20071693 Ver 1_Application_20071008

e „a SU7[ o
~ ~
'a ~.: ~'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
C c\~
~~
D(. ~ OV <~
~~T OFN ~ 8 v
<'yNpsq R. ~'A ~ ~~O
NpSl~~,QU
'~q~R~Y
B
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~"~y
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
September 28, 2007
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Attention: Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 5
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
071693
Subject: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permits 23 and 33 for the replacement of Bridge No.
120 over Mud Creek on SR 1303 (Pickett Road), Durham County. Federal Aid Project Number
BRZ-1303(3), WBS No. 33464.1.1, State Project No. 8.2353401, Division 5, T.I.P No. B-4109
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 120 over
Mud Creek. The existing bridge is currently in poor condition (bridge sufficiency rating of 52.9 out of
100 as of August 2004) and in need of replacement. The new bridge is intended to provide a safer bridge
structure consistent with federal and state bridge standards.
The proposed structure will be approximately 90 feet in length with two spans at 50 feet and 40 feet.
One interior bent will be placed in the streambed. The superstructure will be composed of pre-stressed
3-foot (width) by 21-inch (depth) cored slab units. The proposed bridge has 36.5 feet of clear roadway
and will provide two travel lanes. The travel lanes will be 12 feet wide each with approximately 6-foot
shoulders. The project will replace the current bridge on its existing location and traffic will be
maintained through off-site detour during construction. Enclosed are the Pre-Construction Notification,
permit drawings, and design plans for the subject project. A Categorical Exclusion (CE) was completed
in November 2005 and distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies of the CE are available upon
request.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin (subbasin 03-06-OS). This area is part of the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03030002 of the South Atlantic-Gulf
Coast Region. Mud Creek [Division of Water Quality (DWQ) index # 16-41-1-10] is the only
jurisdictional stream within the project area. Mud Creek has a best usage classification of Class C-NSW.
No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I
(WS-I), or Water Supply (WS-II), waters occur within 1.0 mile of the study corridor. Mud Creek is not
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1595 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone] or
919-715-1335
FAX: [phone]
LOCATION:
2725 CAPITAL BLVD. SUITE 240
RALEIGH NC 27604
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG

listed on the Fina12006 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies. No Section 303(d)
listed waterbodies are located within 1.0 mile of the project area.
Two wetlands (Site 2 in Permit Drawings) are located within the project area, one northeast (Wetland A
in CE) and one southeast (Wetland B in CE) of the bridge. Wetland A is considered riverine based upon
its location within the Mud Creek floodplain and is classified as a palustrine, seasonally flooded, forested
wetland supporting broad-leaved deciduous vegetation (PFO1C, Cowardin classification). Wetland B is
also considered riverine and is classified as a palustrine, emergent, persistent, temporarily flooded
(PEM 1 A) wetland.
Permanent Impacts
Construction for the new bridge will require less than 0.01 acre of fill (one pier bent) in Mud Creek (Site
1 of Permit Drawings) and less than 0.01 acre of mechanized clearing in both wetlands (Site 2 of Permit
Drawings). Overall it was determined that this alternative minimizes impacts to jurisdictional areas and
is more cost effective than replacing the bridge at a new location.
Temporary Impacts
There will be 0.02 acre (80 linear feet) of temporary surface water impacts in Mud Creek (Site 1 of
Permit Drawings) resulting from the construction of a causeway for the proposed bridge. The causeway
will be removed upon completion of construction.
Utility Impacts
No utility impacts are anticipated from prof ect construction.
Bridge Demolition
The existing bridge was constructed in 1950 and is 50 feet in length. It consists of two spans
approximately 25 feet each. The superstructure is composed of a timber deck on steel girders with metal
railing. The substructure consists of steel caps on timber piles. NCDOT will make every effort to extract
the pile bents in their entirety. If complete extraction is not possible, then the piles will be cut at
streambed levels as directed by the engineer. Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal will be implemented during the demolition of this bridge.
RESTORATION PLAN
Following construction of the bridge, all material used in the construction of the structure will be
removed. The impact area associated with the bridge is expected to recover naturally, since the natural
streambed and plant material will not be removed. NCDOT does not propose any additional planting in
this area. Class II riprap and filter fabric will be used for bank stabilization. Pre-project elevations will
be restored.
REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL PLAN
The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for the removal of and disposal of all
material off-site at an upland location. The contractor will use excavation equipment for removal of any
earthen material. Heavy-duty trucks, dozers, cranes and various other pieces of mechanical equipment
necessary for construction of roadways and bridges will be used on site. All material placed in the
stream will be removed from the stream at that time. The contractor will have the option of reusing any
B-4109 Permit Application
Page 2 of 5

of the materials that the engineer deems suitable in the construction of project. After the erosion control
devices are no longer needed, all temporary materials will become the property of the contractor.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
Avoidance. Minimization, and Compensatory Mitigation
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.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize, and
mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the US. The following is a list of the project's
jurisdictional stream and wetland avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization
• Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of stringent erosion control methods and use of Best Management Practices (BMPs).
• Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented.
• The current bridge will be replaced on its existing location and traffic will be maintained through
off-site detour during construction.
• Existing bridge will be replaced with a longer bridge.
ComnensatorYMiti ation
The project will impact surface waters (<0.01-acre permanent impacts and 0.02-acre temporary impacts)
and wetlands (less than 0.01 acres permanent impacts). Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for the
minimal impacts to these resources.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered
(PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
lists 2 species for Durham County and 4 species for neighboring Orange County. While the project is
located in Durham County, it is near the Orange County line. Therefore, surveys were conducted for
federally protected species listed for both counties. One species (bald eagle) was officially delisted on
August 8, 2007 (CFR 50 Part 17) for both counties. However, the bald eagle is still protected under the
Golden and Bald Eagle Protection Act. No habitat for bald eagle exists within the project study area.
Table 1 lists the species and their federal status.
B-4109 Permit Application
Page 3 of 5

Table ~. FP,(1P.PAl1V P~'AtPCtPf~ Cr1PP1PC ~n ilnrham sand (lrsannn ('nnn+ine N!''
Scientific Name Common Status Habitat Biological County
Name Present Conclusion
Alasmidonta Dwarf Endangered No No Effect Orange
heterodon wed emussel
Echinacea Smooth Endangered Yes No Effect Durham,
laevi ata coneflower Oran e
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Endangered No No Effect Orange
wood ecker
Rhus michauxii Michaux's Endangered Yes No Effect Durham,
sumac Oran e
A biological conclusion of "No Effect" has been rendered for all the listed species in the CE. Habitat
exists in the project area for Michaux's sumac and smooth coneflower. However, no individuals of
Michaux's sumac or smooth coneflower were found during the survey conducted by NCDOT biologists
Greg Price and Erica McLamb on October 9, 2006.
SCHEDULE
The project calls for a letting of May 20, 2008 (review date of April 8, 2008). It is expected that the
contractor will choose to start construction in July 2008.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: The project has been processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that these
activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (72 FR 11092; March 19, 2007). We are also
requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 for the temporary causeway associated with bridge
construction within Mud Creek.
Section 401 Certification: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3632 and 3634 will apply to
this project. All general conditions of the Water Quality Certifications will be met. No written
concurrence is required. Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and 15A
NCAC 2B.0200 we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their notification.
B-4109 Permit Application
Page 4 of 5

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 Greg Price at 715-5533.
Sincerel ,
(~{~ Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
1_ Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. J. Wally Bowman, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, Division 5 Environmental Officer
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
Mr. Ahmad Al-Sharawneh, PDEA Planning Engineer
B-4109 Permit Application
Page 5 of 5

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 2 0 0 7 1 6 9 3
(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: NWP 23 and 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: 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: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 9

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project:_ Replacement of Bride No.120 over Mud Creek on SR 1303
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4109
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): 35.9751 °N 78.9847 °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Mud Creek
8. River Basin: Cane Fear
(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/rnaRs/.)
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 land use in the surroundin area is primarily residential
Page 2 of 9

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bride No. 120 will be replaced at its current location. Traffic will be maintained through
offsite detour during construction. Heavy duty excavation equipment 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.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: see cover letter
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 tc h~th ctrnct„re and fl~nrl;na
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
( es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Site 2 Mechanized clearing Forested Yes 130 <0.01
Site 2 Mechanized clearing Marsh Yes 100 <0.01

Total Wetland Impact (acres) <0.01
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.32 acres
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- Tn calculate acreage mnltitily lr~ncrth X avirlth than ~i~~i~n by AZ [~(1
Stream Impact
Number
mdicate on ma
( )
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width

Before Im act Impact
Len th
g
(linear feet) Area of
Im act
p
(acres)
Site 1 Mud Creek Temp Fill (causeway) Perennial 30 feet 80 0.02
Site 1 Mud Creek Perm Fill (bent) Perennial 30 feet 50 <0.01

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 80 0.02
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, floodin ,drainage bulkheads etc.

