo
bunting (Passerina cyanea), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), and northern parula (Parula
americana). Avian species expected to occur within bottomland forest habitat of the study corridor
are red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), barred owl (Strix varia), and Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax
virescens).
No terrestrial reptiles were observed in the study corridor, but black racer (Coluber constrictor) has
been documented (NHP 1995). Other herptile species expected to occur in terrestrial areas of the
study corridor are eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), and American toad (Bufo americanus).
b. Aquatic
Limited surveys resulted in documentation of two amphibian species, green frog (Rana clamitans)
and cricket frog (Acris crepitans), and one reptile species, eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon
subrubrum). Several other species of frog are known from the area (NHP 1995)
Prong of Mud Creek provides suitable habitat for snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), northern
water snake (Nerodia sipedon), eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), northern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), and several frog species.
No sampling was undertaken in Prong of Mud Creek to determine fishery potential. Visual surveys
of Prong of Mud Creek revealed presence of small fish and crayfish. Fish species which may be
present in the Prong of Mud Creek are bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), tessellated darter
(Etheostoma olmstedi), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) and margined madtom (Noturus
insignis).
9
C. Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement
will not result in substantial loss or displacement of animal populations. No substantial habitat
fragmentation is expected since most improvements will be restricted to existing roadside margins.
Construction noise and associated disturbances will have short-term impacts on avifauna and
migratory wildlife movement patterns, although long-term impacts are expected to be negligible.
Potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging the systems to maintain
regular flow and stream integrity. Short-term impacts associated with turbidity and suspended
sediments will affect benthic populations. Temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased
sediment during construction will be minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control
measures.
E. SPECIAL TOPICS
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Prong of Mud Creek are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR
section 328.3). Field investigations indicate that Prong of Mud Creek is a perennial stream system
characterized as lower perennial with an unconsolidated bottom of mud.
Wetlands adjacent to Prong of Mud Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR section 328.3). These areas are
defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence
of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987).
Field investigations indicate wetlands occur within the 300-foot (91.4-meter) study corridor in Prong
of Mud Creek floodplain north and south of the bridge. NWI mapping indicates that areas adjacent
to Prong of Mud Creek exhibit characteristics of a palustrine, broad-leaved, deciduous forest system
that is seasonally flooded (PFOIC) (Cowardin et al. 1979). The site visit verified this description for
the area south of the roadway and east of the creek, whereas the area south of the roadway and west
of the creek is vegetated by cypress, a needle-leaved deciduous species. The area on the north side
of the road beyond the maintained area is a wet scrub-shrub assemblage. A conspicuous beaver
impoundment lies to the north of the roadway and east of the creek, but it is just beyond the corridor
right-of-way.
10
The potentially affected area (acres/hectares) and length (feet/meters) of jurisdictional stream and
wetland areas located within the Alternative 60-foot (18.3 meter) right-of-ways are shown as
follows:

Bridge No. 119 JURISDICTIONAL AREA WITHIN
RIGHT-OF-WAY
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
Jurisdictional Type Permanent Permanent Permanent
Stream Linear Distance (ft/m) 60/18.3 106/32.3 102/31.1
Stream Area (ac/ha) 0.03/0.01 0.06/0.02 0.05/0.02
Wetland Area (ac/ha) 0.14/0.06 0.37/0.15 0.41/0.17
Potential creek impacts associated with construction activities include bridging of Prong of Mud
Creek. No impacts other than shading are expected as a result of construction activities.
Jurisdictional wetlands within the study corridor occur in the floodplain of Prong of Mud Creek at
the base of moderate slopes, and are present on both sides of Prong of Mud Creek on both the north
and south side of the bridge. These wetlands satisfy the three-parameter approach outlined by the
COE (DOA 1987). Vegetated wetlands south of the roadway are dominated by a canopy of bald
cypress and green ash and support herbs such as lizard's tail and false nettle. These plants are
growing in Chewacla and Wehadkee soils which exhibit values, chromas, and mottles characteristic
of hydric soils. Evidence of wetland hydrology includes surface drainage patterns, oxidized root
channels, and water-stained leaves. Vegetated wetlands north of the roadway are dominated by
willow, tag alder, soft rush, climbing hempweed, and spotted touch-me-not. These plants are
growing in Chewacla and Wehadkee soils which exhibit values, chromas, and mottles characteristic
of hydric soils. Evidence of wetland hydrology includes surface drainage patterns, oxidized root
channels, and water-stained leaves.
Jurisdictional wetlands (0.14 ac / 0.06 ha) occur within the proposed right-of-way of Alternative A.
More extensive wetlands are present within Alternatives B and C right-of-way due to the onsite
detours and incursion into the cypress swamp and bottomland hardwoods. Any impacts associated
with the temporary detours will be considered permanent impacts. Temporary detours will be
replanted with native vegetation.
There is little potential that components of the existing bridge may be dropped into "Waters of the
United States" during construction. Therefore, no temporary fill is expected to result from bridge
removal. This project can be classified as Case 3, where there are no special restrictions other than
those outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
2. Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) No.23 (61 FR 65874, 65916;
11
December 13, 1996) has been issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for CEs due to
expected minimal impact. DWQ has issued a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP
No.23. However, use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP
No.23 will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements
are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE District.
Notification to the Wilmington COE office is required if this general permit is utilized.
3. Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of project impacts.
However, utilization of NCDOT's BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts.
Temporary impacts to floodplains associated with the construction activities could be mitigated by
replanting disturbed areas with native wetland species and removal of temporary fill material upon
project completion. Fill or alteration of area streams may require compensatory mitigation in
accordance with 15 NCAC 2H .0506(h). A final determination regarding mitigation rests with the
COE.
F. Protected Species
1. Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered or Threatened, officially proposed for such
listing, or Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance are protected under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered species" is defined
as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a substantial portion of its range",
and the term "Threatened species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an
Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a substantial portion of its range"
(16 U.S.C. 1532). The term "Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance" is defined as a species,
which is not "Endangered", or "Threatened", but "closely resembles an Endangered or Threatened
species" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
The following federal-protected species are listed for Durham County (March 22, 2001 FWS list):
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Bald Eagle - The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6.0 feet (1.8 meters).
Adult bald eagles are dark brown with a white head and tail. Immature eagles are brown with
whitish mottling on the tail, belly, and wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed on fish but may also
take birds and small mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season extends from December through
May (Potter et al. 1980). Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location
near open water. Eagles forage over large bodies of water and utilize adjacent trees for perching
12
(Hamel 1992). Disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 750 to 1500 feet (228.6 to
457.2 meters) from a nest tree are considered to result in unacceptable conditions for eagles (FWS
1987). The FWS recommends avoiding disturbance activities, including construction and tree-
cutting within this primary zone. Within a secondary zone, extending from the primary zone
boundary out to a distance of 1.0 mi (1.6 km) from a nest tree, construction and land-clearing
activities should be restricted to the non-nesting period. The FWS also recommends avoiding
alteration of natural shorelines where bald eagles forage, and avoiding substantial land-clearing
activities within 1500 feet (457.2 meters) of known roosting sites.
Site plant communities are 1) Piedmont bottomland forest, 2) cypress swamp, 3)scrub-shrub
assemblage, and 4) roadside/disturbed land. A beaver impoundment exists within the study corridor,
but outside of the right-of-way. Larger trees in the cypress swamp may potentially provide suitable
nesting habitat for this species. However, NHP records do not document the occurrence of bald
eagles within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the study corridor, and no nests or eagles were observed in the study
corridor during the site visit.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The study corridor contains potential suitable feeding, nesting,
and roosting habitat for bald eagle, and the entire cypress swamp potential roosting and nesting
habitat. NHP records have no documentation of bald eagle within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the project
corridor, or in the cypress swamp. Based on NHP records, observations conducted during field
investigations, and best professional judgement, this project will not affect bald eagle. NO
EFFECT
Smooth coneflower - This species is a stiffly erect, rarely branched perennial that grows up to 5.0
feet (1.5 meters) tall. Basal and stem leaves are large, glabrous, lanceolate to narrowly ovate blades
reaching 3 inches (in) (7.6 centimeters [cm]) in length. This coneflower blooms from late May to
July, producing solitary heads of small purplish disk flowers with long drooping pink to purplish ray
flowers (Kral 1983). This species occurs on calcareous, basic, or circumneutral soils on roadsides,
clearcuts, or power line right-of-ways where there is abundant light and little herbaceous competition
(Gaddy 1991). Fire-maintained woodlands also appear to provide potential habitat for the
coneflower.
The study corridor supports narrow areas of early successional roadside/disturbed land suitable for
smooth coneflower. The maintained shoulder on the north side of the road drops abruptly into wet
scrub-shrub assemblage. On the south side of the road, the maintained area drops abruptly into
cypress swamp or Piedmont bottomland forest. Habitat for this species in the project corridor is
practically nonexistent. Observations during the site visit on September 7, 2000, during the
coneflower's fruiting period, revealed no smooth coneflower.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Smooth coneflower occurs in cleared areas with abundant light
and little competition from herbaceous vegetation. Very small portions of this project occur in areas,
which contain regularly maintained roadside/disturbed land. NHP files have no documentation of
this species within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the project corridor, and the species was not observed during
an on-site investigation conducted on September 7, 2000. NO EFFECT
13
Michaux's Sumac - Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous shrub, usually
less than 2.0 feet (0.6 meters) high. The alternative, compound leaves consist of 9 to 13 hairy,
round-based, toothed leaflets borne on a hairy rachis that may be slightly winged (Radford et al
1968). Small male and female flowers are produced during June on separate plants; female flowers
are produced on terminal, erect clusters followed by small, hairy, red fruits (drupes) in August and
September. Michaux's sumac tends to grow in disturbed areas where competition is reduced by
periodic fire or other disturbances, and may grow along roadside margins or utility right-of ways. In
the Piedmont, Michaux's sumac appears to prefer clay soil derived from mafic rocks or sandy soil
derived from granite; in the Sandhills, it prefers loamy swales (Weakley 1993). Michaux's sumac
ranges from south Virginia through Georgia in the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont.
The study corridor supports narrow areas of early successional, roadside/disturbed land suitable for
Michaux's sumac. Beyond the maintained edge on the north side of the road, the roadside drops
abruptly into wet scrub-shrub assemblage. On the south side, the roadside drops abruptly into
cypress swamp or bottomland forest. Habitat for Michaux's sumac is practically nonexistent in the
Bridge No. 119 corridor. Observations during the site visit on September 7, 2000, during the
sumac's fruiting period, revealed no Michaux's sumac.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Michaux's sumac occurs in disturbed areas where competition is
reduced by periodic fire or other disturbances. Very small portions of this project occur in areas
which contain roadside/disturbed and early-successional vegetation. NHP files have no
documentation of this species within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the project corridor, and the species was not
observed during the site visit on September 7, 2000. NO EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern - The March 22, 2001 FWS list also includes a category of species
designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC) for Durham County:

Common Name
Scientific Name Potential
Habitat
State Status"
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis le idinion Yes SC
Pinewoods shiner L thrurus matutinus No SR
Atlantic i toe Fusconaia masoni No T (PE)
Se tima's clubtail Gom hus se tima* No SR
Yellow lam mussel Lam sills cariosa No T (PE)
Green floater Lasmi ona subviridus No E
Panhandle ebblesnail Somoto rus vir inicus No SR
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum No E-SC
Butternut Ju lans cinerea* No W5
Sweet inesa Monotro sis odorata No C
A liverwort Pla iochila columbiana* No W2
14
*Historic populations not seen since 1979
"Based on listings by Amoroso(1999) and LeGrand and Hall (1999): E = Endangered; T =
Threatened; SC = Special concern; SR = Significantly rare; C = Candidate; PE = Proposed
Endangered; W2 =NC Watch List rare, but taxonomically questionable; W5 = NC Plant Watch List
rare because of severe decline.
The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed. NHP files
have no documentation of FSC species within the study corridor or within 1.0 mi. (1.6 km) of the
study corridor.
2. State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), Special Concern (SC), Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), or Proposed (P) (Amoroso 1999,
LeGrand and Hall 1999) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species
Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et
seq.). NHP records indicate several C or SC plants in oak/hickory forest approximately 0.6 mi (1.0
km) north of Bridge No. 119. None of these will be affected by this project.
G. Identified Priority Area (IPA)
SR 1306 (Lemur Lane) and Bridge No. 119 pass through a bald cypress swamp, which is designated
an IPA of local significance by the NHP. This is not a naturally occurring stand of cypress but was
planted in the 1930's as part of a project to determine how well species of trees from other parts of
North Carolina would grow in the Piedmont. Part of the "swampy" nature of this site is also due to
the creation of one of more dikes that run through this site (it was probably flooded only seasonally
before creation of these structures) (NHP 1995). Hydrology within the site has been augmented by
beaver colonization, and the site now provides habitat for several species of marsh and swamp
animals. Among the most important are prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), dion skipper
(Euphyes dion) - a regionally rare butterfly species, and river otter (Lutra canadensis). Most of the
cypress is owned by the Durham Division of the Duke Forest. The cypress swamp functions as a
refuge and wildlife corridor connecting wildlife habitats located further downstream in the New
Hope floodplain (NHP 1995). The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has identified Mud
Creek as a vital wildlife movement corridor. Therefore the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources recommends that a bridge be used instead of a culvert and that a
15-foot wide bare earth passage be left on both sides of the stream banks for wildlife movement.
15
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, and with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that for federally
funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given the
opportunity to comment.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on March 1, 2000. All
structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office (HPO). In a concurrence form dated March 27, 2000 the HPO
concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either listed or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places within the APE. A copy of the concurrence form is included in
the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in a letter dated June 28, 2000 stated, "We have
conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural, historic, or
archaeological significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment
on the project as currently proposed." A copy of the SHPO letter is included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No significant
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to determine whether
16
minority or low-income populations were receiving disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental impacts as a result of this project. The investigation determined the project
would not disproportionately impact any minority or low-income populations.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider
the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction
projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS). Since there are no prime or important farmlands in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed bridge the Farmland Protection Policy does not apply.
This project is located in Durham County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham nonattainment area
for ozone (03) and carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as "moderate" nonattainment areas for 03 and CO.
However due to improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as "maintenance " for 03
on June 17, 1994, and "maintenance for CO on September 18, 1995. Section 176(c) of the CAAA
requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air quality
implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation control measures for
Durham County. The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
and the 2000-2006 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) has been determined
to conform to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT air quality conformity of the LRTP was February
29, 2000 and the USDOT air quality conformity on the MTIP was February 29, 2000. The current
conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and
93. There have been no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope, as used in the
conformity analyses.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no receptors
located in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air quality will not be
significant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of
by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department of Human
Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no hazardous waste sites, no regulated or
unregulated landfills, or dump sites in the project area.
17
Durham County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The project site
on Prong of Mud Creek is included in a detailed Federal Emergency Management Agency
(F.E.M.A.) flood study. Attached is a copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map, Figure 5, on which are
shown the approximate limits of the 100-year flood plain in the vicinity of the project.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve them in the
project development with scoping letters. A newsletter was also mailed to local residents explaining
the planning process and the selected Alternative.
IX. AGENCY
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has identified New Hope Creek and its tributaries,
including Mud Creek, to be vital wildlife movement corridors. . In an effort to maintain these
corridors a 15-foot bare earth passage will be provide along both stream banks.
The City of Durham Transportation Division requested that bike lanes be provided for this project.
SR 1306 is not a designated bicycle route, however the 8-foot paved shoulders on the new structure
and the 4-foot paved shoulders on the approach roadway will provide adequate accommodation for
bicycle traffic.
Duke University asked that there be discussion of the fate of the beaver dam on the upstream side of
the existing bridge. The bridge will be replaced at the existing location using an off-site detour. All
efforts will be made to avoid any impact to the beaver dam.
18
I=
I
00
i0 _
>U
1'? 7at
` Al
i
r
Vx
Ib`
4
,y

