20071017 Ver 1_Application_20070611

~Ty .•su-c,
A d ~' ~ ~,
"aa c
.~~~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
s~
A~~ `
" p,
/ ,`~
~~,,~~~~
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~ ~' ~ ~ ,4
cy
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
ATTENTION: Mr. Rob Ridings
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
June 6, 2007
o~ioi7,
Subject: Application for Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization for the replacement of Bri e
No. 158 over an unnamed tributary to the Eno River on SR 1402 (Rivermont Rd.), W e
County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1402(7), WBS No. 32906.1.1, State Project o.
8.2353701, Division 5, T.I.P. No. B-3169:
Please see the enclosed Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) document, Natural Resource
Technical Report (NRTR), buffer permit drawings, Preconstruction Notification (PCN) form, and half
size plan sheets. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
Bridge No. 158 over an unnamed tributary (UT) to the Eno River. The project involves replacing the
current bridge in its existing location, while using an off-site detour to maintain traffic during
construction. The proposed structure will be a 95-foot, single span, precast concrete girder
superstructure on concrete end bents and steel piles. The roadway approaches will be widened to include
two 9-foot travel lanes with 2-foot grass shoulders (7-foot shoulders where the guardrail is included).
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The project is located in the Neuse River Basin (subbasin 03-04-01). This area is part of Hydrologic
Cataloging Unit 03020201 of the South Atlantic-Gulf Coast Region. US Army Corp of Engineers
(USAGE) representative Eric Alsmeyer, during a field meeting held January 29, 2004, determined that
there are three jurisdictional streams located in the project area. The proposed bridge will bridge a
perennial UT to the Eno River (UT1). UT2 flows into UT1 and is located on the west side of the bridge
and will also be bridged by the proposed project. UT3 flows into UT1 and is located on the east side of
the bridge outside of the construction limits. UT1, UT2, and UT3 have no separate Best Usage
Classification and, therefore, share the Best Usage Classification of their receiving waters, the Eno River
[DWQ Index # 27-2-(10)], a Division of Water Quality Class "WS-IV, B, NSW" Waters of the State.
There will be no permanent or temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters associated with this project.
No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-
I), or Water Supply (WS-lI), waters occur within 1.0 mile of the study corridor. None of the streams
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] Of 2728 CAPITAL BLVD. SUITE 241)
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 919-715-1335 RALEIGH NC 27604
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER FAX: [phone]
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
WEBSITE: WWIN,NCDOT.ORG
~~~h~

within the project area are listed on the Fina12004 List of Impaired Waters [Section 303(d)] for the
Neuse River Basin nor do they drain into any 303(d) waters within 1-mile of the project area.
NEUSE BUFFER IMPACTS
UT1, UT2, and UT3 are subject to the Neuse Buffer Rules. The buffers of UT3 are located outside the
construction area and will not be impacted by the proposed project. Construction of the new bridge and
approaches will result in impacts to the buffers of UT1 and UT2 (Buffer Sheet 2). Impacts to buffers are
shown in Table 2 below. The proposed bridge will span both UT1 and UT2. Under the Neuse Buffer
Rules, impacts to buffers from the construction of bridges are allowable; impacts associated with
construction of the approaches, which impact less than 1501inear feet or one-third of an acre, are also
allowable. Mitigation is not proposed for this project.
Table 1. Neuse Riparian Buffer Imaacts to UTl and UT2
Bridge Road Crossing
Construction Im acts*
Zone 1 Im act (s . ft) 2255 89
Zone 2 Im act (s . ft) 549 463
Mitigation requirements Allowable Allowable
(exempt, allowable or allowable with
miti ation)
ou linear teet of impacts measured parallel to UTl and UT2.
Utility Impacts
This project will impact aerial power poles located within the project area. The affected poles are
located 13+40 -L-(left) and 15+68 -L- (Right) within the project limits. The existing aerial power poles
are outside the riparian buffers. The aerial power pole at station 13+40 -L- (left) will be removed and
placed back 5' inside the R/W at the same station [13+40 -L- (Left)]. The second pole at 15+68 -L-
(Right) will be removed temporarily during the construction of the proposed bridge and relocated back to
the same location at sta.15+68 -L- (right) after the completion of the construction. There will be no
impacts to riparian buffers resulting from the removal and replacement of the poles.
No Practical Alternatives Analvsis
This bridge has been determined to be structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. The replacement
of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations. Because this bridge
needs to be replaced, impacts to the riparian buffers of UT1 and UT2 are unavoidable. Replacing the
existing bridge at its existing location provides the least amount of impacts to riparian buffers.
B-3169 Permit Application
Page 2 of 4

MITIGATION OPTIONS
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.
• Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented.
• Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented.
• All non-maintained riparian buffers impacted by the placement of temporary fill or clearing activities
shall be restored to the preconstruction contours and revegetated with native woody species within 15
working days of completion of the project.
• The proposed project includes complete bridging of UT1 and UT2, without any bents located in the
stream, allowing for pre-project stream flows to maintain the current water quality, aquatic habitat,
and flow regime.
• The proposed bridge will be replaced in its existing location.
• The roadway grade was kept close to the existing, minimizing fill height and impacts to riparian
buffers.
• An off-site detour will be utilized during construction.
Compensatory Mitigation
NCDOT has avoided and minimized impacts to the Neuse Riparian Buffers to the greatest extent possible
as described above. Mitigation in not proposed for impacts resulting from the construction of the
proposed bridge because all impacts are allowable.
SCHEDULE
At this time the project is scheduled to let January 15, 2008 (review date December 18, 2007) with a date
of availability of February 26, 2008. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start construction in
February.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
This project has been designed to comply with the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC
2B.0233). NCDOT requests written authorization for a Buffer Authorization from the Division of Water
Quality. We are providing five copies of this application to North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (NCDENR, DWQ) for review and approval. This
project has been reviewed for jurisdiction under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). There are no
impacts to Waters of the US, therefore none of the actions of this project fall under jurisdiction of the
CWA. Therefore, no permits pursuant to the CWA are required.
B-3169 Permit Application
Page 3 of 4

A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call Erica McLamb at 715-1521.
Sincerel ,
~.
`r Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Cc:
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Jon Nance, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, DEO
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Theresa Ellerby, Project Planning Engineer
B-3169 Permit Application
Page 4 of 4

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. ~ ~ ~ i ~ 0 1 7
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
^ Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: None
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
S..If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [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: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page I of 9

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps maybe included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No.158 over an UT to the Eno River on SR 1402
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3169
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/names, landmarks, etc.): see map in permit
drawings
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 36.0584 °N 78.9662 °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Eno River
8. River Basin: Neuse
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/ma~s/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The project is located in the Eno River State Park. The
project area is forested area with some sections of maintained roadside.
Page 2 of 9

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bridge No. 158 will be replaced on existing location with an offsite detour Heavy duty
excavation equ~ment will be used such as trucks dozers cranes and other various
equipment necessary for roadway construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a deteriorating bridge
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs maybe included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: none
Page 3 of 9

2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:
4. Individually list all intermittent and-perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acrea e, multi 1 len h X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
acres)

i Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 0
Page 4 of 9

5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Wa[erbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres) o
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Im act (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0
Total Stream Im act (linear feet): 0
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond:
watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
Expected pond surface area:
Page 5 of 9

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

Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Mitigation is not proposed for this project.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
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 ^
Page 7 of 9

X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify Neuse )? Yes ® No ^
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feet) Mitigation
1 2344 3 (2 for Catawba) 0.0
2 1013 1.5 0.0
Total 3357 0.0
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. Mitigation is not required for this project.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 8 of 9

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. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http:l~'li2o.enr.state.nc.uslncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. 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).
None

(~ • (~ ~~
Applicant/Ag~nt's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

~ +,
NOT TO SCALE
NEUSE RIVER BUFFER
®~~ 11 ~®~
~~~~
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 32906.1.1 <B-3169)
BRIDGE N0.156 ON SR 1~d02
OVER UT T® ENO RIVER
Buffer Drawing ~ ~
~~ eet ~ of