Open Water Impact
Site Number

(indicate on ma)

Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) >

T e of Im act
~ P >
Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.)
Area of

Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the nrniect
o
Stream Impact (acres): Temporary --,1--_
0.02
Wetland Impact (acres): <0.01
Open Water Impact (acres): p
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.02
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): Temporary 80
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 watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to 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 may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. 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
httu://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.
No mitigation is proposed for the minimal impacts.
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):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
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 ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
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 )? 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
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
Lone i extends out 3u teet 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.
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.
Page 8 of 9

N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
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).
~' ~ ~rh U ~'• ~d 7
Ap 'cant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

i.
j f~
I
o,o
~~
~~~
~'~
o ~o
I
I
I
1303 ~ 1372 /
Cir. 13 6 3
n
P, 3 0
O Alman ~C/r clcran Q i~ 13 ~I 2 Donnigale ~~a~ m
a ~ `-~ -
~6a 13 71 N f
9e / o~ n
X13 0
~a\
EEGI1it
PR oJECT
)4 ~ 1 9
1370 ~
Sandy Rid a U.
0
/ Cottonwood
~~~~~~~
0~~~
Pickett 13 0 3
~~~
PROJECT,
ei uey
U
m PI.
.~
l' U
Q~ ~ o
,~aY E
Dr. n ~
cti a °
d
a
m
~~
1116 Chesset
Acad.
Church
of the Good
Shepherd
Winfield Dr.
Waterbury Dr.
I9IVISI®N ®]F IiIG~IWA~S
~URIIAA'I G®UN'~Y
ISIS®JEC'I°: ~-4Im9 Q~RII~G~ ~I~®~
~IBII~G~ N®. I2® ®I~EIE~
DZUI~ CI~EEI~
®N SIg & ;®3
~IDIC~~'I°°I' Ig®.~I~~
FI. - -

ff i.
~ !
I(
p,l a-u ! ~ffl , ~ ._•~ r
I I ~':
/r~ (e ~~4y 4 •-._/ S1
~ ~ I
_ (~ ~~.3:~

`
u B , .I
, t

/• '1 t I a 1 4-- / 1 I '•
1 F,~ (.~~''1 • i • ~ i ~ ~ , ; a1 , ` ~ .-a h1 r w r a ~ 1 , `. • ~~ r ~~y i

,
`ti'ha - ._ '~ ~ ~' ~
•~ ~ "`` 1 M+~,;;!a~~_-
~~' .r- 3371 • %
i ~.' '' ~`.~~ ~~
~
{ -
_ ~,
`\a . t r ~ ' r y ~ ~\' e_..'r~l ~d• /,1 :fir.

_V 1\ ~ ~ a~ "a. r' i.~p } ~~
~A ~ da rt f ~Y _M~'~•s. efi,FC 7 ;s f~,lt,• L~ : S
_~~ LA •~'Sf. \ /J , `} ~
S'' V ( ~ 1_ i

.
r'
l
3, 7 ~~' ' a'e 1\
,
l
j ~

''\ ~ --''
~ • ) `~ . ~rO` a t,~ ~, t ~ ;~~^j .' ~ e ~il~,. ` ,

~
{(/e
~
~
~ t, ~ ,
~ ~~
~ '' )
i ~ ' ,~y ll

.~~~®~
DIVISI®N ®]F gIIGI~I7JA~S
DUI$I~AM C®UN'~Y
I~IB®JEC']C: ~°4109 Q~IIII~GE X12®>
T„ ]BI$II1GE N®.120 ®VEI~
1~IUI~ C1ZEE~
~CA~.IE: 1"° : 15®0' ®N 5I~ 1303

~xE~~ ~ ®~ 8 0~ ~ 2~ 0 200

I
II ~I
I
d~I
V I
I I c+~
31 IM W,
>I ~~ `~`'
II ~ ~ O
BEGIN TIP. PROJECT B 4109 I / o
I I ~y`/
I
Q.F. .
/ ~~
~,OG
PICICETT RD. SR 1303 / ` -E l `~/ PICICETT RD. SR 1303
----=-----------~-- ---- r ------ -------------
.. .. - .~ - Bfl IOGE 120 .. ~.. .
TO ORANGE COUNTY ,y ~ TO DUR
I
E ~%
II
CW I
I II
. ~ \ ~ I ~ END TIP PROJECT B-4301
w.l II
' ~j I I
II
I I I
it
II
~~~~~
II~IVISI®N ®1F >f•1[I(ylHWt~~ ~
I~UI$b][A1,9[ C®UN~'~
~~~~ 1~Ig®J1EC'][': ~°41®9 Q1BI8II~~]E I~~D
lle ~ ~ ~`D 1~I8III~G]E N®. ll~m ®~1Ell~
1,'IUI~ CI8IEEIS
®N 31E8 13®~
~I-I[]ElE"I' ~ ®1F 8 ®6 % 26 % 2®~~

NAMIES AN® ADDRIESSIES
NAMES - AI~IIDRESSES
8
9
IO
I~aEhy I.yanrn Meekhof 307 I~icke(c(c II$oad I~una$danrn, NC 2770
]~eanaecEh -]~°hoaaees Barnes ~~Y~ Cmssaavn I$.omd ~mhaacoa, NC `~~5®~
I.eornard .F. SEaI-rnEmd7 3S®-. IDickeEE ]EPimad I)rncharnn, NC 2~7®~
~eEsy VaEadrnk 312 Arn,rns Romd DrnPharn~, NC 27705
~~~®~
DIVISI®N ®F HIGHWAYS
DURHAM C®UN'~Y
~R®JEC'T: ~-4109 (FRIDGE X120)
]BRIDGE N®.120 ®VER
MUD CItEE~
®N SR 1303
(~ICgET'T R®AD)
9HEE'T 'T ®F ~ 0~ // 28 % 2007

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(From/To)

Structure
Size /Type
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac) Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1 16+25 -L- 21"CORED SLAB <0.01 0.02 80
BRIDGE 1 50', 1 40'
2 17+50 -L- CLEARING < 0.01

TOTALS: < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 80
NOTE: PERMANENT SURFACE WATER IMPACT DUE TO THE PROPOSED PIER IS 29 SQUARE FEET.
Revised 3131/05

See Sf~et 1-A For Index of Shzets ~~~~I~l' ®1C Ta7®1D'11a1LJI ~ ,A 1®®lf lf~a,7~
ll 1
Illlll
~
'
n"**
sT"*R^IaRCrumExnNa
~n*
„°
+°*"~
,~,,,
SeeSteet7-BForConventionalSymbols 1V Jlg
filll0 JLelll
l
Il •~• B-4109 b
; ~l[~V~~~®
~T ®1F ]E~~~GIE~~~~Y~
~u ; l ~N~ E
~R
_ .
p,N~ ~~
o i i
33464.1.1
BRZ-1303 3
P.E.
~
-
~ 33464.2.1 BRZ-1303 3 RhV, UTIL
/
~
~
;
~
~
~ DU~AM
~ov~~
:
-
'
~
O I 4
~ ~
wE .
1 / l- r
Y
BEGIN
'~
_ .
;~~
~'~ ~'°
,~,
LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.120 OVER MUD CREEK