O,p 1 ? i
?? B-3451
Bridge Na 119
»
JU Au
• lam
uu
181
r
I y ? ' r r?
LEGEND
-?- 0 Studied Detour Route
r r
?r t l? ? rr
I1H R arr _ .--•
Ra, 1W
an M1
6z North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
ZZJK7V Project Development &
Environmental Analysis
DURHAM COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 119 ON SR 1306
OVER PRONG OF MUD CREEK
B-3451
0 kU~ore 0.8 kilometers 14.6
mites ?S muss 1.0
r a+ n
r
N 4
i
f
i '
s
FIGURE I
i
I
a
i

0
i _ ?_
E ? °,?
0
z

,,
?,
??
View of bald cyl
downstream fron
n downstream.
FIGURE 3
s
i
a
.o
0
t?
L
s
0
M
E
c•
E
N
? N
\ Q
a ao
E °
co V
?o
0
N
Q
N O

N E
.p
E'er p
°

_ N
Q O
0
O
E N oc
CLad
C14 M C zQ
Oa

DO E
V
N

o w?
E ?

N O ?

_
Z L4 ZW

??
\
U
c
<Q ?o
I I 'O 'v
?? M ?
V,

I? I
E
?O N
E
Go N
E
%0
M
,:tj E
N %p
r- M
S E
co v
N
E
In
C.
O
O"?o
W z Go
H W
Q ^ z
w Z ?
CID uj
a m
mo
7-z0
n.
8
H
0
Z
N
W
0

E x
o W
cr)
w
H
°a y a
U x
?D
I~CO q
W

a
m°a¢ n
z
qDZ w

oda o°
um
[?W
v
d0ca?
Oo
u ]
a? a

E• .o > d
U z
xzwz
o n.
w
xon.w q w a E"
q
0
..
C7
A ?
(z W
O
E E
o in
In M
N ^
N t/)
a 1 0
x x " d
t C ^ Z
d V ? ?
IM Y WW
0 ?_ M w
In `O W
o• D
o?
II Y
LL.
U N
W W W L< Ipl O
N N w w Y
W2'
LLJ D 3 D U** CL
Z
o CL
W
W U. O W
YJ N M z N
0 O O Z
J o (7
O O N
M
_M N Q
II II II Z QD
0
c%4 %n
O O O N D
N N N ? w
>- U O
z z Z a
z -j Lu
O W Q O H
U ? G? Z w
:) Z
LL 0
n.<
City Or Du:
370096

LEGEND
n OOT-WUX MOOG
vm x w Nrrr tkrad .x.ekv++air l:
eom a Au. M=d 4wamn dmmwomd-
70dlrf AMA ;t rt 1 ".'A irv pu w mom d
vv+orw Irr I" *6vA w?,wowarww,.
:tNpll ?JO?- *,"1 4400 N i 40 ! k#4 .14% u y ~
*60" 1-4w 4.*dw J40#4
rYsrrrw.?eY. J W ? o oMW AM .AVt.WR
wkrtH? nln •.?rfrr?N'+4,
AUM To ar. r%MU4 rd man OC- wr kbW M
1#4" Ww ?waomv warn twYv nm' '
?Mnatan: tw lHrd -Ikt.?l. rl!'wM4n5. ,1iMMeNtY!4J.
)COMM Cow &Wd we, wkaw luaWd -w,ns
RAODiA O AN5 Z A
b ; i ` CattMhF.k f?A;Ok?lf •
Ctll?l it Mrr 0 6ft-~ AAwA: A/rA! eMoo~
?? ? 6JI'IiEII' rt'R['?
?oa?e x M?rw4?AnM0 Ma ? d??•
morM a Moe Aw WM&h NW 900* 1Y!'
AdhlA7ti {7G41671iL Bfi00?JER5"
M, Of
Durh=
?.? M?aerk ?Irww?wa , a+rwww.
? 'hTsr ulr'
`CYrArK "-A*~ ?cr 49"aY head at ar MEN"" S+ww MWA
•• IWrwl .urwr
-?-? R?,MIi1pA?lni ryruYYy
B4+w1rv r %-440 r..K l
a 1 pw* Ata" rums Lnr.
M .M C7ra lrir011 tMr
m. MOM W" "WW oft"m hm omt%%NP Ufa""
ItiY++ Rar?•' '
RAt! ? pli?ir.rr ??lpr ?11U1M.
1I1t' , lFrAl? 5 R6W M&
-swW w" . wr. K%wwn l r..urdr w rdd news a nrn
B-3451
luolt.
'w

oo "rsPAa ?aur?
wawa, nf
?
FIRM
FM MU MW MAP
DURHAM COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
AND INCORPORATED ARM
PAM In OF 20
,wa w+ wnc ran ,w:cu rm wMra
WIOIa:
cMSeruc ?' sn m ma