i . ,
.~
..
~ ~
II I ! ~ eO ~
I I _ ~~~,~~ g-o
a
I b' `~ w ~ ~ ao • ~ ~ Z ~ ~ i:r o~D v)
I ~ I wU w ~"
I I` ~ to p o~ a O~-~ y~ ~ m B ~
I `~ ~_a ~I ~ ° °G
I U I ~~ NL ~,y O ~
w I ZO I ~~ X ~ O g
U _ o ~ ~
z
of I _ z =
~? - -~'~
a 1 -11~ ~
~~ ~, ~ it ~~-- -- I
'1 w
Z ~ o~o a
J
~~ O- 1 z xQ c~
i ~ ~ / . N j ~ 1 ~ ~ a W ~
i
i i m N
~/ ,`I ~~~~ P6E W ~o .
r~ ~
1 ~ ~ PDE
•I
1
el? ~ ~~ BZ 2 ,~
mI c
~~~ ~ ~''
~, ~ ` ~
,~ ~ ~
~~ ~. ' ~ j
~~~ ~
~ s ~ ~ m sr_i ~"~
-fie, ~ I - o -.~,- ~
\\s y j J -
y,. ~ ~ .-. N l~
`L `~ ~ Z Z 1~1
O O
N N
/ ~ ~
H ~
z ` V (..)
~L~ ~ a
~~ 1 I ~ ~ ~
ti~ i ~'~ ~~ ~ ~ t29 J W
J
hZp ~~~, ~ ~`I I i', Q Q
~WQ 1 ~/ I f I J J
~ 1 I I J
Q~~ I '
I J
02~ 11 I 1 1 ' Q V~
~W~ 1 ~ I ~/
I~ 11 I I ,; %~
v .Om 9 I z ~~~
z ti
~ 1 ~ 1 + N
W `1 I w
~1 1

N
Z w ,^
W Z ~
O .:r
W ~
w

Q
m ~
W ..
O

~
0
v
H
W

m N
(7 W N
Z ~
1_ O '-'

W ^
O v

N
J
~ ~ ~
e
~
M
~

Q
W
J O `~
F- C
p
N ~ M
C
C U m N

a W
o~ 4f
~ ~
~
~° M
s
~ o
~
J
Q _
(/~ W
~ u`oi rn
_
~" N ~ f+!
N
V

Q W {-
a ~~
J Q
S
i
-
a
W W
o
~ ~ x
LL F' m
~ ~
m oN
p u~ x x
~~.

U

M
pp
~ ~ N
_
Z O ~ + ~

OC .a
~_ ~
Q O
o
° °
~ o

~ LL
`~
`~
M ~
c
N ~+ ~
v
V
W
N
j
m
~
W
~ LL ~
C ~ ~
~
F }
~
~
W
~ C
W
U\ m ~ o ~ o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ > j
O
z ...I
H

~ ~
H
0
0
N
T
l0
N
Q'

• ~~i
~ RECEIVED
APR 23 2001
DIV~ION OF HiGHVgAYS~
23-stdc-l2oo~ oeoo~~~~ gggg~~~~ P~E#~OFFICE Of NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
~Clqugedpey\ Ar\~2153Bdy_tah.dpn
C011 t TRA CT: C201788
r
09/08/99
TIP PROJECT: B 3169
r
~ r-n~ g
C.AH T ~1
<c~z ~ ~
n Gov
~~c ~ ~
mZoN ~ ^ of
Ong ~ a-, ~~ ~B
o ~ ~ o s
Dn N
I1 rtmii0
OZ$~ ~ n
DD ~n ~ '9
ti
.7 pmQ ~ ~'
., n c ~ o
O m ~ ~
r iG
~ m `~ \
~ N
~ \~
~~ ~
~~
1 ~,o
~ ~ i$ ~ yy
{ ~ ' ~ "C O ~
~ ~~ b b ~
1g w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ x ~~
~ ~ ° ~ ®®
a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
+ i ~ ~ a ~ ~ I~i~i Z "zi
~ b
ao
y ~ ~ ~
,~~ ~ ~ ~
/~ \~ r
_ ~ ~ ~®
- - _-~
-- -- q_ ..
~~~__-------__ ~a - b
~ ~ iii a C~ ~
~ / ~ ~ i~i ~p ay9 S x
~ ~~ z
~~' iii '/
=-i ~ ~
~~ In1 ~
~~~i ~O N
~ i ~' to ~I
A~
~~
i ids
i,-.~ i i Gicrnc~~
~i
/~~~ ~
~~ W
// ~ ~A
~'
a
N N a
~ ~
~, ~ e
~~
g ~ ~ ~ ; ~o
~~ ~ NN a
~z ~ j
~~
~~
b
~z `m r ~~
y
i~

~ i
I9-YAppR~-~~0,, a07~~1~~3rr:53r
iiilU~ERNA~as*ib3169_rdy_ tah.dpn
09/08/99
~CONTRACT.• TIP PROJECT.• B-3169
n
n

A C
G m
-- C
~ m
N
`~
N
b
0
1
ti
m
k
(n
O a
~ b ~
~ ~~
o ~~
c ~®
®~
~ ~ ~~
~~ c ~~
~ ~~ ~ ~
nb
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~~
~~ ~~
~~ C
~ ~~
~ x ~
~~ y ~
.~
N
b
8 ~j
~~
a~
s~
~a
~~
~t%
z~
z
y