I ,
~
,~,
>. ~
"~ -~~° = ' ~',
> ON SR 1303 IN DURHAM
Permit Drawing
~ ~
~~,
„N ~ ~, ,N
Sheet (p ,1 g
~ ~ ',` `' ` -. •~ ~_- ~ ~ , ~ =-' TYPE OF WORK PAVING, GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND STRUCTURE
• ~ ~' } ~ \ ~l~ o of
~ ,la
- ~p
~

1 ~
VICINITY MAP JLe
ll
ll ~
INOT~ $~,
U'V` ~~~~~~ ~~~~~L~r~
I ~ ~ I
III ~nf
4 ~
00 ~ II ~~~'~ 1 ~~ 5~~~ ~
-L- Por srAi4+40
0
0
.
~.
~I~
BEGIN TIP PROJECT 8-4109 v ,. ~ -L- POT STA !6+66.00
"
~ I
~
/j .END BRIDGE
~
~, ~ ~
~
i
- I ~
~
~ I
~~
~ ~---~
PICKER RG. SR IJ03 T '~-- ~ " _- PICNETT RD. SA /3GJ
_____l.~---------------~_
TG ORANGE CWNiY __ TO WRNAV -~ ~ r
-L- P07 SrA13+75.00 / / I ~I ~~ ~I ----
G!N N U I N -L- POT STAl8+50.00
I ~I ~~ END I ROJECT 8-4109 ~I
/ END CONSTRUCTION
-L- POT GTA15+76.00
"° I ` ~ ~ I I 1\
BEGAN BRIDGE
$l
~~ ~~
i ~.
~ ~ ~MULKEY THIS PROJEC
T IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL
CNGINEEX~ b CON EU LTANTS
PG Bpx 3313'/ ('
BOUNDARIES.
1~
Rw~OPFI, N. C. ]'/836
191 91 831-1 918 1FAX1
WWW.MULKEYIN0.CGM
BLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED
~
0 THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III.
NCDOT CONTACT : DOUG TAYLOR, PE
PROJECT ENGINEER -ROADWAY DESIGN
GR4PIiIC SCALES DESIGN DATA Prepared m t~ Ottlce of: f li}DRAUZICS ENGINEER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

ADT 2008 = 6,100
MULKEY ENGINEERS G' CONSULTANTS STATE 0: NORTH CAROLINA
50 25 0 50 100 400
ADT 2030 = 12 OF TRANSPORTAT
INA DfiPT
FOR THB NORTX
, .
CAROL
ION
P
ELIMIN
Y PL
N pp~t
p° "
DHV = 13 % PROJECT LENGTH AR
A
S
R p,
qt
2A06 $TANDABD $PEC7P/GA7IGN5 °° NOT USE PoR CCNSlR11C1'ICN p ~p

PLANS
D = 60 %
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B-4109 = 0.061 MI
PE. ;
f
9 '•
50 25 0 50 100 T = 3 % ' RIGHT OF WAY DATE: HAVES PE
TIM 5 $~~"""~''
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-4109 = 0.017 MI . ~

V = 40 MPH
= 0
O
A
NG
ROJECT
410
0
MI
MAY 18.2007 PBO/BCr BBCB~BB ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINE ~ q~
$p
°*
O PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) .
TH TIP P
78
T
T
L LE
B-
9 ER 9g pA Ry!'
FUNCTION. = URBAN
to 5 0 l0 20 CLASS
LOCAL LETITNG DATE: JOHNNY R. BANKS
. PRUJBG/ AfADL1GER PRELIMINARY PLANS
V
°
` MAY 20.2008 OO NOT VSE FOR CONSTRUCTION
k + DUALS 2%)
(TTST 1 ~
~
PROFILE (VERTICAL) ;rox+nmB: srarB /u xw
r v
s/C;r eRCm~sx

I ~.
~ ~I N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V P0.01ECF REFfR@ICE N0. SHEEf NO.
8-4109 4
~~ 1 rrpE of rrPE n ~ °~ ~ ~~~~ a~~~
N N ~ . MV SHEET NO.
~ -L- ~ N R0IOWAY DESIGN HYDRA0005
_ ~/~~ ~T Q~ ENGINEER ENGINEER
N c a N y a V V ~ ~ ~ ~ b V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of ,,..,.~::,~~m,
~ DENOT L MECHANIZED
TYPE ~ ~ rrPE io 0 ~ ~ ~ EARR NG
~ ~ ° ~ BETSY C. VATAVUK ~ Q pENOTE T MPORARY F[LL
05 07 O ~, ~ Z - ~-~ ® tN S~uR~aLE wares pRELIMIN. RY PLANS
SKETCH ShriN,NG PRDPOSED BRlGGE wlOiH 8 ~ 1
IN RELATpN i0 PROPDSED PA~EYENT WIDTH MARKHAM FARMS LLC /$Z ~ $ ~ $ ~ $ ~ / ~ ®pEN0iE5 PERMANENT F[LL ~ NOT V5R CONSTRUC'R'!ON
MARKHAM FARMS LLC $ S F
, KENNETH T. SWS A
O xI 0 ~ll ~i 1 ~~~ ~~~~~~~I O IN UR ACE WATER
x / / O
MARKHAM FARMS LLC CAROLINE M.'?UCH I ~ C RIP AAP ~~~~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~-~~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ II Q ~ CAUSEWAY OUANi[TIES
JAMES G. PUGH k NI VOIIU~ME OF CLASS it RIP RAP
O - ' / BELOW OROINAgY HIGH HATER = B0 Yp~
y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ O Permit Drawing
~ ~, iEMPOgARY ~ /'Y ~ iY ~ ~ ~ I. ? cy. • ` 7/(~
CAUSEWAY ~~ SN HAUL ROaO ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m ~ ~ BETSY C. YATAVUK JI lee\ ~ UI E/ _
_- I IIrI ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
\ - r
.--1--.- _ J~ I _ -ne- -
" ! I ~ ~ ~~ nECManIZEO ~
__ _. I E--E P P a ~ ~~E CIEARtnG I
E
: RETAIN _.... ,.. ~~ -...~ -_ _ ~- ----I.-:-_
-.- _.. ....... ........ _ _._._ ~ . r ___ ~ -..
-L- ~ _ _
'^ _ _ _ -
_ _ ~___ N 955r 575E p ~ , zc~ 5 89' Ss 26J~ E
- RETAIN.... RETAIfy _... _ ....... ss . - ss
x -~- ~- ~' - ~ ~ ~
x~ ._._
^-n- -~--
~~E ~ ....E E R ~ ~ E E` ~~
ELBOW 7 -PROP RSV ~ ~ } iy 1 ~ ~ -
PERMANENi IMPACT f ~ } } ~ ~I ~ ~~
AEUIN- FOR BENT _ o '- .. _
r CLASS II RIP RAP MECHANIZED
. . ~~ I `. I
_ ~~- TEMPORARY FILL CLEARING
[N SURFACE waTER -
-- O 4AUSEWAYI ,~ CLASS 'B'
RIP
EST. t TONS
KATHY 1. MEEKHOF ^`H S P AAP A + MTIUANT F.F. =7 SY ~ I
I
~._. . ., ___ SEE DEGLL'A' ! ._ J
/ _
~ 02 i BRID 0 % 0 I
RUSSELL E. HAMLET - - / / LEONARD J. STAUNTON 8 JOSEPH P, EVANS, JR. ....__
/ / SALLY A. STAUNTON m ~ ,... _----- _
0 d I~ _
KATHY L. MEEKHOF
°` PERMANENT FILL IN `d'
- `- SURFACE WATER I H , I
IFOR BENn - `
,.,
`_.__- __...._ .. _. _.. _..-..I_.. ~ ~.- _.....-. I ~
_
~
~~~
m
'
~2
" ~
~ PROPOSED ~
~z E
o

~ 27Q _I
r' m W GRADE I w o i w ~

.0889'. f
--.
_
260 260 r fa./cs9z_ I-o7d5S~- -~ --
- _ CLASS ~~-~~` ~
_" [` h _ EXISPrNG GROUND ~ _ ~ 260........
PW PAP ~: I LLALI I ~E~~srrNC ,nc

~ecwsT,E
Frrav/.,os ° s ~cruPe ~ ~ . RP F
f

uNrL~ssF,EO srHUCruFE
~ ~

@ !9 0 ELEV.26,.If

25~
250
.,~, ;~~ ~' ~ ~ ErG~aT~rv
`~s~ zsAx
,, ~
CNW ~ /
DO NOT DISTURB 250.__.
a ~ % EXISTING STREAM BANKS
ewt ELw. ~~ rEa PGRaRr'CAbSEA'n~~ _..

240
240 2Sc; -0 f4-GE: CI1 ' II RIP AdP
._ _ D ~ ~I,~ .~cPE~A
IIRFACE dS NFLOEp
_
240.......
- : aPPRG%.TOf EIEL- 255.2
230 ~'
230..._..

10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 ~

BM 'SI,ELEV.= 26020'
_: _ _ : -L- STA16+2417,!52.50' RT.
RR SPIKE 1N 9' SWEET GUM
.BLEND
TO
EXISTfNG
_
__ Pf =
fL=

_ 15+3500
265.49'
BLEND _
_
VC = ~, _ TD
_
;~~_
P~ _k =
D.S. 65
= 40 mph

-.. ExfSTrNG

C7

O
O.
\~
2$0
280
~
~ J-
~ Op Jv~ + . N.~
_
_
.~
p
0 °
P w~
~~ , w -
~ ~
~ ~
Q ~~
LII~ ~
O ~
J

ti
~ ~
~~ V7
d
~ W
L7
ro
ti
~
270. 270 ~ ~' ~
~ ~
I z°
~~~ ; _ ,?
_v, ~
m ~
~ ~o
~~ Q
d z
o