MA! "a
Room o
BIiCIIYE MR.
?'F[iNIlA012,110i

FIGURE 5

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
June 30, 2000
/ i
JUL
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center `-`
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 -
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your June 2, 2000 request for information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of proposed bridge replacements in Wake and
Durham Counties, North Carolina. This report provides scoping information and is provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and stater resource agencies
for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the following
bridge structures:
1. B-3375 Bridge No. 301 over Swift Creek and Bridge No 471 over Lake Wheeler Spillway
on SR 1375 (Lake Wheeler Road), Wake County;
2. B-3450 Bridge No. 217 over New Hope Creek and Bridge No. 122 over Sandy Creek on
SR 1116 (Garrett Road), Durham County;
3. B-3451 Bridge No. 119 over Prong of Mud Creek on SR 1306 (Lemur Lane), Durham
County;
4. B-3522 Bridge No. 215 over Buffalo Creek on SR 1007 (Poole Road), Wake County; and,
5. B-352S Bridge No. 429 over Sycamore Creek on SR 1839 (Leesville Road), Wake and
Durham Counties.
Tlic 1011o\\ ing recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
11cilit.11e a thorou??h and timely review ut the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(t) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and
wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced
through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Lake Wheeler, Knightdale, Southeast
Durham, and Southwest Durham 7.5 Minute Quadrangles show wetland resources in the specific
work areas. However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area,
they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel
using an acceptable wetland classification methodology. Therefore, in addition to the above
guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this project include the
following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action.
1. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset.
The enclosed lists identify the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Durham and Wake Counties. The Sen icc
recommends that habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the available
habitats at the respective project sites. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the
project, biological surveys for the listed species should be performed. Environmental
documentation that includes survey methodologies, results, and NCDOT's recommendations
based on those results, should be provided to this office for review and comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for Nk hich the Service remains concerned, but further
biolo?,ical research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of tlICSC taxi.
Although FS(,", recc:i%c no statutory' protection under the Eti:\. We encourage the N('DO'l- to he
alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if found.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on species
under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on these projects. Please continue to advise
us during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of these projects. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact
Tom McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
NCDNR, Northside, NC (David Cox)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas Graf)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
7Sin rely,
a
.
Garland . rdue
4A,
Ecological Services Supervisor
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:06/28/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\bdgswake.dur
66
COL'YEMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
DAVIE COUNTY
Vascular Plants
Heller's trefoil
Nfichaux's sumac
DUPLIN COUNTY
Vertebrates
American alligator
Southern hognose snake
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Invertebrates
Croatan crayfish
Vascular Plants
Venus flytrap
Savanna cowbane
DURHAM COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bald eagle
Invertebrates
Atlantic pigtoe
Septima's clubtail dragonfly
Yellow lampmussel
Green floater
Panhandle pebblesnail
Vascular Plants
Tall larkspur
Smooth coneflower
Buttemut
Sweet pinesap
iVlichaux's sumac
Nonvascular Plants
A livenvort
Lotus helleri FSC*
Rhus michauxii Endan,2ered
Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)*
Heterodon simus FSC*
Picoides borealis Endangered
Procambarus plumimanus FSC
Dionaea muscipula FSC
Oxypolis ternata FSC
Haliaeetus leucocephaltts Threatened
Fusconaia masoni FSC
Gomphus septima FSC
Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Lasmigona subviridus FSC
Somotogynts virginicus FSC
Delohinium exaltatcun FSC
E'chinacea laevigata Endangered
Juglans cirerea FSC
Monotropsis odorara FSC
Rhus ntichaurii Endangered
Plagiochila columbiana FSC
w
COL'YIIION i -kN1E SCIENTIFIC NANrE
STATI S
WAKE COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow
Bald eagle - Aimophila aestivalis
FSC

Southern hognose snake Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Heterodon simus Threatened

Southeastern myotis
Myotis austroriparius FSC*

FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel
Yellow lance Alasmidonta heterodon
Endangered

Atlantic pigtoe Elliptio lanceolata FSC

Green floater Fusconaia masoni FSC

Diana fritillary butterfly Lasmigona subviridus
S FSC
peyeria diana FSC*
Vascular Plants
Sweet pinesap
Michaux's sumac Monotropsis odorata FSC

Carolina least trillium Rhus michauxii

Trillium pusillum var
ill
Endangered
. pus
um FSC
WARREN COUNTY
?ertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel
Yellow lance Alasmidonta heterodon
Endangered

Tar spinymussel Elliptio lanceolata FSC

Atlantic pigtoe Elliptio steinstansana
Endangered
Fusconaia masoni FSC
Vascular Plants
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Red ?volf Canis naus
Rafinesque's big-eared bat ELI'
Corvnorhinus (=Plecotus) ra%inesc ai FSC
Waccamaw killifish Fundulus wacccmativensis FSC
Bald eagle
T'nreatencd

-North CarolinaNk-ildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executi-:e Director
TO: Stacy Harris, PE
Project Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coord' for
Habitat Conservation Prograrli I ///
DATE: January 8, 2001
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Wake and Durham counties of North Carolina.
TIP Nos. B-3375, B-3450, B-3451, B-3522, and B-3528.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for hurnar. and wildlifc passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
?. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearin" the area with chain

I. I ! _ I \I ii! \, ( tt r • I ! i::?i. \( 2'c, 1'?-1-21

Bridge Memo
2 January 8, 2001
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general '404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are'used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12.-Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches. reinforced concrete pipes. or concrete box culverts are
used:
The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means that the
culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream bed. If
multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be placed so that their
bottoms are at stream banktiil stage (similar to Lvonsfield desian). This could be
J
Bridge Memo
January 8, 2001
accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that
will divert low flows to another cell. This will allow sufficient water depth in the
culvert or pipe during normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are
long, notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15 foot
intervals to allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert, to reduce flow
velocities, and to provide resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms moving
through the structure.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or widening is
required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of structures usually
causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment deposition that will require future
maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area that is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore
the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject
project or ether projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3375 -Wake County -Bridge No. 301 over Swift Creek and Bridge No. 471 over Lake
Wheeler Spillway. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Measures be used due to the stream classification of WS-III. We are not aware of any
threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
2. B-3450 - Durham County - Bridge No. 122 over Sandy Creek and Bridge No. 217 over an
unnamed tributary to Sandy Creek. Standard comments apply. We are not aware of any
threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity. NCDOT should pay particular
attention to wildlife passage issues on these bridges due to the interest in the New Hope
Creek Corridor as a greenway and wildlife travel corridor.
3. B-3451 - Durham County - Bridge No. 119 over Mud Creek. Standard comments apply.
We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
4. B-3522 - Wake County - Bridge No. 215 over Buffalo Creek. Buffalo Creek has a DWQ
classification of B, therefore we request that NCDOT use Hi-,h Quality Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Measures. Standard comments apply. We are not aware of any threatened
of endangered species in the project vicinity.
5. B-3528 - Wake/Durham Counties- Bridge No. 429 over Sycamore Creek. Sycamore Creek
has a DWQ classification of B. therefore we request that NCDOT use High Quality
A.
Bridge Nfemo 4 January 8, 2001
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures. Standard comments apply. We are not aware
of anv threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from
contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with spanning
structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases.
Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation
and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.

7
'-NCDENR
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
BILL HOLMAN
SECRETARY
DAVID S. VOGEL
DIRECTOR

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF S01L&wA7,p
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
CONSEOVAIION
DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
MEMORANDUM:
July 6. 2000
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects B-3375, B-3450, B-3451,
B-3522 and B-3528.
The detour routes included in the bridge replacement plans should
eliminate any farmland impacts.
If additional land is needed beyond the existins right-of-way the
environmental assessment should include information on adverse impacts to
Prime or Statewide Important Farmland. The definition of Prime or Statewide
Important Farmland is based on the soil series and not on its current land use.
Areas that are developed or are within municipal boundaries are exempt from
consideration as Prime or Important Farmland.
For additional information. contact the soils specialists with the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh. NC at [phone].
Cc: Stacv Harris

TL^- ? r / ? (J J
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
!? '= ! _'1ivision of .archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
June 28, 2000
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
NCDOT
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
9 QuIv 9,9 v
cP hlrryyb'gy
Tai -..`.?• c\? ?.y'
A.4 _Y
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 119 over Prong of Mud Creek on NC 1306 (Lemur Lane),
B-3451, Durham County, ER 00-10112
Dear Mi'. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letter of June 2, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural, historic, or
archaeological significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment
on the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified
at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
,-
David Brook
,
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
------ -- I ?ri.,liun `•I.,ilin, \J,Irr„ rrlrpl,ui,r I,.,,
lU\Il?i.l It \ I IN

Feden:l.aid :;BRSTP-13061.1) TiP =B-3a- l (: )ttnrv: Durham
CONCL RRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FHE.NA T 10NAL
REGISTER OF LHSTORIC PLACES
Pro/ec: Descricrion: Replace Bridle No. ! icon SR !306 over prong o r ?,lud C eta
On March 1-7. 2000, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway ,-administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
photograph review session/consultation
other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
X Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as -* I are considered not eligible for the National
Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Resister-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Haw yo;)CKkA,?, :3 - Z-4
Representativ NC T Date
FHwA. for the Division Administrator. or other Federal ,-agency Date
Repr?entar? SHPO Date-
Seale Historic Preser?ation Officer
Da te
C)
AN72;A
?
??
MENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
June 28, 2000
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
BILL HOLMAN
SECRETARY
DR. PHILIP K. MCKNELLY
DIRECTOR.