Y
oay;
v, ~ 3
~ s
a
0
S
' v
~~~
~
T
$
a
~
~. ~
$ ~ O
~ o o_ O
~
3
~ n
"C
~
s
"l
BI~.
~ I
m ~ I
L~
3~ S a 3 ~ o =~ »
S c a O~~ 3 l~~7
~ ~ ~ u v 'G
o
0
0
~ Q
O
C
~+D- -+ ~ x .o ~o 0
O ~ x N N
' $ ~ n o
~ °s s o
a a,: N
0 2 ~
Q
b
Q
tb
ma
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C
g o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ N ~ A ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m
3 ~ °~ s a ~ ~ ~ o o a- °s ~
< g~ a. p c 8 s~ o
~' a_ o a s o o q
as a~°~~ 3
_ g~ -~~ ~
s
b°
3
v
" I
I ~ I I .
~ i i
'„ '" I
~~
o ° ~ ° ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ a_ a a. ~ a_ a o ~ bT $ ~ o
~, ~ ~ s e e i i ,,a,~ u m
s
~ ° ? ° S s ~ o
O ~_ c o o s' x ~ s
f1 A o A o
~ o, ~ ~ o
e =: s s
=i N
N y C
C C ~
V~
I I I
I
V I I I
I ll
a a ~~ j~® }' 0 ~~¢ T
I
I i I I I
Q' ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ a ~, 0 3 a ~' a ~ A -a A N ~
c' n' o' ~ m o o ~~+ ~ ~ m o ~ ~ M_ g a~ C
• ~ p ~ S '~
m m °- ~ ~ • ~
aa.s~ggA~~ ~ a o a ~~ •
o° S Q ~~ o ~ S~ c o~~ C ••
• ~i A~ o_ a~ C S a~~ s
~ o 0 0 ~ ~ g ~
~ga~ a s b
D ~ O
~ b
~~
9 F 2 s: ~ x~ Q^ ,O I ~ I
Ilil; ! ~ li!!~
~~ ~g~g~~~~~a~~ ~~~ o~~~~
a~ ~a m~° ~ ~~ !C c o o 3~ S~ c
° A ~ ti ~ ~ o ~ o a.
cvo~' ~ '3°3363 ;
3 u o ~
~ 3 3 ~
s
~'- ~ 3
3
I j I I '{ ~ a
~ I I ~ ~~ >r
IIII~ ~
I I
v x -v -o v v~~~ O
m.~3 ~~ ~ ~ ao~ ~ ~
a ~ ~ ~ ~ -v
~~ ~~~ n
o- ~ ~ c
o ~ x c ~ o
a ~ ° o s
~- s
o ° x
0
m •
...*
I I
I
I
' - I®m®o¢-~o-•
I
I I
I
a a g a ~ ~ $ i~ ~
~ g °
n. O c o 0

v °
°
~ ~ [~
~
~ i7O °
~ °
c 2° ~
~ ° u

2
O
o.
~
o ~
~ ' °
o
s ~
~ - 2

a
C
~ c ~
•
3 c ~

p -

m a
m
7
o.
Q
I
I
v
® I ^ ~ ~ ~
I I m i !
C ~ p
-~~~-+ ooh ~'~~ ~ ~a.3~ ~a.~~ ~~ v~~~~~~
~ ~.o ~~~~ss~ ~~a o y a d~'~ ~ ~~'~g-~~ ~a a ~~~~~~
yy N C ~ C Sc
O ~ ° e ~ ~ ~ ~ H N C d. N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 47 ~ ~ S 0 ~ C ~ ~ • ~ O
~3 fR ~ ~ ~ O 47 4S7
a o
_ ~°
a~~ '" G X~ '~ S ~~~ ~ ~ o_ C~~ g O A o n ~ g o
y~ 3 ~ ~ A O O O 7 •
T C • C
m
N ~ ° • ~11
I~ C (n
i -; m
I ~ I , I I
1 N I I I I
m~ j 9 I I j I I I
e ~ ~ I I I I
p ® O O• w >n 4 F O+ ® ® p I I
I a i I
I I I ~ I ~ j~ l ; ~
I
n
O
z
m
Z
1
O
Z
D
r
-~
s
Z
rn
rn
N
r
N
II
n
r,~
®®
~~
~~
~~
~~-
~ ~

rZa ~Zi
mc
n m cn rZa
mcn w N ~-- ~ m
~ r
_
a m •
fA m .-• N m .O .
UI B mJ
~ m ~
D J D N
D D ~
~
Z O O Z
Z Z ~
m ~• m
m -• m
r cn r
• m m m m m r
m m
'
W < J <
00 N D ~ N D W <
,D N D
B u B .-. •
~ m B .-1.
J B
NBO m00 A ,D O
7J W Z D m Z ~ J Z
L7 ... ~ O O ~ G7 N ~ ~ O
-=i ,D ~ . -1 N U1
B B A ('")
O •
m W ~ W W
r r r
W N
r
O N N CO ~ Z
C7 2 r a .a a ~ 0
D ('~ ~ m B 8 ~ 77
r' p n
2 B N W ~ --~
N O D n ,D ~-- -0 ~ 2
m -1 r p 0) Cil J

mz
°~ N O
m-~
w m m
N m
p
oW ~cn „z
~ w .n w
OlD O N~ ~"0 B B B
o
WQ,
_ ~~ ~
t°~ `
~ o~ ~~
~W f')Z d~ ~~ N N N ~

"'1O O (!~ m m B ~ J~
o~ ~~n ~o m ~ m O
~w
p ~ 00 02
~ O~ O m B .D ~ D
w m cn ~ cn
. ~ W
pw .D Ol 00 ~ ~
U1 B N
D ~
-i N .
Z ~ N ,D W ~

N
D~
~-
A W Ul ~
N UI N J
B B B
;
a x
~ y z -- m
r
~ r^ ~ ~ o0 0
ax-- an
a r m~ z o~
x ~ n z N
v ,~=moo zv 0
ml~f w^'`~'~ncWC~oz=o D
~vz+ mo? ZcZ~c°Di,wvm~
AO a~_D~OZO~\no~~ C
r N ~. x?~ -fma~pD~T71n
°n ~ ~ooac°•~~Oi~ozmm
~m ~~x~°~,~~~v+ 0
~ r
c --~'~ ~v°-+mz zc~i+ m
00 ~ i ~~T r~-omm ~
o.ra- in~~in"az'z~o~ C7
ym my~v.. ~-N- m~~rv
cnv o~aoo z zao-°m --~
z x ~zvm Nc~-wzr
~ aoo NoN~~o vai•aio~
c~ cc m m
vN ~~a~~orvo i cnv
z zoo-' '-~
o~ozo om a ~.y~v `cmi+o Q
rya- `^ o°=°z ax Z
~ Na a m--i
v ~ ~ ~ m ~ _
N ~ 00 CA V1 (/1
~ ~~o m-v
z ~-,," vo
~` ~`
^~ 1 m
cn ~
ti
•
~~~ ~ ~~ ~o
~~
g ao ~$~
~g~~ ~ ~~
.~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~h'ti~ ~ ny
~ to ~ ~° ~ ~ ~° b
oo~ 8~ ~ ~ ~
ax ~ ~ ~
1~~~ C ~~
~~ os~ ~ ~
~~ ~~~ ~
~m~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~~ ~.
~~~
~°~ ~ ~~ ~'
~~ ~~~ ~
~ m
~~~
~~ Q
~~
0
~r
~~
~~
0
O~y
;~r
~b ~
40
o ''C
a- r~. ~
y
O
~o~
C~
o ~ ~]
H
O W
Q
oZ~
~~Q
~/ s