i N
25 2 4 9 a6: CI 9;S uRIP AAP
240 240. use couR~i .usECa ~ 240._....
ViRFdCE AS NEEOEf] -.
0.PPI;GK. '6P ELE'!.=gig
230_.. -~-
230 ..-
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00
vi ~ ~ ~ PROTECT REFEAERICE N0. SHEET N0.
N ~
' `~ ~ ~ ~ ~4 ~ ~ ~ II~ ~ MULKEY 8-4109 a
0Y irPE w`0 irpE II
r MV SFIEET NO.
~ q N m /~ -L- ~ MT ROADWAY DESIGN NYORAUUCS
N C iu yr ~1 a ~ ._ Q. @IGINEEA ENGN~IEER
1V lV II i . ~ II ,/qA\\ I~\UYI TII'I~1I,) }~ TII1ff'1~'/ //~A\\ ({+t~~'y' 10 Cj~ • nDENOTE•S MECHANIZED
I
irpE u ~ irpE w VVV VVV 1111 AA 1L Jl A d U.1 ~ V 1SL ~ ~ 11 ~ ~] `~ ~ ~ " O O -.. ~ CLEARING
c ~ ~~ m ~ v ~ -5 _ ~_ - _ ~ BETSY C. VATAYUK ~ Z y ~_~ ®OENDN ESURFACE gWRTER ICI
- - s ~ [
K r
s frcr+ srawrNC PROPOSED sRrDOf wrorR ~ ~ ` ~ PRELIMIN RY PLANS
/ ~ DO NOT U98 lVNSTRVCTION
IN RfWTbN TO PROPoSED PMEYfNT W1DTN ''~ - MARKHAM..FAAMS LlC ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ $ ~ $ ~ $ ~ r OENDTES PERMANENT F[Ll
MARKHAM FARMS{LC / y
, k _ -. ~ KENNETH T. $IM$ [N SURFACE WATER
~I lE 1 ,~~~ ~~~~~~~1 0~
- ~ '~~ -
~~ ~ ~ '. O. / ~ * :.~ ~ ~ I ~'I CAUSEWAY GUANTSTIES
MARKHAM EAgMS LLC X
.JAMES~G. PLGH.3
CAROf.INE M. FUCk. ~ ~ ~ O CVSS II 0.1P RAP ~I~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 YI ~ VDLUME OF CLA55 I[ R[P RAP
C1- _ /-- ~ N BELOW ORDINARY HIGH WATER = BD YD'
~.\ .a - ., .~~ I TEMPORARY ;~A ~ ~~'~~~~~~~ iY ~ ~ - i._ ? l/,1 '~'
~ l
~ ,. , _.. DAUSEWAY HAUL ROAD ~ ~ 'z; ' _. .~~'/ i
,~: -- ,' TSY C. VATAVUK
I ,. /, '
/ ~ WE' % ~
i
~~ f'~ q~~~ I ~~ ~i
s
' i ~ - ~' - _ ~ ~~ MECARN[Z -
--'
~~~
- -
~_. _ .. _ E--~_ -
~ ~_ /' //.
.. ~`~ ~ ,,
• -~--
_- _ o __ -
... ... ... .. _ ' -~ 1.- ~.
r _ :." ~ ,
' ~/
.. ._
N 84' 51' 579' E 2 _ - - -
~_ -
t -
_.: - _ - -
RFT _
NN % / \
_ _
art - Y - __
Tyi-~- ---W--!w=- .-k
X '~
E ,.E
_ ,
_ _ ~ -
' V ~-
, I _ ~ ~ ~ s - ~~~~ y PROP R/lYA 1
..
,r.
PERMANENT 1 ACr ~ 's ~ R ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
., .. _., ~ ;, ENT '- I
~ ~ ~ _~1 ~
.'
i ,
,. FaR B I _
_. -
-.~ /
s ~ '
^~i~ it CUSS II 0.R RAP MECHANIZED
TEMPORARY FILL / '
///~~~ CLE [NG /
I RFACE WATER ~~ - ~ ~- -._~- /
~~ I :. IC., I ICAUSEwAY) /'.~ % QJ55'9' / '_-- ~, / .._
.. 4IF :h AIP RAP /
'~ I MEEKHOF / _ - ~ PAP AT * ESF:2~ ~5 /
KATHY L.
~;,. - + _
' SEE DEi A ~ r
I r -,. ~. _ - i i f
-. --- .~ ,
• ,- i
,._ .~ ; ~ /GRID I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~~~ _.._
~ / L ..--r / / _ ~ I O
~-.
!v, p ~ .~ , ~ p / '
-. ,.
_~ ~ / ~ ,~
--_ / ~~~"
~ l "- / LEONARD J. STAU1vSON & -. _ - ~ ~~
I JOSEPH
RUSSELL E. HAMLET "~ ~ -~ ~ ;' / _ P. EVANS. JR. '~ i
'~ - ; , / / __. ~ ~ SALLY A. STAUNTDN - ~~ ~
/ - - ~ -
' I ~ ~ KATHY EKI(gF~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~~
~ i :. _ K
~ ~,r'; PERMANENT FILL 1N
~~ - _ ~ = SURFACE WATER _
~,
,~'~ / I -` / IFGR BENiI ~~~ I i `
~'
., w
,,
I ,
M _ ,
7 DETAIL 'A' BM 'SI,ELEV.- 26020' pp /~~C ~/ p^I, /~ /~pr
..310__.. RIP RAP 41 EMBANKMENT _ -L- STA16+24J7, 15250'RT. UIl~L1VL l~l ~II HV «L UIiI Q _ 31Q._
_ ~ „~„o ua,,, _ _ RR SPIKE 1N 9' SWEET GUM
oew = zea.r DESIGN DISCHARGE = 3140 CFS
oircp canoE ~ ~ z ~ BLEND DESIGN FREQUENCY = 25 YRS
(~ - 3' ' Mlno-IFr. - TO - - - DESIGN hW E1.EVATlON = 263.8FT _--
.300_; MaxA = 10 Ft, P! = 15+7500
_ _ _ B z Ff. _ ExrST1NG BLEND BASE DrSCHARGE =x398 CFS
b - 5 P,. EC =-265.49' __ _ - - 300 __.
True vP u^er =class Iwv-Rao VC = ~ TO BASE FREQUENCY = 100 YRS
K = 65 - EXISTING BASE HW ELEVATrON = 264.8 FT
' - -. UNE STA TO STA 0P AAl FILTER FABRIC - -
s 7 ~z DS.= 40 mph OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = 2498 CFS
-1- 15177 TO 16+02 Rf IBS 200 - V ~ ~
..~90_ 290 ~~ z OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY = 10 YRS 290___
~ _ ~~ _ --_ ~ ~ _ _ OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 2632FT _
I~ i ~k
°o~ °o .W o oN~ _
r 280_.-_ 280 _ _ \ ~ _ o~ +Q~ `~°W ~- _ o~~ oti DATE OF SURVEY = 4-14-06