NIEMORANDUM
TO: Stacy Harris, DOT
FROM: Stephen Hall
SUBJECT: Bridge Replacement Projects, New Hope and Mud Creeks, Durham
County
REFERENCE: B-3450, B-3451
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has identified New Hope Creek and its
tributaries, including Mud Creek, to be vital wildlife movement corridors linking units
of Duke Forest at the upstream end with the New Hope Game Land downstream.
Depending on the way the bridges are replaced, there is potential for significant impacts
to this corridor system. We strongly recommend that bridges be used instead of culverts
and that a 15' wide bare earth passage should be left along both streambanks; rip-rap
should not occlude the passage of animals either beneath the bridge or along its
approaches.
We further recommend that consultation be made with the Wildlife Resources
Commission to determine appropriate bridge design. Other agencies or organizations
that should be consulted include the Triangle Land Conservancy, Friends of the New
Hope, and the Durham County Planning Department.
/sph
?a
I .il i \I ?I I. `i C ItV I• -L I : FN I F 9 RALF-r , N,3F4T11 .; i N01_INA 7599-1 ti 15
DURHAM
City O )W-11?)t::
Transportation Divisi,,tl
Department of Puhlic
101 City Ha11 F ,"; .
Durh.un, 1"orth Carolina -t ; _' IT 1 8 6 9
CITY OF MEDICINE
July 11, 2000
Ms. Stacy Harris, P.E.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
SUBJECT: Comments for Bridge Replacement Projects B-3450, B-3451, and B-3528 in
Durham, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Harris:
Phone:(919)560-=
F.tx (91 ` .
In response to Mr. William Gilmore's letters of June 2, 2000 to Mayor Tennyson and P. Lamont Ewell,
City Manager, the City of Durham offers the following comments concerning the subject bridge
replacement projects. Please note that the Erwin Road (B-3451) and the Leesville Road (B-3528) projects
are located outside the City limits. However, the proposed Erwin Road bridge detour route partially
occurs within the City limits.
Project Comments
B-3459 1, 3 Y.5,0
1. The project design, scope, and schedule must be coordinated with projects
?e No. 217 U-4009 (US 15-501 Service Road relocation) and U-4012 (US 15-501
over New Hope widening project). Avoid coinciding the respective project detour routes
Creek and Bridge and schedules.
No. 122 over
Sandy Creek on 2. The proposed bridge should provide a five-lane curb and gutter cross
Garrett Road) section, with wide outside lanes for bicycles, consistent with U-4009.
3. Provide sidewalks for the extent of the curb and gutter section of the project
limits, and/or extend to match proposed sidewalk construction requested as
by the Clty as part of U-4009.
Due to existin, traffic volumes on Garrett Road and severe congestion on
the proposed detour route, a detour bridge or staged construction of a multi-
lane structure should be incorporated into the project scope. The proposed
detour route will adversely affect emer?lency vehicle response times, City
bus service, and area traffic con-esnon. A detour route is not acceptable to
the City. If NCDUT does not concur with this recommendation, please
advise the City %Iana`,er and plan to hold a public workshop and/or hearirl_
to advise the City Council and the public of the department's decision.
'Vls. Stacv Harris
July 11, 2000
Page 2 of 2
Proiect
B-3459 3 r7v
(Bridge No. 119
over Prong of Mud
Creek on NC 751)
B-3528
Bridge No. 429
over Sycamore
Creek on Leesville
Road
Comments
5. Consider alternative bride design concepts for aesthetic enhancement.
1. Provide bike lanes in the proposed cross section.
2. The proposed detour schedule must not coincide with the detours of other
area NCDOT projects, including U-4009, U-4012, and B-3459.
3. The proposed detour route will increase congestion at Cornwallis Road and
US 15-501 ramp intersections. Appropriate traffic control measures should
be studied and constructed as part of the project (such as traffic signals and
turn lanes at Cornwallis Road and US 15-501 ramps).
4. Consider alternative bridge design concepts for aesthetic enhancement.
1. Include bike lanes in the proposed cross section.
The City of Durham requests that these comments be included in the project record and addressed in the
respective project environmental documents and project designs. Please keep the City advised of each
projects' progress. If you need any additional information, please feel free to contact me at 560-4366.
The N. C. Department of Transportation's coordination with the City of Durham is greatly appreciated.
Sincer ly,
H. Wes ey Parh, / E.
Senior Transp rtation Engineer
cc: Mayor Nicholas J. Tennyson
P. Lamont Ewell, City Manager
Mark D. Ahrendsen. Transportation Manager
Stuart Carson. P.E.. Civil Engineer III
DUF.HANi SPACE- AND IRA I LS CC"N'1.\I I5-5;I0\
July 3. 2000 v;
TO: Mr. William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
State of North Carolina Department of Transportation,
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
FROM: Annette G. Montgomery, Chair/Development Review Committee
Durham Open Space and Trails Commission
SUBJECT: Bridge Replacement Project B-3451
It has come to our attention, through the New Hope Corridor Advisory Committee, that
you are currently preparing the planning as well as environmental study for replacement
of this bridge that will cross Mud Creek. The New Hope corridor including Mud Creek
is a part of our DUTAG Master Plan. And while the bridge in question may also have
impacts on the adjacent Duke Forest, in our advisory capacity to both the Durham City
Council and the Board of County Commissioners, we would be remiss should we fail to
provide input to you.
Preservation of the water quality, wildlife habitat and other natural resources are of prime
importance to us. All precautions should be established to provide maximum protection
against harmful impacts during this construction.
We understand that you have been notified regarding the plantations of bald cypress and
the wetlands. Other preliminary recommendations we wish to provide include:
In order to provide dry land passage for wildlife, sufficient horizontal and
head room is essential and planning should include columns rather than
the standard bridge piers.
?Ve recommend that the bridle be of sufficient width to provide the
required five-foot bicycle lane on each side, outside of motorized
vehicular traffic.
?_? Dtir.r±aA, r•-? AR, _ .\ _ ^? l (_ 19 ) __0 1 _1 11 F,.:< [phone]
We do not favor construction of a bypass during the bridge construction
process as it would obviously increase the opportunities for sedimentation
into the creek as well as threats to the wildlife habitat.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We hope that you will inform us
regarding continued planning decisions about this bridge construction process.
Respectfully submitted for DOST.
CC: New Hope Advisory Committee
DURHAM
Department of Public Works
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, North Carolina 27701
1 8 6 9
CITY OF MEDICINE
June 23, 2000
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleiah, NC 27699-1548
Attention: Stacy Harris, P.E.
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Re: Request for comments on NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects B-3450, B-3451 and B-3523
Dear Ms. Harris:
This response is from the City of Durham Public Works Department, Engineering Division. Our primary
interests in these projects are potential conflicts with City of Durham potable water and sanitary sewer
infrastructure. We have reviewed the locations of the projects and have not identified any City potable
water or sanitary sewer facilities in the vicinity of Projects B-3451 and B-3528.
Project B-3450 (replacement of Bridge No. 217 over New Hope Creek and Bridge No. 122 over Sandy
Creek on SR 1116 (Garrett Road) is in the vicinity of an existing 16" diameter ductile iron potable water
main (see attachments). According to City plans, the main is located outside of the pavement on the east
side of Garrett Road and deflects awav from both bridges and crosses beneath the channel beds upstream of
the brides. You will need to field locate the water main to confirm its actual location. Additionally, there
is a 6" diameter sanitary sewer force main to the north of the project and a 42" diameter sanitary sewer
gravity outfall to the south of the project (see attachments). Both the force main and outfall appear to be
outside of the limits of impact by the project, but you will also need to field confirm their locations.
Please contact Don Gre:le,, or me at (919) X60-4, 16 if you have am questions.
r% 'ours.
_? T c C--?_
E'?ttrai-t Carson. P. E.
Civil En,ineer III
\tt:u:hmcnt<
Cc tile