dy_typ.dgn
'O
n
rD-
N
m
~_
Z
Z
N
7O
n
C
70
m
D
r
N
rn
~ '
Z
Z
N
~- ~'
yyD
rn~~
_ N A
Z+~
rHWN
-i V :•,
~,, t~ V
D m -~
ZZO
v~
N
~~~
jO D
v~
~O = +
1'H y ~-
O
~~~_
Z
rn
7v ~
r
os~
0
~~~
Q • _
yO~N
W5
O ~
N
m
Z
0
r
N ~
~ N i
Z (rn~
y ~
O O i
Q Z
Z i
~ ~
Z
ZYD
N N W
_ + +
c°O
voo
W ~ ~
T
ADD
a ~
++
a _N
W V
C
--1
Z
N
C
y
rn
_~
r
N
I'TI
1
Z
0
r
Z
O
m
D
m
m
z
-i
m
v
ca
m
r
0
m
w
D
s
m
1
i
c
z
r
m
0
N
2
f
z
0
x
m
s
f
M
fA
m
6/2/99
m n
j j
z
g D
o
a -
i a
~ ~
D D
<• z•

D~ <~

° ~ g
m o
~ a

~D X ~ X
D• m•
m
A ~on~
~ ~~
D m
--

A~ oD
~D m~

r ix
~
~ V r
~'o ~
tn
z n
m~ °
r
z
o
o
sm wn
-~ s
wm m
A ~~
m
D ~
vm
tnc
• O ao
C~ ~1
C n
~
~ vm

m
.-~ o
zc
~ s
~ m
D
m a-

~ ~
•
-
rn o
n
m D
m ~' <
m
` rm m

-Di m o~ m
yD Z
"'~

~
~ ~
n
2
m
v
C
w m
D m

1
r s

~ D

m m
m ~o
~
D
r
o
c

m
s
i

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3169
State Project No. 8.2353701
W.B.S. No. 32906.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1402(7)
A. Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Durham County Bridge No. 158 on
SR 1402 (Rivennont Rd), which is a gravel road, over unamed tributary to Eno
River. Bridge No. 158 is 75 feet long. The replacement structure will be a bridge
approximately 95 feet long providing a minimum 23 feet 10 inch clear deck
width. The bndge will include two 9-foot lanes and 2-foot offsets. The roadway
grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing
structure.
-1'he approach roadway will extend approximately 35 feet from the west end of the
new bridge and 45 feet from the east end of the new bridge. The approaches will
be widened to include a 18-foot pavement width providing two 9-foot lanes. 2-
foot grass shoulders will be provided on each side (5-foot shoulders where
guazdrail is included). The roadway will be designed as a Local Route with a 25
mile per hour design speed based on the 2001 AASHTO Guidelines for
Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads. '
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1).
B. Purpose and Need:
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 158 has a
sufficiency rating of 39.1 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is
considered structurally deficient due to structural appraisal of 2 out of 9 according
to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standazds and therefore eligible for
FHWA's Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program.
Bridge No. 158 is a three-span structure that consists of a timber deck with an
asphalt-wearing surface on timber and steel girders. The end bents aze vertical
timber abutments. Both end bents and interior bents consist of timber caps on
timber piles. Bridge No. 158 is approaching the end of its useful life.
Components of both the timber superstructure and substructure have experienced
an increasing degree of deterioration that can no longer be addressed by
maintenance activities. The posted weight limit on the bridge is down to 9 tons
for single vehicles and 15 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers. The bridge is
approaching the end of its useful life. Replacement of the bridge will result in
safer traffic operations.

REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 158 ON SR 1402
OVER AN UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO ENO RIVER
DURHAM COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3169
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2353701
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1402(7)
WBS ELEMENT 32906.1.1
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
CHERYL KNEPP, ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
MARCH 10, 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Terminology and Definitions ...................................................................................................... 2
l .4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator ....................................................................................... 2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
3
2.1 Regional Characteristics ..............................................................................................................3
2.2 Soils .............................................................................................................................................3
2.3 Water Resources .......................................................................................................................... 4
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification ..................................................................................................... 4
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters .......................................................................... 5
2.3.3 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.3.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network .............................................................. 5
2.3.3.2 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Streams ......................................................5
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ................................................................ 6
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 6
3.l Biotic Communities ..................................................................................................................... 7
3.1.1 Maintained/Eazly Successional Community ........................................................................ 7
3.1.2 Floodplain Hazdwood Forest .........................................................................7
3.1.3 Mixed Hazdwood Forest ..............................................................................7
3.1.4 Aquatic Community .................:........................................................................................... 8
3.1.5 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources ................................................................ 8
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts ............................................................................................................... 8
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts ................................................................................................................... 9
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Waters of the United States ......................................................................................................... 9
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ............................................................... 10
4.1.2 Bridge Demolition .....................................................................................10
4.1.3 Permits ................................................................................................10
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ............................................................................... l l
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ....................................................................................................... 12
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ............................................................................................... 12
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern ................................................................................................ 14
5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................15
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Jurisdictional Streams Map
Table 1. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities .............................................................. 7
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern in Durham County ....................................................14
ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The purpose of this report is to inventory and
describe the natural resources which occur within the proposed right-of--way boundaries and which are
likely to be impacted by the proposed action. Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts
to these natural resources are provided, along with recommendations for measures that will minimize
resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern that may affect the selection of a
preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such environmental concerns should be
addressed during the preliminary planning stages of the proposed project in order to maintain
environmental quality in the most efficient and effective manner. The analyses contained in this
document are relevant only in the context of the existing preliminary project boundaries and design. If
design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project, crossing an unnamed tributary (UT) to the Eno River (Figure 1), calls for
the replacement of Bridge No. 158 on SR 1402 in Durham County. Project area is 32 acres. The
existing three-span bridge over the UT to the Eno River, constructed in 1960 by the Bridge Maintenance
Unit, has an overall length of 75 feet and is approximately 23 feet above the creek bed. Proposed
improvements will include the replacement of the existing bridge with an 86-foot bridge at the same
approximate location and elevation as the existing structure. This alternative would most likely require a
spill-through abutment on both sides. To facilitate drainage, it is recommended that a minimum 0.3
percent roadway gradient be used over the new structure. An off-site detour is recommended for this
alternative. If an on-site detour is chosen, a 71-foot bridge located just downstream (north) of the existing
bridge is recommended.
1.2 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Published resource information pertaining
to the project area was gathered and reviewed. Resources utilized in this preliminary investigation of the
project area include:
• Geological Survey (LJSGS) quadrangle maps (Northwest Durham).
• NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:100).
• USDA Soil Conservation Service, currently known as Natural Resource Conservation Service, Soil
Survey of Durham County, North Carolina (1976).
• NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental Sensitivity Base Maps of
Durham County (1995).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and
state protected species in the study area was obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service list of
protected and candidate species (January 29, 2003) and from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
• ~ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
~~,.' PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Ft
r ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
DURHAM COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 158 ON SR 1402
OVER A CREEK
B-3169
Figure 1

(NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats. NCNHP files were reviewed for documented
occurrences of state or federally listed species and locations of significant natural areas.
NCDOT Environmental Specialists Cheryl Knepp, Brett Feulner, Eric Adrignola, and Cazla
Dagnino conducted general field surveys in the proposed project area on December 11, 2003. Water
resources were identified and- their physical characteristics were recorded. Plant communities and their
associated wildlife were also identified and described. Terrestrial community classifications generally
follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible, and plant taxonomy follows Radford, et al. (1968).
Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980), and Webster, et
al. (1985). Vegetative communities were mapped utilizing aerial photography of the project site.
Predictions regazding wildlife community composition involved general qualitative habitat assessment
based on existing vegetative communities. Wildlife identification involved using a variety of observation
techniques: qualitative habitat assessment based on vegetative communities, active searching, identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Cursory surveys of aquatic organisms
were conducted and tactile seazches for benthic organisms were administered as well. Organisms
captured during these searches were identified and then released.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified and evaluated based on criteria established in
the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environment Laboratory, 1987) and "Guidance
for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Cazolina" (Division of Environmental Management, 1995).
Wetlands were classified based on the classification scheme of Cowazdin, et al. (1979).
13 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this report, the following terminology is used define the limits of the natural
resource investigations.
Project study area -denotes the area bound by the "bubble" study azea along the full length of
the project alignment. No alternatives for the proposed project have been defined; therefore, the project
study area is comprised of an azea approximately 2,350 feet long and 600 feet wide consisting of neazly
32 acres. Approximately 600 linear feet of Wells Creek is located within the project study area.
Project vicinity - denotes an area extending 0.5 miles on all sides of the project study azea.
Project region - is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with
the project study area occupying the central portion.
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigators
Investigator: Cheryl Knepp
Education: B.S. Natural Resource Management & Ecology, Colorado State University.
Experience: Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC, December 2003 to present.
Field Technician, GeoSonics, Inc., Raleigh, NC, September to December 2003.
Expertise: Biotic community mapping and assessment, species identification, wetland delineation
and technical report writing.