~o ~QC~ ;o `+°W oEU~ o~ W.S. ELEVATION 280_..
~` ~ ~ d ~ Q Q ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A7 DATE OF SURVEY = 2522FT
2Z0_._- 270_ ~~ I ~ ~'~~ '? v~d,m u~~,~° ¢o
gym- ~,wz _, ~ o _ I a~ ~~ 270._.
I I
_ '_~ ~~ ~ m i' 2 GRADESED ~ w s i o !~ i
r' .0889. i w _~ ---_ -~-
:2.60..._ 260 r-x~./os9z ~ ~ -o.~-' -~ 260 _
_ IPi~TSai-~_ ~ _ [~~ a EXISTING GROUND
_ _ p~ pav ~EXi N~ SAG
_- ~ACwsrFre~ > >;~c-uae-~ ,h ~,NC~as ,f~to sr~rru>?E a l9 n! tLEV.263.1'
Fxca~anoN ~ A ExCavaraiN
250...._. 250... E~~ esacc-j ~ ~ ~ `-~~v= <s7.ar
;Hw [sr..~-' ,'`' DO NOT DISTURB 250 ..._
=sa.t ~'~ EXISTINGSTREAM BANKS
Nws [[w.=-% rElIPEAAAr r4oSLwn°~

See Sl~ei 1-A For Index of S1~ets
i
l ~Pifa~Pifa1G' ®1c T,,7 ~o 1[-'IIa 1Ld If'~ ,A 1[D ®lf 1f Ta,7 A
ll
Jl
ll
C1~ll~ llellAVfil
ll
Il'
A"~ ll
~
1
ll
ll
`
L n... srsn raaecr Rnmlwa Na ~
ona
Symbols
See Sheet 1-8 For Convent ~ •ou. B-4109 g
~ ~~[
~
~~~((~~~~~))
~~II'((',(\\~(11~II(
IIA`~yI
IT
~I
Tn~I
~I'(1~1f
I~
~
llJ~1l~
~~~~~
®
® 1AOLtl6 O
i1rtI0N
9tl N
.
I]4 1 IlGJ1L
ll JIllLL IY
6, 0.
.A
IX
~
o 33464.1.1 8RZ-1303 3 P.E.
i
^?1 / 1101 33164.2.1 8RZ-1303 3 RAN UiIL
~ ~:~ ;~ ~ DURHAM
COU11tT~'
o - ~
~N
\I a .
,i
, _
1~, I ,°~'°~ ,,
, . ~'~ ~° LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.120 OVER MUD CREEK
I ,
~
„ • ~_° =
1N \ ~
~
t ~
v
~
ON SR 1303 IN DURHAM
~~
- nm
Z m .
7 ~ ~ nee
DE7IDUR
_ _
~ I~ 1i ~ e R EN
R
D m1

•
~- P
~~
' ~~ ~'
~ =" GRADING
TYPE OF WORK PALING
DRAINAGE
AND STRUCTURE
P
,
•
, ,
,
,

" .,;,
1~ vrcrxrTY MAP
(NOT TO SCAIEJ
p~~ ~~
hl,
~
`u
4
1
;~
-L- POT STA14+gOp0 r
I
BEGIN TIP PROJECT 8-4109 ~
d ! ~ -L- POT STA 16+66.00
I ~
~'
RI
G
~~, ~ I
~
~~ END B
D
E
I
~_,~ ` ~ I ~ ~
I
~ ~ ~6
~ ~----~ ~~ ° ~~ PICXErT RD. SR 1303
PICKETT R0. $R 1303 r-_-- _!_ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4
~
----Li-----------~--
W
'
------------------- ---
-------------- ~ , 1 TO WRHAY --- ~ /
~ ~ I ---
TO ORANGE CWNtt
- POT ST
t3+75D0 ~~
~
~~ ~~
-
A
~
~
L
B GIN N U TI N -L- POT STA18+50A0
~)I ~~ END TI PROJECT 8-4109 I~
I
, II END CONSTRUCTION ~`
-L- P07 STA15+76
~
/
.
BEGIN BRIGGE
$yl
\
l II
I
\ \.
~ ~ ~-MULKEY PROJEC
T
HI
S
T IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL
[NGINEERa 6 CCN9U LTANTS
PO 9
3312' I
I
('
]
BOUNDARIES.

V 9x
!
RAU[IOw. N.G. 37639
",919s,-, 9,3
(9191 951-1 91 8 (PAX/
WWW.MULKEYINC.CGM

CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED
TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III.
NCDOT CONTACT : DOUG TAYLOR, PE
PROJECT ENGINEER -ROADWAY DESIGN
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA Prepared .n t~ 0/flce of: HYDRAULICS ENGINEER DII7SION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ADT 2008 = 6,100 MULKEY ENGINEERS f7 CONSULTANTS
50 25 0 50 100 ADT 2030 12
400 OF TRANSPORTATIO
T
= , .
FOR THE NOR TN CAROLINA DEP
N
PRELIMINARY PLANS R9e1
°F "C
DHV 13 °k PROJECT LENGTH `s
,
~
= 24°S S]A ~D Sfg~rf•7(„9rjQfjf 00 NOT 1156 POR CONSIRUCf10N q~
0

PLANS

D =

60 %

LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-4109 = 0.061 MI

P~ '
.
50 25 0 50 100 T 9 % RIGIiT OF WAY DATE HAYES PE
TIM S srcNArrmE: o
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT 6-4109 = 0.017 MI : .
r arc,
~n ROADWAY DESIGN ~
~
V = 40 MPH TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT B
4109 = 0
078 MI MAY 18.2007 pRG~sc
, ENGINEER P~ q
+o
+°
O PROFILE )HORIZONTAL) FUNCTION. = URBAN -
. R °
rRRM
10 5 0 10 20 CLASS LOCAL LETTING DATE: JOHNNY R. BANKS
. PROJECrnuxACEK PRELIMINARY PLANS
V ` MAY 20,2008 UO NOT US6 FOR CONSTRUCTION
P
O (TTST 1% + DUALS 2%) ,uer MAWLIAN,PE
R
FILE (VERTICAL) SIGNATURE: STATE IDGHWAY DESIGN ENGINEER

~ h
ti

~

~
7YPE III 7YPE N ~ 4

N Q iy N ry
TYPE A TYPE ^
N
~
~
SKETCH $RGYING PROPOSED 6RICGE WIDTH
IN RELATwN TO PROPOSED PAVEYEM W70iH
1
' -L-
~ PROTECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
I ~
~' ~
PlSi
10+75
32 MULKEY
•••'••••••__^•••••^•
-410
4
a:- -, o
. ,
'