+Buk.e "Unibersitti
Ct;RhA?,
NORTH CAROLINA
27708-0332
NICHOLAS SCHOCL OF THE ENVIRONMENT
OFFICE OF THE DUKE FOREST
BOX 90332
June 20, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
TEL"-?'iCNE [phone]
FACSIMILE [phone]
2101 10
I have received your letter requesting our input on the future replacement (Project B-345 1) of
Bridge No. 119, located on Erwin Road (SR 1306) at Mud Creek. The land at the NW, SW, and SE
quadrants at the bridge crossing are part of the Durham Division of the Duke Forest. As you may be
aware, the Duke Forest is owned and managed by Duke University as a natural outdoor laboratory for
teaching and research projects. Our observations and preliminary recommendations regarding
replacement of this bridge and the potential impacts on the Forest include the following:
• Plantations of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) dating back to 1933 are located both to the north
and south of Erwin Road. We recommend that there be a minimum of disturbance to these
plantations, as well as the wetland areas both upstream and downstream from the bridge.
• We would not favor construction of a bypass for the bridge during the construction period. .
• There should be some discussion of the fate of the beaver dam on the upstream side of the bridge.
• We recommend that the bridge should be wide enough to accommodate a minimum of a five foot
bicycle lane on both sides of the bridge, outside the lanes of vehicular traffic.
• We recommend that there be dry land passage for wildlife provided under the bridge.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the project in more detail with members of your staff
at any time. Thank you for soliciting our comments on the project.
Sincerely,
Judson Edeburn
Duke Forest Resource iVlanager
Cc Nc%w Hope Creek Open Space . d? lsor% Committee;
Dean, Norm.ut L. Christensen Jr
VfMACY
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: J -3 LP: 51 ! `f tnU ?i?Re: k- Date: q-? - 0 V
Applicant/Owner: County: MLA r kA p,.,
Investigator: 5W _*N State: r-f
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Community ID: ??t
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? yes Transact ID: - to
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ye Plot ID: and
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species s Dominant Plant Soecim ? Indicator
' - Y
, -oN S
2. L
3. Y? ^ G 10.

5. L; >v„u -rh??nr s=A? 13.
U;.M;r.(.y+,?
7. tn
1'
F r bb 15.
/
??
?
8. Q. A -L*U ? /'t v K? I.IG? h i c ) 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that an OBL. FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-) V
Remarks:
uvnont nr_v -
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-
-Stream. Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs -Inundated
-
Other Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
-
4No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
Drift Lines
-
Sediment Deposits -
-
Field Observations: -Drainage Panama in Wetlands
Secondary indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to From Water in Pit: fin.) -Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: fin.) -Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_
Other IExpiain in Remarks)
Remarks:
?A ;0
cntr c
Map Unit Name , ` ,
(Series and Phasel• CIswk, ? ti h? 1?•//_II ?
I ieZ (Of)S Drainage Class: S ro
L Reid Observations
N
I
)
Taxonomy (Subgroup): uVAAh ,P o
IyC l ? Confirm Mapped Type: Yes
WIJ
k ft

Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture.
Concretions.
linchesl Horizon (Munseli Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Stn!mm, etc.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_Histosol
Histic Epipedon __Concretions
-High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime _Usted on Local Hydric Soils List
-Reducing Conditions _Usted on National Hydric Soils Ust
Gieyed or low-Chrome Colors Other (Explain in Remerkal
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophyde Vegetation Present? ea No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ea o
Hydric Soils Present? yam No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Y No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
J
HJL
8/93
r
r
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manuall
(?I, Q ?' IOvrv? S 0(0
?A ?Ip
1
Rna
Project/Site: I 3 J ?y ty/ (AO, i Date: Q- l -O J
Applicant/Owner: 1V6VD1" County: ,7v.?h/+v?,
Investigator: P???J.. ?•???->`l-. State: l1
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? $2 Community ID: ?ri? ?+ej
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? a
s Transact ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Plot ID: A „ct
(If needed. explain an reverse)
VFC;F ATION
Domitiont Plant - Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Straturn Indicator
1ic nv?5 ?C?1??. r .FIW 9.
2. fflo"%Al Yto •ir. ?
I'?1G 10.
3. L)l ?h tAJ A US i ti W V, A ?LA 11.
4. Im 12.
5. ot(^rrY.•?r w i /?la r(? C 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
a. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OHL FACW or <717)
FAC (excluding FAC-) Q v
Remarks: 10000
uV r% r2 /11 r% r%.?
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarksl: Wadand Hydrology Indicators:
-
Stream. Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
-
Aerial Photographs 4I(arndated
-
Other -Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
-
a( No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
'T !/Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observation: -
Secondart+ indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _k:?6xidi:ed Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to From Water in Fit: (in.) _WmK'Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) -,Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_
Other (Expialn in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):
G4wAJA J J
PMJ W"`r'a6e- 501-IS
Drainage Claw SPO

Taxonomy (Subgroupl: PNY/?A? cr!h/_ A5/ vc ,e otl Reid Observations
Confirm Mapped Type: Yes

Profile Description:
Depth
Matrix Color Mottle Colon
Mottle Texture.
Concretions.
(inches) Horizon IMunsell Moist) IMunsell Moist) Abu ndance/Contrest Structure. etc.
D -B to YiL (0 - 0- Y1 ??(e t L Lod r?

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_Histosol -Concretions
_Hindc Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Sags
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils Ust
TR*ducing Conditions YUstad on National Hydric Soft Ust -
Gloved or Low-Chroma Colon Other (Explain in Remarin)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
No (CUdal (Circia)
No
j ho Is this Semolina Point Within a Wetland? Yes
Approved by HOUSACE 2192
.
HJL
8/93
" I.
.
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name 3 -3151 ?JAd creek
County Lnjwr(DHMy Nearest road BIZ )30(0
Name of Evaluator Su r? '"' Date vO
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
forested/natural vegetation %
agriculture, urban/suburban %
impervious surface %
Wetland location
_ on pond or lake
on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
_ other
Dominant Vegetation
Soil Series C,6wJVJA r P" IS
_ predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
X predominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
(1) J5AX1n4'J fAngN)JAfntcq
Ulr7N1 mLe'^
(3) JF?W)A ylrl?nr-q
Flooding and Wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
X, seasonally flooded or inundated
_ intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Hydraulic Factors
_ steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
X wetland width >/= 50 feet
Wetland Type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
_ Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin _ Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage 1 * 4 = lip
Bank/Shoreline stabilization S * 4 = 20 Total score
Pollutant removal S * 5 = 2S" g
Wildlife habitat 2 = $
Aquatic life value * 4 = _P
Recreation/Education 2_ * 1 = -Z_
(2)
Add I point if insensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1 /2 mile upstream
i
T