2

Investigator: Brett M. Feulner
Education: B.S. Forest Management, North Carolina State University, May 2001
Experience: Environmental Biologist, N.C. Dept. of Transportation Feb. 2003-present
Environmental Specialist, Landmark Design Group, Raleigh, NC, June 2001-December
2002 District Forester, Resource Management Service, New Bern, NC, January 1999-
December 1999.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project azea are discussed below with respect to
possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography significantly influence the potential
for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction limitations or management
concerns. Water resources within the project area present important management limitations due to the
need to regulate water movement and the increased potential for water quality degradation. Excessive
soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the flow and quality of
water resources, limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and the availability of water
directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities, thus
affecting the chazacteristics of these resources.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Durham County lies within the piedmont physiographic region of north central North Cazolina.
The county is generally rolling with moderately steep slopes along the drainageways. Dominant soils
include silt loams. Elevation of the Eno River UT in the project azea is approximately 360 feet. The
county is drained by tributaries of the Eno River. Most of the land area in the basin is agricultural or
forests, while urban development is concentrated azound Raleigh, Durham, and Cary in the upper basin.
2.2 Soils
The project vicinity is primarily underlain with soils in Nason-Tatum Association and the
Georgeville-Herndon Association. The Nason-Tatum Association is comprised of well-drained soils that
a have subsoil of dominantly firm clay. The Georgeville-Herndon Association has gently sloping to
strongly sloping, well-drained soils that have a subsoil of dominantly fum silty clay. There are three soil
types located in the project area. A brief description of each soil type is provided.
• Cartecay and Chewacla (Cc) is a neazly level, somewhat poorly-drained soil located in long,
flat areas parallel to major streams on the floodplains. This mapping unit is about 60 percent
Cartecay soil and 30 percent Chewacla soil. In the project area, this soil is found in a narrow
band along both sides of the UT to the Eno River. The surface layer is silt loam. Flooding
and wetness are the major concerns in management. Infiltration is moderate and runoff is
slow. Chewacla soil has hydric inclusions.
Tatum gravelly silt loam. 15 - 25 percent slopes (TaEZis swell-drained soil on long narrow
side .slopes on uplands. This loam is found in the southwestern quadrant of the project area
surrounding the Chewacla soil band. Typically, the surface layer is silt loam underlain by
yellowish-red or red, friable or firm silty clay or silty clay loam. Slope and the erosion
resulting from runoff aze the major concerns in management. Infiltration is moderate and
runoff is slow. This is a non-hydric soil.
3

• Georgeville silt loam, 2 - 6 vercent slopes (GeB) is swell-drained soil located on broad
ridges and uplands. In the project area, this soil is found bordering the western side of the
Tatum gravelly silt loam in the southwest quadrant. Typically, the surface layer is a silt loam
underlain by red, firm silty clay or silty clay loam. Erosion resulting from runoff is the major
concern in management. Infiltration is moderate, and runoff is medium. This is a non-hydric
soil.
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical characteristics, best usage standards,
and water quality aspects of the water resources, along with their relationship to major regional drainage
systems. Probable impacts to surface water resources aze also discussed, as are means to minimize
impacts.
Water resources within the study area are located in Subbasin 03-04-01, and Hydrologic Unit
03020201 of the Neuse River Drainage Basin. The Neuse River Basin is the third largest river basin in
North Carolina and is one of only three basins that is located entirely within the state. The basin covers
6,192 square miles in 19 counties (NCDENR 2001). The Neuse River originates northwest of Durham in
Person and Orange counties in the piedmont ecoregion. The upper 22 miles of the river's mainstem aze
impounded behind Falls of the Neuse Reservoir dam, a lazge multi-use reservoir located a few miles
northeast of Raleigh. Below the dam, the river flows about 185 miles southeasterly past the cities of
Raleigh, Smithfield, Goldsboro and Kingston until it reaches tidal waters near Street's Ferry. Below
Street's Ferry the river broadens dramatically, changing into a tidal estuary that eventually flows into
Pamlico Sound.
There aze three jurisdictional streams within the project azea. UT 1 is a UT to the Eno River and
flows north below SR 1402. UT 2 is on the east side of UT 1 flowing west and located behind a pump
station. UT 3 has an easterly flow and is located on the western side of UT 1. UT 2 and UT 3 are both first
order intermittent streams. UT 1 is a perennial second order stream. (See figure 2).
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ),
fonmerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which reflects water quality conditions and
potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries receive the same classification as the streams to which
they flow. The classification for the Eno River [DEM Index No. 27-2-(10), 4/01/94] is WS-IV B NSW.
Waters classified as WS-IV waters are used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes for those users where a more stringent classification is not feasible. WS-IV waters
are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds or Protected Areas. The B designation
denotes waters used for primary recreation and other uses suitable for Class C. Primary recreational
activities include swimming, skin diving, water skiing, and similar uses involving human body contact
with water where such activities take place in an organized manner or on a frequent basis. There are no
restrictions on watershed development activities. Discharges must meet treatment reliability requirements
such as backup power supplies and dual train design. NSW waters are nutrient sensitive waters and
receive this supplemental classification because they are in need of additional nutrient management due to
4

Jursdictional Streams within Project Study Area
Bricdge No. 158 on SR 1402
B-3169
Durham County
N 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 Miles
Figure 2

excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. In general, management strategies for point
and nonpoint source pollution control require there be no increase in nutrients over background levels.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
23.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
UT 1 to the Eno River is approximately 20 to 30 feet wide and ranges in depth from 1 to 3 feet.
Streambed substrate consists of silt, gravel, cobble, rip-rap, and boulders. The bed and bank are well
defined in this perennial stream. On the day of the site visit, flow was moderate and water clarity was
good.
Two first order UT's were identified as well. Department of Water Quality stream classification
forms were used to evaluate the streams. This stream evaluation method is intended to distinguish
ephemeral channels from intermittent channels. UT 3 scored a 26 and UT 2 scored a 19.5, making them
both low-end intermittent streams.
2.33 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project area. Potential
sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point sources and nonpoint sources are
evaluated. Water quality assessments are made based on published resource information and existing
general watershed characteristics. These data provide insight into the value of water resources within the
project area to meet human needs and to provide habitat for aquatic organisms. There are no registered
point source dischargers within the project vicinity.
2.3.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Basinwide Monitoring Program, managed by the DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality-monitoring program that addresses long-term trends in water quality. The program monitors
ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrates organisms, which
are sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa present of
intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and a taxa richness value (EPT S) is
calculated. A biotic index value is also calculated for the sample that summarizes tolerance data for all
species in each collection. The two rankings are given equal weight in final site classification. The biotic
index and taxa richness values primarily reflect the influence of chemical pollutants. The major physical
pollutant, sediment, is poorly assessed by a taxa richness analysis. Different criteria have been developed
for different ecoregions (mountains, piedmont, and coastal plain) within North Carolina. There are no
6enthic monitoring stations on IJT to the Eno River in or above the project area.
233.2 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Streams
The DWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7; hereafter referred to as the NC 2000 Section 303(d) list. The list is a
comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that does
not meet water quality standards including designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria and anti-
degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. The standards violation may be due to an individual
pollutant, multiple pollutants, pollution, or an unknown cause of impairment. The source of impairment
5

could be from point sources, nonpoint sources, and atmospheric deposition. Some sources of impairment
exist across state lines. North Carolina's methodology is strongly based on the aquatic life use support
guidelines available in the Section 305(b) guidelines (EPA-841-B-97-002A and -002B). Those streams
attaining only Partially Supporting (PS) or Not Supporting (NS) status are listed on the Section 303(d)
list. Streams are further categorized into one of six parts within the Section 303(d) list, according to
source of impairment and degree of rehabilitation required for the stream to adequately support aquatic
life. Within Parts 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the list, N.C. has developed a priority ranking scheme (low, medium,
high) that reflects the relative value and benefits those waterbodies provide to the State. None of the UTs
to the Eno River are listed on the 303 (d) nor are there any within 1 mile of the project area.
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated with
project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on streambanks,
riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and
pavement installation. The following impacts to surface water resources aze likely to result from the
above mentioned construction activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion in the project
area.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater drainage
patterns.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation removal.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground water
flow from construction.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed azeas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction equipment
and other vehicles.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, NCDOTs Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the
construction phase of the project. Limiting instream activities and revegetating stream banks immediately
following the completion of grading can further reduce impacts.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes the biotic
communities encountered in the project area, as well as the relationships between fauna and flora within
these communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area
are reflective of topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. These classifications
follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Representative animal species that are likely to
occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also cited. Scientific nomenclature
and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and plant species described.
6

3.1 Biotic Communities
Biotic communities include terrestrial and aquatic elements. Much of the flora and fauna
described from biotic communities utilize resources from different communities, making boundaries
between contiguous communities difficult to define. There are three terrestrial communities located in
the project area. These communities are discussed below. Coverage area per community is summarized
in Table 1.
3.1.1 Maintained/Early Successional Community
This community type includes the grassed shoulders on both sides of SR 1402 and residential
lawns. Because of harvesting, mowing, and the use of herbicides this community is kept in a constant
state of early succession. The dominant species in this community are fescue (Festuca sp.), thoroughwort
(Eupatorium sp.) broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus) and eastern redcedaz (Juniperus virginiana).
3.1.2 Floodplain Hardwood Forest
This plant community (Floodplain Hardwood Forest) is adjacent to the Eno River UT and on low-
lying areas in the floodplain. There are intermittent streams and standing water in portions of the
floodplain hazdwood forest. The canopy is dominated primarily by river birch (Betula nigra), yellow
poplaz (Liriodendron tulipifera), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and American beech (Fagus