x
I M)
Q
~ D = a 3l 15.1'

1 ,w•;,!
','.w~„
"~ ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER HYORwUCS
ENGINEER
P :-,.. BY~iG POT 7+21.83 =
I
' ~ ~ ~
j
0p T =
7$.32' ~ '~'

X~. ~ ~

I KENNETH T, SINS
D8 951 PG 239 : BETSY C. VATAVUR ~ Q SE= NC ss, /
~ ~; /
- O - O ~~
~~ BY 28 PG wl ~a DB 1726 PG 328 Z PR~LIMIN RY PLANS
MARKHAN FARMS LLC ~~ MARKHAM FARMS LLC -L- POT 15+7600 -L- PDT 16+66.QU Z Do Nm use coNS rlurnoN
' >< Da 1~3 Pc 196 ~ ~- "•, END BRIDGE ~ ~ ~ /
-~ MARKHAN FOARNS LLC I _ JAMES GO. P~,~U~HGH (.. AY 60 PG 3}7 BY+16 ~ PG 337 I BEGIN~BRIDGE L- PrNC 16+77.59 ~ ~ ..:,~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I o I ,'.
OB 4188 PG 196 '~~
p BY 160 PG 37T, C_-AB'`g899 PG 21 -L- POT I4+4U.00 ~ ~ `~ -L- POT 16+91.00' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N~ 2
~ :- ~ - M 16o PG 33, I ` -L- POT 15+5r.00 ,~ : END APPROACx ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
p P BEGIN TIP PROJEC 8-4109 ~ ,I m _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~I BETSY C. VATAVUK
BL l02 Por 5«0000 ---, ~--~' BEGIN APPROACH SLAB / - s
: -L POT 10.00.00 1400 R ,~: `'' ~ -L- PUT I3+75.00 1 "- ~ ~~ 4JA0 lL )8 / ~"° DB 1726 PG 328
- BEGIN CONSTRUCT I N I a + rL 1_ _ F F ~ ;;~ ,w ExG s~xnfl. aY (~ ~ ~ 'one ~ _ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ BY 11 Pc 16
65dYNIFOlVY 4J (L718 ~ d'" - (~ ~ { ~ ~ ~ ~ a +SOAO - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 BL-2 POT 17~69.IT =
t PT 11+5pb4 ra°ER - u.o EXrST,R/W ~~ l~ ~ +~~ !L 7 "
., -T- °*4 ~ GRAD-350 PR E rMER aY'u.RYflr. + .00 - - I NCDOT GPS NON. 84109-2
-,
-_~ ..,._ ....--. -._ GPAU-350 -..-...._.. ..,._, - -~~.
IC -
...._.......1-_ ,_~ _ ...__. - _ -___
_I L- ~-- ~ -_ ~ .~ ~ ~ Q - ~....._.. ~ _ 1 - __ --_--___-_
_L ~ -- - ~ ' - N 85 Sr' 57,9' E ~ ' GRAUaso ~..~' .."a 2 I ~w .."a _- " ~- S~Y~S' ~6I E i
_...
r _
,,- - -
1 - ,
ry
;. ~ RETAN ~~.- P X -X- ) - __ _ _ ss - I -5s -
• ,
1 P..w rr iF E _. ~ ..._ R ~ E~ys~--~- • F.
6
E1R0 PRDP Ril4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' m ~ 11~ ~ ~ -L- POT 22+4635
eLlolPmc a+74.43 - +eom - rt~ruri'P,, _,._ ~ r 1 °~ _, ~ - ~ -L- POT 18+50.00
I = PC IU .00 BY IoIP
~ ~1 ~ END 71P PROJECT 8-4 9 1 "
- L Pot 1i+74.43, 12.79 RT ~~ ~ xr /W / :,I II NP w + - - I Y-.;,;;
,.: ~ ~°°" ~ 4Jmr la 1 7 END CONSTRUCTION
BL-100 PINC 10+80.61- EXIST R/W
I I JOSEPH P, EVANS, JR.
u;~,; -L- POT IS+80.62, 12.61 RT, u
i O ~ ( L_ ~ ~' C1A65 'B' !i DB 2017 PG 26
1~;; KATHY L. MEEKHOF ( `m C1A951NP RAP AT EMBANKMENT FF'2~~YS ( BM 103 PG 132
OB 2648 PC 069 I SEE DEFNI'A' I
I I/L~~~~..1111 BY 118 PG 155 "rrr YL'N ~-
1 1.
.. ~. F. r ~ •P : y
TBM 51 I I
RUSSELL E. HAMLET - --- -L- POT 16+24.17, LEONARD J. STAUNTON & `'~] JOSEPH P. EVANS. JR. L--„ _
08 3591 PG 036 152.50'RT. SALLY A. STAUNTON _ - DB 2047 PG 26 \
BN 131 PG 170 ELEV. 260.20' pB 796 PG 261 - BM 107 PG 132 ~ ~ j
~.` ~ Oq " I c ~ I_.
1 ~... , r -
~..
'^;, i KATHY L. MEEKHOf - ~ '`" 1 ~~'
-- I_ '~ F,, ~ DB 2648 PG 069 -
` j - ! BM 21 PG w3 1 ~ ' ~
iJ i\! i ,' ~ 1
..l
_ r.

BM 'SI,E1fV.= 2602a
-L- STA16+2417,1525aRT.

.. RR SPIKE 1N 9" SWEET GUM
BLEND
TO PI
EXISTING EL '15+35.00
44'
- 265
BLEND
vG .
= 4c' ro
K =
r1 ~ D.S. 65
= 40 mph EkISTING -

` ~ _.. ~
\ +
\ \\ Q
OP
280 j
~ O
p `iW
W~ O
O
OO
~ N~
A W
p 2
0
~...... :. _..
`'I d ~ ~ ~ ~
~. ~ ~ ` o
3 ~
~ ~ ' ~ a
~ _ ~ °i ~
? ~

270 ~ 1
~
2
~o
~ R? ~
.
\, I m: 1~ ~ z PROPOSED ~ z= o ~ _.. 270.--
r GRAD 1 w~ ~ z ~
r' .0 89'. 1 W ~_ ~_ ~
! ~i.7059%_ ~ -10.~ ~
26.Q
•,~,. ; h EXISTING GROUND 26O .
Jxc;,~ariou~ R~ac~~~R~~ ~~cvaur~Fhc~ sTao'ccuFe ~~~IlYrti1FIF 25Jii
250_... f~v 2sa,a~ ~ ~ eltv~= zs7pa
L, _ 250.__..
CO NOT CISTURB
EXISTING STREAM BANKS
240... _ _ ..2..40--_
230.. -~-
230 .
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+DO

,.
P
8
D
o~
_%5Q _ __ _ . _ .._ - - - _ _ __ _ . _ _ - -
o~Q
a
om
~~~
~:" ~,
m~ - -
2.5
0
____ -- - -_ --__ _ ___~'S~.
25 ~ ~ ~~
~5