ES4S ?% •144S';IUGNS Mi$ 84.3ES$14+Bf9
F
[(,PROJEC.,
o -8 i
y, Fo-"' o -N c
O o T O O
r i
?m i O n i
r?l H y ?
to p 9
2T
_o `" 8 8 S
N ?
20 c N tbrf ?
W C4
+ u u n u u u x r
°; N A b
'Nv W ? i
Dc ; a4 ?
i
O z z
F
c
%
D n
Nd
-o
60 y
N
wW?
G1 W C
O?
II A ;'
o II II
W
cn O
N A
o
m 0
I
o m
M A
o K

N e
G ? P P
7
Z
Z m ?
,rn
y

O
Z rn
jT
y
55
ii
?
?
o A
M
?gg
?y
y
?x
?y
ir: 8.2352903
G IS T rao o"')
--4 1

?o
A

r
h1
C)o
?x
MJ
O
V? ? v
b ?O
O
x?
?o
V
r?
to)
C)
b
n
0
z
rr?
con
0
i o-
a
U
a
a

T
r
rn ?
4
O
?i
rn
N
?s
Ili
o ? a
O.. W W ,Oo
m c
CL ,Q
0 0 0
a?
c ?
NRRRRRRRRR RRRR RRR
G
0 S V! Q 'i1
0
'D U3
g3
a(A ;
? _,
y? C S H
C =
c
? ? 3
?
C
y W h
v
C

?+ v -v T gy m- gi c v v v v v c ma
a- me
--4 m
W W W
3 3 ? ° 0 W T ? s s zo n ?. to ° ° ? o ? B ? ? O
° v o W r° p 70 a a- o 3'
v W o.?'= W a a, HH W
W W a 7 ? `C ?z? S 3 Wm ea ; -n ITS
(a 00 am
M m p a W W ? V = W
3 3 s S?? W ? T
W - -v
C W
V
W
f-I I I I
1 I
? ! p I ? I I I I
I I I I
LJ I I I ? I
CD L, U.
r 0 o O y .i .? o t° c a p , o n W 3 0 W o 0 0 a o 0 0
?. a W `? W W .o = W W=$ q a n v W .. o v W W
O (A° p S S 7 H° C C S S '?
Q< cr
C- 0 z W W
W a c"o 4A ? c W c 3 o n o_ 0 9 b W
oc ° g°O,? Oo s 3:3 cp W 2
Ift
W g W a c =
_
In-
3 O o_ _
W O
rt ?, a

-o v m M Z 3:
< ,
.
°
j
f
a

S O
p

S
W a
t° c
?
a' f?

a ?O
? o

I Y 11
I II
t I II
•
® EO)J\0O Cw) [fl Coo <> O® ?I O ?? O O O, w CS d E3 E21 E3 O 1 o-
? I ? li
I
o co ° 0 0 0 o o 7` c
?A3 p? CZo? , 3
>> ° W 3 Z fl = C C = W
CL 6- c O
o 0 g. 3 5 3 X 0 11 C 3 W
a D. W
O ° W p-
C. O_
O
$° a
?« = a te
'a
cm
.=i 3• o C ? ?
CL g 0
o C M. a O p.
Q c W T
to °
b
I I I I I I ? I
I I I Fx
x ° o s ¢° CQi IV] qo ? I
m \\
n w
nf W X W
I ? m I C I I I ? ?
x + I
I II
I ? II
m p ?0 7p Sc 7o p 70 10 7o N p 7o p ?o Vi p 70
I? to -- = cl 3 ° = a = a. a = a 1 = a.
31 0 L41
C O
O
?n -I S
0 0,
p (7 W W
O A
(0-) car ox W
O' O' W = ° Q H C T
_ W
cr_ A A W p 0 m .: o m
W H 3 d Vf •!: W !
N C ? C O
Ia C
: m v V 7.
C N
it in
I I ? 1 ? I ? I
0 0 "< 7 ? I I ^ I ? I
I ? ? I I I I I I
VI 7o VI O = Vf Ln C -1 T 0 T W f 0 m p g S
gC W x a a s° o°
X to
CL CL c
(D ?, 8 $
o W c °.
S r
W
I E? y \I ! I I ? ; ?
o
J
li
m
u
c
r
n
m
S
m
z
G)
m
m
m
n
O
Z
M
z?
O f
Z
N
J
O
r
CA
(A
` 6n w
3 c= 3 ?' $ `" W ? a
9. 3 3 O g , ba
4° -_
' C
8
N

'r O
n
x
n
C
k 1EO No
,_I I 1
'9?
?I
REVISIONS
GF`, fSSi IKE$B$$$
4F $ $$'t$$$$ I1ll',Nt$$$$$$$$$$ti$$ 11
C)
O
r
C
O
z
O
v,
HINGC POINT
FOR CUTS 0, 1 - N

r
C.
L
O
+n
Ut
f
O
i r
a
1
1
?W 1
t

-

?
Z
1

00
N?

z , 1

nl 1 v

?
nl - { !{

]> i 1 I
r ' I N.
/ \

m F ,,
/
,f C) n I?1
c)
r`+t r, Ut
M 7u
{
I
l m c, a
U) rn

I ? U) ?u
r r? t
{ o ,_t
W
S
tl
rTt -,
c?
O r)
1.
m
m <
n m
rat
O
pp 0 0 O
?)O
r r - C) --
n -. ) 7
N
U) U) n
-
> _

+
Vl Q)
^ O
N
#
N
W Cl ?
O C)
O

-
CD I
TI U)

c r_
?
+
n 0 co
N m +
C-) W U n) N
v z O

c
?m O

4 Z
# N
C N

-
0
- -
--
--
c?

1W ?O
U)), b
?
-11WGE POINT
-
?
_
?
- -,
U.
1
c) -
?
r-
r
=i
z
v

?uz o
m

?
A
o ? ?
n r
C?
n ?
r c
r- ? D

c-
z D
r
O
C-
U)
m
Z7
n
m
r
m
z
--t
m
p
m
to
O
u
Ut
z
r-
m
V)
0
-I
rn
U)
m
G
m
CJ
• I "/I,,/1
O
v)
N

C)
_1 A
m
-
r
z ) Q o n?

m ---
N

?

-
u
O
oN z
-1 13
m
n

N
f
j D
? ? N cn
-
N N?

2 A
p i .

C7
`n D
?m

? V

HINGE POINT
FOR FILLS- -
m (
O
z
n
Cl
Cl
C
z
O
D ? D
r ?r
O ?c C7
8 (D O N D (D (D Q D, Fri
(n < m m CD -U O O --1 -u - -u -1 n -u Z -? -0 --4 m
m n X n `mzx
- N) ,D
Ln ?U 71 -<;V
-u - ?..-0 A
m -%_U
-
0
m U) -u u O
C) 0 0 0 O O 0
fn 0
- + -1 sn n a U 71=rn.° z) u °
t C my
c
,
M m
" ?
O _1 rrl `? - T> 1 rl. ui '- n 1. M7• ,
= U) n
O U)D
D -
U
t?l T --i ?u D n Z7 L, ..-I . n 1 m U I 2- C
m
- LI
0
n -1 _u n 0>a-) ?v -iO0 D
• Z7 r<?) t7
Otn u,ti
s

Z

A -i o C)• u rn @ v

" nrn•
m
?m
U) U

G7
D C 17 F n0 Au IT O
m O
z C) ;U rJ
r?l ri
Fri
m
- zX r-m x Innm s1n;< r
C7 Ti r X
u
m -U D ul S Z7 -a v i? C, ? -1 C) -I N -a -
m D z V) D RI 1.
? < n 17r>n

Z r)ln z '- DN L
n
r
r -I n
n
-1 rn0N m
?N
v n
n
-1?.mnU) _

nn
rnn
n-1 U z
n
< r'
n
U)

m 5
n =v-*,-u ?s ?< -u
1 m y
l ;mv M< <-v

n n --S
zz-n
-te m n
r 7 -m
z?r
- L m -1-
XOn zJm2,
U,?
n mS
?n Fl]

U)
< m r m-i 17 D
- Xn rnmr n'1
- nr
m D W I-- r n
n m r
c7 {
z) n -_ O. C-) I C J

r) n
r n m
< n
z
? -1
o
r m rn

n Iv m m
n ?J
z
-i o
m
O?lj mz z
(-If7 m uo
?1DZ >
m?? _tro
EDZ z
DZ 'm o
DZ U
--i
m U) m

rn ._1 n

rri
n
-A
m

O

i >

U) m
z
00-1
--u C/1
( .