grandifolia). Understory species include eastern redcedaz (Juniperus virginiana), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana) and American holly (Ilex opaca), Chinese privett (Ligustrum sp.), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
3.1.3 Mixed Hardwood Forest
This community type (Mixed Hardwood Forest-Piedmont Subtype) is a forested azea surrounding
the floodplain hazdwood forest forming a border with the Eno River State Pazk. This community is a
riparian area composed of a mixture of hardwoods, pines and understory species. A trailhead for afoot-
trail into the Eno River State Pazk occurs within the subject project study area. The canopy is composed
of American beech, yellow populaz, northern red oak (Quercus rubra), eastern sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), short leaf pine (Pinus echinata), and sweetgum (Liquidambar
styrac~ua). Shrub, herbaceous, and vine species found here include Chinese privett (Ligustrum sp.),
poison ivy, dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and giant cane.
Table 1. Estimated area of coverage of terrestrial communities
Community i Acres ~ Percentage of Project Study
Area.. .
Maintained/Early Successional 1 ac 3%
Floodplain Hardwood Forest 6 ac 18%
Mixed Hazdwood Forest 25 ac 79%
Total 32 ac 100%

3.1.4 Aquatic Community
This community is contained within the perennial Eno River UT and the two intermittent UTs.
Aquatic insects typically found in this type of community include the water strider (Gerris sp.),
crane fly (Tipula sp.), stream mayfly (Ephemeroptera sp.), netmaking cattisfly (Hydropsychae sp.) and
black-winged damselfly (Calopteryx maculata). Organisms observed on the day of the site visit include
crayfish (Cambaridae sp.), mayfly, tadpoles and isopods (Isopoda sp.).
3.1.5 Wildlife
The project area consists of a combination of rural countryside and forested natural area.
Remaining natural plant communities in the area, particularly the forested area within the Eno River State
Park, serve as valuable habitat. The forest bordering the Eno River has all the necessary components
(food, water, protective cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.) were noted for the following species of
mammals including white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) beaver (Castor canadensis), and raccoon
(Procyon lotor). Other species commonly found in these communities include gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis) and opossum (Didelphis marsupialis).
The following bird species are typical of a rural piedmont setting where a patchwork of habitat
types are available. Yellow-throated wazbler (Dendroica dominica), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
mockingbird (Mimes polyglottos), sparrow (Spizella sp.), chickadee (Pares carolinensis), Kentucky
wazbler (Oporornis formosa), and common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula).
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), pickerel frogs (Rana palustris), Cazolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), eastern box
turtle (Terrapene Carolina), and Fowler's Toad (Bufo woodhousei~.
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
Construction of the proposed project will have vazious impacts on the biotic resources described.
Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological
functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural communities within the
project area in terms of the area impacted and the organisms affected. Temporary and penmanent impacts
aze considered here as well, along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.2.1 TerrestrialImpacts
Design alternatives have yet to be identified for this project, therefore, no estimated azea of
impact to these natural communities has been calculated at this time. Table 1 describes the acreage of
plant communities within the project study azea. Impacts to plant communities associated with
construction activities include the removal of vegetation, soil compaction, damaging and/or exposing root
systems, as well as potential impacts associated with petroleum spills.
8

Due to the minimal disturbance of plant communities anticipated as a result of the bridge
replacement, significant impacts to terrestrial wildlife populations are not expected.
Loss of wildlife is an unavoidable aspect of development. Temporary fluctuations in populations
of animal species that utilize these communities are anticipated during the course of construction. Slow-
moving, burrowing, and/or subterranean organisms will be directly impacted by construction activities,
while mobile organisms will be displaced to adjacent communities. Competitive forces in the adapted
communities will result in a redefinition of population equilibrium.
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts
Aquatic organisms are acutely sensitive to changes in their environment and environmental
impacts from construction activities may result in long term or irreversible effects. Impacts usually
associated with in-stream construction alters the substrate and impacts adjacent streamside vegetation.
Such disturbance within the substrate lead to increased siltation, which can clog the gills and/or feeding
mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and amphibian species. Siltation may also cover benthic
macroinvertebrates with excessive amounts of sediment that inhibit their ability to obtain oxygen.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material during construction enhances
erosion and possible sedimentation. Quick revegetation of these azeas helps to reduce the impacts by
supporting the underlying soils. Erosion and sedimentation may carry soils, toxic compounds, trash, and
other materials into the aquatic communities at the construction site. As a result, bars may form at and
downstream of the site. Increased light penetration from the removal of streamside vegetation may
increase water temperatures. Warmer water contains less oxygen, thus reducing aquatic life that depends
on high oxygen concentrations.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant regulatory
issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These issues retain particular
significance because of federal and state mandates that regulate their protection. This section deals
specifically with the impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States"
(Waters of the U.S.), as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3. Any
action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (LJSACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters which have commercial or
recreational value to the public. Potential wetlands were investigated following the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual." Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
9

4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation, and hydrology. There are no wetlands in the project area.
There are three jurisdictional streams in the project area. UT 1 is a perennial stream; UT 2
and UT 3 are intermittent streams. A January 29, 2004 jurisdictional determination by the Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) confirmed the intermittent status of UT 2 and UT 3 with no mitigation necessary for
these two UTs. Mr. Eric Alsmeyer represented ACOE, Mr. John Hennessy of the Department of Water
Quality agreed to defer to the Corps in his absence. E-mail, dated January 14, 2004, confirms this
deferment.
4.1.2 Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 158, constructed in 1960, carries SR 1402 over a UT to the Eno River in Durham
County. The bridge is 75 feet long and 30 feet wide. The superstructure consists of a timber floor on I-
beams and timber joist. The substructure end bents are composed of timber caps and piles vertical. It
consists of a timber deck with an asphalt-wearing surface on timber and steel girders. The end bents are
vertical timber abutments. Both end bents and interior bents consist of timber caps on timber piles. The
existing deck has a total thickness of 21.5 inches. Removal of the superstructure and the substructure
will not create any temporary fill into Waters of the U.S. Although removal of the substructure may
create some disturbance in the streambed, conditions in the stream will not raise sediment concerns,
therefore a turbidity curtain is not recommended.
4.13 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters may result from the proposed project. As a result,
construction activities may require permits and certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge
of protecting the water quality of public water resources
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of
the U.S. resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department
where that agency or department has determined, (pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality
regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act), that:
(1) The activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and;
(2) The office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency' or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
In the event that a temporary causeway is required to construct the new bridge, a Nationwide
Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (33) may also be required for "temporary construction, access, and dewatering."
10

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny a Water Quality
Certification (WQC) for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
Waters of the U.S. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the
duration of the construction or other land manipulation. If the general conditions of the corresponding
WQC will be met, written concurrence from the DWQ will not be required.
As the project is located in the Neuse River Basin, Riparian Area Rules for Nutrient Sensitive
Waters apply. The rules state that roads, bridges, stormwater management facilities, ponds and utilities
may be allowed where no practical alternative exists. They also state that these structures shall be
located, designed, constructed and maintained to have minimal disturbance, to provide maximum erosion
protection, to have the least adverse effects on aquatic life and habitat and to protect water quality to the
maximum extent practical through the use of best management practices. A Buffer permit will be required
if project construction impacts the Neuse Buffer.
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The USACE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose
of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of the
U.S., specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include:
avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
Waters of the U.S.. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to
offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts
and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Avoidance of impacts results by the implementation of an offsite detour, preventing impacts from a
temporary detour.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to Waters of the U.S. Implementation of these steps will be required through project
modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the
proposed project through the reduction to median widths, right-of--way widths, fill slopes and/or road
shoulder widths. In order to minimize impacts from the replacement of bridge No. 158, steeper slopes
and guardrails will be utilized to lessen the footprint of the project.
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters of the
U.S. have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss
of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all
appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the U.S., specifically wetlands. Such actions should
be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
11

Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of
• More than 0.1 acre will require compensatory mitigation,
• At least 150 linear feet of streams will require compensatory mitigation.
No mitigation requirement is anticipated. However, final permit/mitigation decisions rest with
the USACE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due to
natural forces or their inability to exist with human development. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species
classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). Other species may receive additional protection under sepazate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003 the USFWS lists
three federally protected species for Durham County. The following is a brief description of the
characteristics and habitat requirements for these species.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened (proposed for delisting)
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Brunswick, Carteret, Chatham, Chowan, Craven, Dare, Durham,
Guilford, Hyde, Montgomery, New Hanover, Northhampton, Periquimans, Richmond, Stanley, Vance,
Wake, Washington.
The bald eagle is currently listed as threatened (likely to become endangered in the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range). However, this species has been proposed for
delisting due to its population increase since the original listing in 1967. Adult bald eagles can be
identified by their lazge white head and short white tail. The body plumage is dazk-brown to chocolate-
brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear flight path to
the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the surrounding land. Human
disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding season for the bald
eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources
include coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternative. In addition, a December 10,
2003 review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no occurrence of
federally protected species within one mile of the project study area. It can be concluded that project
construction will have no effect on the bald eagle.