'~

DURHAM COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 1 20 ON SR 1 303 (PICKETT ROAD)
OVER MUD CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. 6RZ-1 303(3)
STATE PROJECT NO. 6.2353401
WBS NO. 33464.1 .1
T.I.P. No. 6-4109 ,~
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
~~~~
toe
ocr ~ ~'
,~NrSgNc~`c~~R(~u~/ ~J
MI'I'4TERR `~iVh.
~I693
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
11 0 ~ ~S I~Y~--
Date ~ Gregory J. orpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
Date , n, _ John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
`~`° Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

f
DURHAM COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 1 20 ON SR 1 303 (PICKETT ROAD)
OVER MUD CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1 303(3)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2353401
WBS ND. 33464.1 .1
T.I.P. NO. 8-4109
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
OCTOBER 20[]S
DOCUMENT PREPARED BY:
MULKEY ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA
/~ -~ ,~~
D to . A. Bissett, Jr., P.E.
Vice President
!o z~ a 5 _.
Date Pamela R. Williams
Project Manager
,,,~p1~l111q~''a
,•~~~N CWRO~ ''•,
4 ~• -
s s ~ SERE. f ~
1484
• ~ •
e~'~0ei'®a~r~°°O4,
FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Date Theresa Ellerby
Project Manager
Consultant Engineeruig Unit

PROJECT COMMITMENT5
DURHAM COUNTY
BRIDGE N^. 1 20 ON SR 1 303 (PICKETT ROAD)
OVER MUD CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PRDJECT NO. BRZ-1 303(3)
STATE PR^JECT NO. 8.2353401
WBS No. 33464.1 .1
T.I.P. No. 8-4109
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, Erosion
and Sediment Control Guidelines for Contract Construction, Best Management Practices for
Construction and Maintenance Activities, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401
Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
ROADWAY / STRUCTURES
Standard 54 inch bicycle safe bridge railing will be provided.
Division
Construction will be scheduled to minimize school bus rerouting.
October 2005
Categorical Exclusion
Green Sheet

r t
~ t
DURHAM COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 1 20 ON SR 1 303 (PICKETT ROAD)
^VER MUD CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1 303(3)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2353401
WBS NO. 33464.1.
T.I.P. NO. 8-41 ^9
INTRODUCTION : The replacement of Bridge No. 120 is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improt~enrent Program (T.LP.) and in the Federal-
Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental
impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
In 2002 the sufficiency rating was 37.7 out of a possible 100 and considered structurally deficient.
The timber piles in the bridge are considered soft with longitudinal cracks. Prompt action was
required to repair Pile No. 1 in Bent No. 1. NCDOT's Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate
that Bridge No. 120 after the repairs has a sufficiency rating of 52.9 as of August 2004 and is
considered functionally obsolete. The remainder of the timber piles has a conditional grade of 5 out
of 10 and is considered soft with longitudinal cracks. A change in the superstructure or
substructure condition rating from 5 to 4 will result in a minimum sufficiency rating drop of 15
points. NCDOT's Bridge Maintenance Unit recommends replacing the bridge because the timber
piles continue to deteriorate and the replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer,
more efficient traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 120 is located on SR 1303 (Pickett Road). in Durham County, approximately one mile
east of the Orange County line and one mile west of US 15-501. SR 1303 is classified as Urban Local
by the statewide functional classification system. Land use in the project area is primarily residential.
The 2005 estimated average daily traffic (ADT) volume is 5,300 vehicles per day (vpd). The
projected 2030 ADT is 12,400 vpd. The percentages of truck traffic are two percent dual tired
vehicles and one percent truck-tractor semi trailer ('TTST). The posted speed limit on SR 1303 in the
vicinity of the project is 35 miles per hour (mph).
Bridge No. 120 was built in 1950 (Figure 2). It is a tangent two-lane facility with a clear roadway
width of 23.3 feet. The bridge has two spans and totals 50 feet in length. The superstructure is
composed of a timber deck on steel girders with metal railing. The substructure consists of steel
caps on timber piles. Crown to streambed height is 14 feet. Bridge No. 120 is posted at 29 tons for
single vehicle and 36 tons for TTST.
SR 1303 in the vicinity of Bridge No. 120 is a 20-foot tangent two-lane paved roadway with five foot
grass shoulders on both sides.
A City of Durham eight inch sewer line is located approximately six feet south of the existing
structure. The sewer line is visible at the stream crossing. Overhead utility lines are located along the
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 1

south side of SR 1303. Underground telephone lines are located on the north side of SR 1303 and
are aerial at the stream crossing. Sanitary sewer manholes are visible east of the project site along the
south side of SR 1303. The sewer line follows an easement that crosses SR 1303 and extends in a
southerly direction. U tility impact is anticipated to be low.
There are approximately 22 public school bus crossings per day on Bridge No. 120. There are three
private schools located within one mile of Bridge No. 120.
One accident was reported in the project area during the period from September 2001 to August
2004. The accident occurred on the bridge with only property damage.
This section of SR 1303 is part of a designated Bicycling Route in accordance with the Darrhana-
Chapel Hill-Cnrrboro Metropolitan Planning Area 2030 Lang Range Tran.lportc~tion Plan. A map of the
bicycle route is included in the Appendix.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on preliminary hydraulic analysis, the proposed replacement structure is a bridge
approximately 100 feet in length. The length may increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate
peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies during the design phase of the project. The
bridge will provide a minimum clear roadway width of 32 feet including two 12-foot travel lanes
with minimum four-foot lateral clearance both sides (Figure 3). Standard bicycle safe bridge railing,
54 inches in height, is recommended. A minimum 0.3 percent grade is recommended to facilitate
deck drainage.
The approach roadway will provide two 12-foot lanes with eight foot shoulders, including four-foot
paved shoulders (Figure 3). The proposed design speed is 40 mph. No design exceptions are
anticipated.
B. BUILD ALTERNATIVES
Two build alternatives were studied for this project. They are described below.
Alternative A (preferred) replaces the bridge at the existing location (Figure 4A). During
construction, traffic will be maintained by an off-site detour that follows SR 1302 (Randolph Road),
SR 1307 (Erwin Road), SR 1308 (Cornwallis Road), and SR 1358 (Western Bypass Road). The
detour length is approximately 3.8 miles in length. Resurfacing of SR 1302 and SR 1308 is
anticipated.
Alternative B replaces the bridge at the existing location (Figure 4B). During construction, traffic
would be maintained by an on-site detour north of the existing bridge. The detour structure would
provide two 12-foot travel lanes with 2-foot lateral clearance. The detour approach roadway would
provide two 12-foot travel lanes with 8-foot grass shoulders, and a design speed of 30 mph.
Alternative B is not recommended because of the impacts to mature woods and wetlands north of
the bridge.
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 2

i r
C. ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY
A new alignment alternative was not considered because it would introduce reverse curves to an
existing tangent section of the roadway and would increase wetland impacts and construction cost.
An on-site temporary detour structure on the south side of the bridge was not considered because of
the impacts it would do to the pond.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not desirable
because of the traffic service provided by SR 1303 and Bridge No. 120.
lnvestigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that "rehabilitation"
of this bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Alternative A is the preferred alternative. This alternative was selected because it minimizes impacts
to area residents' property and wetlands, has a shorter construction period, and is more economical
than Alternative B. Construction will be scheduled to minimize school bus rerouting.
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternative A as the preferred alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
Table 1 shows estimated costs based on current prices.
Table 1. Estimated Costs
Alternative A
(preferred) Alternative B
Structure Removal (Existing) $ 18,000 ~ 9,600
Proposed Structure 357,000 302,400
Roadway Approaches 139,400 100,900
Temporary Detour Bridge 0 106,400
Detour Approaches/Resurfacing 70,000 172,700
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 120,600 186,000
Engineering Contingencies 115,000 122,000
ROW/Contt. Easements/Utilities 85,000 145,000
Total X905,000 X1,145,000
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 3

The estimated cost of the project as shown in the 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program is
X1,265,000, including X150,000 in prior years, X115,000 for right-of--way, and X1,000,000 for
construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. METHODOLOGY
Field investigations within the project study corridor were conducted by qualified biologists on
January 14, 2004. These field surveys were undertaken to determine natural resource conditions and
to document natural communities, wildlife, Waters of the United States, and the presence of
protected species or their habitats.
Published information regarding the project area and region was derived from a number of
resources including:
• USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map: Southwest Durham, North Carolina, 1973
(photorevised 1987)
• US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps
• USGS and NCDOT aerial photomosaics of the project area (1"=100')
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) soil survey maps of Durham County
• V~'ater resources information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
• USFWS list of protected species for Durham and Orange Counties
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats
Dominant plant species were identified in each stratum for all natural communities encountered.
Plant community descriptions are based on those classified in Schafale and Weakley (1990), where
applicable. Names and descriptions of plant species generally follow Radford et al. (1968), unless