G

-
-
C) U,n
-# O V) J
0 m -? -,) fTl u?7
-1 mm
_
x :U A O
m ? O
-n
rn
C7-?
I- C-)
r--nZ r-I"n
U7, n ?)
m(/)D
riy t
t.L:
unn CPO
C n I
rn
T U17
? m[ CJ
n l O 0i)
fT-i
rr1 0 to r. I
, ? p . fn
n O C
-1 A
m U) UJ ?1
U) s Z7 c=J
t) b
'.--n ?)
lD
I-) r C_
,

F
ITI -uN
-u IT] m Inrn
1) -?. m
Y Tl L?
n ?0
' [_l U>
O NC.
(

m • i
Z rnl D to _
aJ
U C--
U )
U,
--1
--1
]---< (n -<
0m ' O ,
r,lF, r
,
:T)?n M
J1m
n u m I
1 0
mX

Z m
n c? n
r' 1, -
U ?1
n
n
Ul nj -< l fn 1 1=7 1,1

n
-a
-1) v, <
n
n
O r-1 m rn -< -? i0 _u Z
LU T . C
I1 C:7 O

V
D
m
m
z
?
^J
m
0
C
f-
m
v
O

y
?
m O
0
LJ

l

u O

O

r\
J
1?1

O O
O
N

O O
" O
n
IT,
C o
y )
b
o

at

U)
Q N C7
r).t
ll
n
O
Cn 0
--
G

O
O -
O
O
- O
v
5/'a/99
G1?
F==4
F 1
00
O
C
Z ?t?4
a
w?
4RES95?15TIMESESRS
ELS3S4 4b3$SS3 E2fIG11444 d0 S453S44 E$i5
5/21/00

Z
I
? }fyy?7
o
? y
S
? L
5
'? z n 3
? 1 1 Fig ?
?
5
1
EZ?1 Z
?
>
N
?
O ? i
'td+i
1
S u
:
a LOCATION (LT,RT, OR CL)
u
r N
a
g
T g?
(0
1
'?
fROM
STRUCTURE NO g

4
7Xi

>

TO
. C

+
»

-
L
_

+ !I

T
b o CCO
of m

e

P

TOP ELEVATION v

Z Z

Q
?
Q
tj
u
$
O(VOIT ELEVATION
i O
i $
7
'.? y '-? =• O
o ,P+
S INVERT ELEVATION V
w w
P
? O
O ( SLOPE CRITICAL n >
ET

' N ? ?? •? ww
1
V
y
00 V
$ v
In
4
N v
4
? O A
L
T.,
"1
'C C
V
Q
O
? L
f"
R A A
w p
?9
0

P

w

V I, r
'
^

.0$4
it W
? Q
?
:Ml•??
Q Q
o$4
?
n

8 8
s .064 g
.064
;

_ .079
B ? g ? ? 1
?
1
8 8 .079 r
_
R
a 7 7
N 9
109 O
? O
T
? ? .
Q Q Q Q 0 ? ? ?
sS ? -

.109

•i
•t
4
4
? ? b
la.
?
333 15' SIDE DRAIN PIPE v?
y, 16' SIDE DRAIN PIPE
E>?
24' SIDE DRAIN PIPE 0?
)y ? "7
R.C.P. P1 y ?j
tl d
O

` PER EACH (0' THRU 5.0') QUANTITIES
F DRAINAGE z

4
5.0' THRU 10.0'
> SSTRUCNRES
• TOTAL LF. FOR PAY

?,
'
D ABO
a f pW
SHAH BE COI.
E 10.0
AN
V E + 0
•A' + (I
.] K COL'K1
C.K. STD. 940.01 OR STD. 940.02 *-4

Is
T
N
b

o ML STD. 940.14 OR STD. 840.13

z{ D.I. FRAME & GRATE STD. 840.16
00
4
$
M.D.I. TYPE 'e STD. 640.17 OR 840.26 Q
MD.L TYPE 'K' STD. 660.18 OR 940.27
M.D.I. TYPE 'D' STD. $40.19 OR 940.28

M.D.I. FLAME WITH GRATE $TD. 840.22
E

g
M.DJ. FRAME WITH TWO GRATES SM..0.22 ms,
li]
s M.D.I. (Ni.) FRAME WITH GRATE STD. 940.24 `i
M.D.I. (N.S.) FRAME WRH TWO GRATES STD. 840.24 € A
31 OR 840
11
STD
940
32
.
.
.
. ?

> o
•
F?: y

O M.D.I. FLAME WITH TWO FLAT GRATES STD. 840.29 0 0 2
P

13' CORR. STEEL ELBOWS m?oZ
'Oy
°"
l
j•
S STD 840.72
CONC
COLLARS CL 1' C
Y a
x
.
.
.
CONC. & BRICK PIPE PLUG, C.Y. STD. 840.71
PIPE REMOVAL UN.F7. p
;ws?P rt OZF1
P
O O ? ? o
E O?$ ?z O
AO x ?? ? ? IN

q
x
?

4

Z
?
a
REVISIONS
?c
cr1o
40 &
b
/
(A tr co
°7, o?
a 2 ?

\ r
I 1
I
Z
(mn {
?Q??ooccTr \
gs`T?mu O ?`\
m \
a ti?
\
<
> S

/

IS

SVgyFY O 2
P
tF 4<F co
R?y
5•w\ I r Z
I N
2
309
N
A rm O
NN
T
> A pp /
mm'INON
- 2
20
•a
/ v3 m
5 ?? }t
/ ,?quunT,

Z

Z
Y

N o m

1 2

Iz Ir
?

02 .0.. 2
?
O
4

„I

0

4' PS. , P.S.
Nil
? rq
n?.
? P P
0+
N
F.?

d
z m
?Z
Z
O
a Z?
O
9
z w
o ? o ? o Y: T. o ? o b
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 8 S 8 8 r $

O f0 O O O + W N U O O Z

C Om
fA
? rq
O + ? t UU
O v ??pp
?D pp
O yy
M W w 0
O
C
z
4
A
n

M
R
M

_
pp M

n

Y

3 d
? ?
X3 y
?
fJ? ? tai

m °
z

a

A
U

i3Si£S?f57?ME?t45Y
axx.aax x:¢as::<u.nr. r.:carec:a:xecx<cxx
$$$$$$S 7TIVEssiss
'!444;}4 $ Is 434tbSUGfJ bi$$$ t tts its EStt
1
3csss4?'?STraEx4.sgs'
AtiAA A?iAAA0.iSA.A'II :IJSittl1tA42ittAt.i
EYfi81?0 thh?fqt IEEE
1 m