12

Echinacea laevigata (Smooth coneflower) Endangered
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: 10/8/92
Distribution in N.C.: Durham, Orange, Granville, Rockingham, and Mecklenburg.
Survey window: late May-October
Smooth coneflower is currently known from Virginia, North Cazolina, South Cazolina, and
Georgia. The habitat of smooth coneflower is open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry
limestone bluffs, and power line ROW's, usually on magnesium- and calcium-rich soils associated with
gabbro in North Cazolina. Abundant sunlight and little competition in the herb layer characterize optimal
sites. The Smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows up to 5 feet tall from a vertical
rootstock. The stems aze smooth with few leaves. The rays of the flower a light pink to puplish, usually
drooping, and the flower heads are usually solitary. Flowering occurs from May through July.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
The disturbed roadside margins along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Initial
field surveys were conducted when the window for bloom was not open. The project azea will be
reevaluated when the window for growth reopens.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Family: Anacardiacene
_ Date listed: 9/28/89
Distribution in N.C.: Durham, Davie, Orange,
Hoke, Robeson, and Cumberland.
Survey window: May-October
Wake, Franklin, Wilson, Scotland, Richmond, Moore,
Michaux's sumac was known historically from the inner coastal plain and lower piedmont of
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Thirty-five populations have been reported in North
Carolina. This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent on some sort of disturbance to
maintain the openness of its habitat. It grows only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight and it does
not compete well with other species such as Japanese honeysuckle.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows 0.2 to 1.0 m in height.
The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile, oblong to oblong-lanceolate leaflets that
are each 4 to 9 cm long, 2 to 5 cm wide, acute and acuminate. It bears small flowers in a terminal, erect,
dense, cluster. The flowers are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to
September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to 6 mm across.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
The disturbed roadside margins along the project offers suitable habitat for this species. Initial
field surveys were conducted when the window for bloom was not open. The project azea will be
reevaluated when the window for growth reopens.
13

federal Aid # BR7r]40Z(7)
919 715 15~] 1 F' . U3
TIP ~ B-31C9 County: Durham
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
'~
--~- - .
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE} and describe the effect.
Reason{s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCUOT ~. FHV4'A ~f~---'- HPCs~
rnTHL F' . ~~?

C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., pazking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. .Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guazdrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing cleaz zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hazdware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
2

5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of--way or for joint or limited use of
right-of--way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in azeas used
predominantly for industrial. or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or neaz
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus'buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land aze
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open azea consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in azeas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particulaz pazcel or a limited
number of pazcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil
or groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation
guidelines.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 350,000
Right of Way 24 000
Total $ 374,000

Estimated Traffic:
Current - 100 vpd
Yeaz 2025 - 200 vpd
TTST - 1
Dual 2%
Accidents: Traffic Engineering has evaluated a recent three year-period-and
found no accidents occurring in the vicinity of the project.
Design Eacoptions: There aze na,anticipated~design ~xc;eptions for~is•project.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 1~5~ pis-constructed entirely of t~n~end steel.
While incidental amounts of~dust particles, pavement frag~nents~sndsplinters of
wood might end up in the.stream,..demolition should.result-in~o-.appreciable- fill
for the purposes of a permit.
Alternatives Discussion:
No Build - No build would result in eventually closing the road. Because
of the low volume of traffic, removal of the bridge without replacement
was discussed with Durham County. The County Manager coordinated
with Emergency Services and responded that there• is a.definite desire to
leave the crossingopen.
Rehabilitation -The bridge was constructed in 1960-and-the timber
materials within the bridge aze reaching the end of their useful life.
Rehabilitation would require replacing the timber components which
would constitute effectively replacing the bridge.
Offsite Detour -Bridge No. 158 will be replaced on the existing
alignment. Traffic will be detoured offsite (see Figure 1) during
construction. NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for
Bridge Replacement Projects considers multiple project variables
beginning with the additional time traveled by the average road user
resulting from the offsite detour. The offsite detour for this project would
include SR 1401, SR 1404, SR 1403, and SR 1402. Although the distance
azound the detour is 1 mile greater than the normal route, the conditions of
the detour aze such that there is no difference in time traveled. Based on
the guidelines, the delay for the average road user is acceptable.
In addition, maintaining traffic onfite would result in higher project costs
and environmental impacts from construction of an offite detour. Durham
County Emergency Services has indicated that an offsite detour is
acceptable and that services can be adequately re-routed during
construction. The condition of all roads and bridges on the offsite detour
are acceptable without improvement. Durham County School
Transportation has indicated that rerouting buses azound this project will

not be a problem. In view of the lower impacts to environment and
property, project cost savings and no major opposition, an offsite detour is
recommended. NCDOT Division 5 concurs in these recommendations.
Onsite Detour - An onsite detour was not evaluated due to the presence
of an acceptable offsite detour.
New Alignment -Given that the alignment for SR 1402 is acceptable, a
new alignment was not considered as an alternative.
Other Agency Comments:
The N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission and U.S.'Fish & Wildlife Service in
standardized letters provided a request that they prefer any replacement structure
to be a spanning structure.
The N.C. Division of Water Quality had no special concerns for this project.
The Army Corps of Engineers indicated that implementation and maintenance
of Sedimentation and Control Measured is critical for this project. There is an
FSC mussel just downstream from the project.
l'u61ic Involvement:
A letter was sent by the Location & Surveys Unit to all property owners affected
directly by this project. Property owners were invited to comment. No comments
have been received to date.
5

E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource? x
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X"
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
x
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable measures ^
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? . x
_ (5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
x
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? x
(7) - Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? x
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? x
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? x
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? x
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? x
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ^
x
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? x
6

(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel ^
changes? x
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? x
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? x
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population? ^ x
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the

amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? ^
x
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
and/or land use of adjacent property? x
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? x
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,

therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? ^
x
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? x
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ^
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? x
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the ^
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? x
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? x
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ^
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? x
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X*
7

(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history orpre-history? x
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? x
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended? X*
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? x
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Response to Question 2: Surveys for Michaux's Sumac and Smooth Coneflower were
most recently conducted by NCDOT biologists Cheryl Knepp
and Brett Feulner. A Biological Conclusion of "No Effect"
was found for the Bald Eagle due to lack of suitable habitat.
There is habitat for Michaux's Sumac and Smooth Coneflower,
a "May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" conclusion
has been issued. The USFWS has concurred with these
findings (See attached letter).
Response to Question 28: There is an eligible house just southeast of the bridge but will
not be affected by the project as currently proposed.
Response to Question 31: John Poole of DENR has indicated that 6(f) funds are
associated with this pazk, but as proposed the project will not
require land from the pazk.

G.
CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-3169
State Project No. 8.2353701
W.B.S. No. 32906.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1402(7)
Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Durham County Bridge No. 158 on
SR 1402 over unamed tributary to Eno River. Bridge No. 158 is 75 feet long. The
replacement-structure will be a bridge approximately 95feet long providing a
minimum 23 feet 10 inch clear deck width. The bridge will include two 9-foot
lanes and 2-foot offsets. The roadway grade of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the existing structure.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 35 feet from the west end of the
new bridge and 45 feet from the east end of the new bridge. The approaches will
be widened to include a 18-foot pavement width providing two 9-foot lanes. 2-
foot grass shoulders will be provided on each side (5-foot shoulders where
guardrail is included). The roadway will be designed as a Local Route with a 25
mile per hour design speed based on the 2001 AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric
Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
x TYPE II(B)
Annroved:
4
L
~ 0 ti W ~r
Date ridge Project evelopment U ~hiead
Project Dev opment & Environmental Analysis Branch
f
! Dafte B dge Project Development Group Leader
Project Development~~& Environmental Analysis Branch
ate Pro~ect~Planmng Engineer
Project velopment & Environmental Analysis Branch
Ilivan, III ivision Administrator
~- Federal Highway mistration
For Type II(B) projects only:
3 ~ _~~--
ate John F. Su
9

PROTECT COMMITMENTS:
Durham County
Bridge No. 158 on SR 1402
To Eno River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1402(7)
State Project No. 8.2353701
W.B.S. No: 32906.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3169
NEU-Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 158 is constructed entirely of timber and steel. While there is potential for some
components of the bridge to be dropped in waters of the US ,demolition should result in no
appreciable fill for the purposes of a permit.
NEU-Endangered Species
Surveys for Michaux's Sumac and Smooth Coneflower were most recently conducted by
NCDOT biologists Cheryl Knepp and Brett Feulner. A Biological Conclusion of "No Effect"
was found for the Bald Eagle due to lack of suitable habitat. There is habitat for Michaux's
Sumac and Smooth Coneflower, a "No Affect" conclusion has been issued. The USFWS has
concurred with these fmdings. The Natural Environment Unit will evaluate if follow up surveys
will be required prior to construction.
Roadway Design Unit- 6(t7
The project as proposed does not require additional park property. If this changes, coordination
with PDEA and DENR Parks and Recreation will be required.
Roadway Design Unit- National Register Eligible Property
There is a National Register eligible property near the project but not affected by the project as
currently proposed. ff the design changes, coordination with the Human Environment Unit will
be requued.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
February 2006

r ~n ,_--.----
•

.~
------,
~~
,
,__
. ,

49
----
.-=
~' ~
i .ay
~~~
' .

.
1

•~.l ! I 1
~ ~ 1
~ lAQ2 1

f ~ ~ .. ~Q~
~~~,,,~„'._...~ y
if ~ _ ~ J~ ~ ~
_ ....
1 ~ i

Q / ~
~ ~
~
- i yf ~•RIIG ~ -
'
/~ ~ , f
y 1
~ ' pid
r~ ~
~ ~
~
r
~:
aoo
- i
a
; =------------------•-•---~
~~
I s 3
~ ~ ~~
rY ~~Yrr ~~ti~~~~YW ~v~~~ti~~~
~~~~~
~ 1
1
~f
~
r
~ •4Y ~
~~~ ` -
~~~ ~
i ~
~~
TAp7
STUDIED DETOUR
NORTH CAROLIIVA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROTECT DEVELOPMENT BC
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH

Duxxalvt COUIVI'Y
REPLACE BRIDGE No. i58 oN SR 1402
OVER A CREEK
B-3169
Figure 1

. _ - _ . .J~ -~~ ' u~ iG
919 715 1501 P.02
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Fseld Office
Post Office Bo:33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 2763~3?26
July 20, 2004
Phil Hams, lll
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Developtne~rlt and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27G44-159$
Ucar Mr. Harris:
RECEIVED
JUL 2 ~ 2004
~~~
~~~ ~ 1~IitIflAAI
This letter is in response to your letter of July 12, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service} with the biological dcteraunation of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDpT) that the replacement of Bridge No. t 58 on SR 1402 over Nancy Rhodes Creek in Durham
County (TIP No. B-3169) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered smooth
coneflower (Bchinacea laevi~alu) and Michaux's sumac (Rhos michuuzil). In addition, NCDOT has
determined that the project will have no effect on the federally threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leueocepftaluc). These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act {LSA) of 1973, as amended (1G U.S.C. IS31-1543).
According to the information you submitted, a survey was conducted at the project site on June 15, 2004
for smooth concflower and Michaux's sumac. No specimens of either spE:cies were observed. Based on
the; information provided and other information available, the Service concurs with your determination
that the proposed bridge rcplaccme~nt may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the smooth
coneflower and Michaux's sumac. !n addition, due to lack of habitat, the Service concurs with your
determination that the project will have no effect on the bald eagle. We believe that.the requirements of
section 7(a}(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if': (l) new information reveals impacts of this idei<ltiiied action that
may affect listed speciee or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this
action is subsequently mociiftcd 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 w review this project. If you have any questions regarding our
response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (9] 9) 85~xt. 32).
Services Supenzsor
c;c: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, }talcigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC.
Chris h1ilitscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
TfITGI P G?7

~ , :1 . i -. --.., ,
~/
~s~ ~4~
'~ ww+~
Michael F. Easley, Governor
l;.isbedt C. Evans, Secretary
JetH~ey 7. Crow, .Deputy Secretary
- October 19, 2004
MEMORANDUM
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brock, Director
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highwpays _
FROM: Peter B. Sandbeck Pe~e,~~
~/
SUBJECT: B-3169, RepL~tce Bridge No. 158 on SR 1402 (Rivermoat Road) over Creek, State Project No.
8.2353701, Federal Aid No. BRZ-1402(7), Durham County, ER 041293
Thank you for your letter of October 8, 2004 transmitting the survey report by Richard Silverman for the
above project
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following property is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Rivermont Springs
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the .
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-733763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Fury
North Carolina. Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation OflFice
refer B. s.o&eclC, Administrator
Cantina Mattis8 Addnas Tekplrooe/Fa:
ADMINISTRATION S07 N. Bbrtrit Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION S 1 S N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 21699.4617 [phone]r115~801
SURVEY ~. PLANNING S15 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Cauer, Raleigh NC 27699617 [phone]/715.4801

j Y
Federal.4id # BR<r1402(7) ?7P # B-3169
y1'3 'r'15 i5~2 P. i%1
County: Durham
CONCiTRRF.NCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF CFFECTS
Prvjest Description: Replace Bridge No. 1 S8 on 5R 1402 (Rivermoat Road) Durham Co.
On June 14, 2005 representatives of
® Noah Carolina Impartment of'Transportation (NCDOT}
® Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
^ Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed
^ Thcre are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within
the project's azea of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
There are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
^ There is an effect on the National Register-listed gropertylproperties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on
the reverse.
^ Thcre is an effect on the ?vationalRegister-eligible propertylproperties located within the
project's aren of potential effect. The property/properties and effa;t(s) are listed on the
reverse.
Signed:
Representative. NCDOT Date
~~.~ ~;
A, Cor the Division Acim.~=nistr o;, or other Federal Agrncy

'r,~r'r~
HPO
Stale Historic Preservation Office:
Date
X11 ley ~ ~ ~
6 ~ /~ c6r_
Date

C
N
I
I
-:
I
I~
~`
I~
~~
I:
~,~^1
• ~-
~~ ~
I; i
~ I
I. I
I I
I~
I. I
i' i
I: I
I. I
I I
I' I
I: I
I. I
I' I
I~ i
I.° I
i I
I` I
I: I
I, I
•I
I
:i
I
I
r
I
I' I ~
I ~ I ~~
I~~i
- --- -------- E
/' /~ ~ .. 4
,, ..
. ~ • ~~
t;
~ I
c~u
b
n
1 O
g
~1~
C~~o ~
~~~~
~-j~
N
-o.
.r'
T~~~O
~o3T~
~m-
~aZ
v '^
T700
~O~~c
~ZT~z~
~~~
rn ~
0° ~ m
n
1 1
1 1
1 1
~I 1
1 1
~.
j
0
a
m
m
~o
0
rn
I ° 1
I
I 7
'-~' 1 I
,. 1 I
. .• £ I I•-
• ~ I I~
--'-- -- ---------L=~-'--i r
_ ~ ~~ ~ ~'
j--- ------------ .o ----
~~ '
d° ~ I i :~
.. " ~, r 1 I
.. .. ~. I 1
1
m I 1 '
gn I I
m~ : I I
~o I I
;~ 1
'U C : I I {
~~ . I I
x
~ 'i
-Dim ~ I I
z •I I
I it '
I nl ,
I ~I .
. ~ - .
.~ ~
~ ~ ,
• i ~ '
.~i i
'/
~ i
~ ~ .
i~ ~ ~
i •
i ~
i ~
n ~
~ ~ ~
1 ~ ~~ i i rn
.-~ ~~ i ~
1 ~ ~\ ~\ ~ / a
i ~
• ~, ~.
... ,
• ~ ,
.• ~ i
' ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
..,
.~ , ~.
.• i ~
i ~
i ~
i
~ ~i
i i
i i
i i
i
i
i i
r

O
_~
C~
CD
CAD
O
1
,~

O
CAD
1
O
tU
O
1
i~