more current information is available. Animal names and descriptions follow Bogan (2002), Conant
and Collins (1998), Lee et al. (1980 et seq.), Martof et al. (1980), Stokes (1996), and Webster et al.
(1985). Scientific names and common names (when applicable) are provided for each plant and
animal species listed. Subsequent references to the same organism include the common name only.
During field surveys, wildlife identification involved a variety of observation techniques: active
searching and capture, visual observations (both with and without the use of binoculars), and
observing the characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, and burrows). Any organisms that
may have been captured during these searches were identified and released without injury.
Quantitative water sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed using the three-parameter approach as
prescribed in the 1987 Corps of Engineers IYletlands Delineation Manual. Supplementary technical
literature describing the parameters of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrological
indicators was also utilized. Wetland functions were evaluated according to the NCDWQ's rating
system, fourth version. Surface waters in the project area were evaluated and classified based on a
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 4

1
i .
preponderance of perennial stream characteristics as defined in NCDWQ's S'trennr Clcz.r.rificcztion
~llethod, second version and evaluated using the most recent version of the USACE Stren~n Quality
A.rse.r.rnzent Ik~ork.rheet.
B. PHYSI~C7RAPHY AND SOILS
The project site is located in southwestern Durham County and encompasses an area outside the
Durham city limits near the Durham and Orange County boundaries. Durham County is situated in
the north-central part of the state in the Piedmont ph~~siographic province. The geography of
Durham County consists predominantly of rolling hills, with steep areas surrounding major streams.
Narrow, nearly level floodplains exist along most of the streams. The count<~ is characterized b~~
rolling terrain.
Elevations in the project area range from approximately 250 feet above mean sea level (msl) along
Mud Creek to approximately 350 feet above msl at the northeastern perimeter of the project area, as
depicted on the Southwest Durham, North Carolina, USGS topographic quadrangle map. The
geology underlying the area is part of the Chatham Group in the Triassic Basin and consists of tan,
medium- to very coarse-grained, micaceous arkosic sandstone. The soil systems in this area
developed from the shales, sandstones, mudstones, siltstones, and conglomerates that make up the
Triassic Basin soil region.
The Chewacla-Wehadkee-Congaree soil association occurs along the stream basin at the project area.
Soils mapped at the site are aChewacla-Wehadkee complex. Surrounding this stream basin is the
White Store-Creedmoor association. The soil mapping unit and soil associations are described
below.
The Chewacla-Wehadkee-Congaree association is comprised of soils formed in alluvial materials.
They are found on nearly level floodplains along streams and rivers. Chewacla soils make up 45
percent of the map unit, and are somewhat poorly drained. The surface layer is a silt loam underlain
by mottled silt loam and silty clay loams. Wehadkee soils comprise 30 percent of the soil unit and
are found farthest from the stream channels on the lowest parts of the landscape. These soils are
poorly drained and have a silt loam surface layer underlain by a silty clay loam and mottled clay
loam. The remaining portion of this association, or about 10 percent, is made up of Cartecay,
Roanoke, and Altavista soils.
The White Store-Creedmoor association is comprised of soils formed from shale and sandstone
Triassic material. They are found on fairly broad, gently sloping ridges and rolling to strongly
sloping side slopes. White Store soils make up about 65 percent of the map unit. They are
moderately well drained and have a sandy loam surface layer underlain by firm clay loam and very
firm clay. Creedmoor soils make up about 10 percent of the map unit and are moderately well
drained. The surface layer is sandy loam, with a sandy clay loam subsoil and a firm, very firm, or
silty clay bottom layer. The remaining 25 percent of this association is made up of Mayodan,
Pinkston, and Iredell soils.
The Chewacla and Wehadkee (Ch) soil unit in Durham County is about 60 percent Chewacla
soil and 35 percent Wehadkee soil. They are somewhat poorly drained soils found on
floodplains as long, level areas parallel to major streams and rivers. The Chewacla (Cm)
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 5

portion is better drained and is found at slightly higher elevations than the Wehadkee
portion. Both soils have a silt loam surface laver.
Creedmoor soils (CrC) at the site are well drained sandy loams found on narrow upland side
slopes. Subsoils consist of sandy cla~~ loams in the upper areas and ver~~ firm clays in the
lower layers. Permeabilitt~ is very slow and available water capacit`~ is medium. Shrink-swell
potential is moderate and depth to the seasonal water table is about 1.5 feet.
The ~X~hite Store series (WsC, WsE) are well drained sandy loam upland soils found on
divides and steep side slopes. They have very firm clays throughout the subsoil which makes
infiltration moderate and runoff rapid. Permeability is very slow and available water capacity
is medium. The shrink-swell potential is high and depth to the seasonal water table is about
1.5 feet. In some areas the water table may be perched above the clay subsoil layers.
Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of
hydrophytic vegetation. Soils referred to as "Hydric A" are completely hydric throughout the
mapped soil unit. "Hydric B" soils are non-hydric soils that contain inclusions of hydric soils, usually
in depressional areas or along the border with other soil units. Based on the Durham County soil
survey, one Hydric A soil map unit occurs in the project area: Chewacla and Wehadkee soils.
C. WATER RESOURCES
1. Waters Impacted
Streams, creeks, and tributaries within the project vicinity are completely within the Cape Fear River
Basin. Mud Creek is the only perennial stream located within the study area. The drainage area of
Mud Creek at the proposed crossings is 5.37 square miles. It flows in a southerly direction to its
confluence with New Hope Creek, approximately 1.2 miles downstream of the bridge. Mud Creek is
located within Cape Fear River subbasin 03-06-05. The DWQ stream index number for Mud Creek
is 16-41-1-10 and the USGS 8-digit hydrologic unit is 03030002.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
The NCDWQ classifies surface waters of the state based on their intended best uses. Mud Creek
and its tributaries and one man-made pond are the only surface waters in the project study area.
Mud Creek has been designated as Class "C-NSW" waters. The class "C" designation denotes
freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and
survival, and others uses. Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) is a supplemental surface water
classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to their being subject
to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. No Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), or drinking water supply (WS-I or WS-II) waters occur within
a one-mile radius of the project study area.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list of waters not meeting
water quality standards or which have impaired uses. North Carolina's 303(d) report is a
comprehensive public accounting of all impaired water bodies in the state. New Hope Creek, from
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 6

1 ,
the Sandy Creek confluence to the confluence with the Morgan Creek and New Hope River Arms
of Jordan Lake, is the only surface water near the project area currently listed in the 303(d) report.
The northernmost segment of New Hope Creek, which is designated as impaired waters, is located
within 1.2 miles downstream from the project site. The NCDWQ has indicated this impaired rating
is due to fecal coliform, chlorophyll n, habitat degradation, and a historical listing for sediment based
on biological impairment.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water quality
monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water quality
data. There are two AMS monitoring stations in subbasin O5; one of these stations is located on
New Hope Creek at SR 1107 (Stagecoach Road) approximately 6.5 miles south of the project site.
Mud Creek is currently not rated for use support due to insufficient data. Waters that are not rated
generally carry the same use support rating as the receiving waters. The nearest stream with a use
support rating is New Hope Creek, which has a "fully supporting" (FS) rating. An "FS" rating is
given to waterbodies that fully support their designated uses and generally have good or excellent
water quality.
The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) is used to assess the biological integrity of
streams by examining the structure and health of the fish community. An NCIBI monitoring site is
located approximately 2.3 miles south of the project study area on New Hope Creek at SR 2220
(Old Chapel Hill Road). This site was last sampled in 1998 and received a poor NCIBI rating. The
poor classification was due to the low number of fish collected in the sample, low number of darter
species, the absence of any sucker or intolerant species, and the high percentage of tolerant fish
species in the sample.
Bioclassification criteria have been developed that are based on the number of benthic
macroinvertebrates (primarily Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera) present in streams and
rivers because they are very sensitive to the effects of water pollution. Ratings range from Excellent
to Poor. Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling site B-4 is located on New Hope Creek at Stagecoach
Road (SR 1107) downstream from the project site. This site was last sampled in 1998 and was given
a bioclassification rating of "Fair" based on the very low EPT abundance values.
Point source dischargers throughout North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Dischargers are required by law to register for a
permit. According to the December 8, 2003 list of active NPDES permits issued by NCDWQ, there
are 11 permitted dischargers within the 03-06-05 subbasin. Two facilities have discharges greater
than one million gallons per day. These facilities are the Durham County Triangle Waste Water
Treatment Plant, which discharges to Northeast Creek, and the South Durham Water Reclamation
Facility, which discharges to New Hope Creek. There are no permitted dischargers on Mud Creek.
A classification system for stream channels based on fluvial geomorphologic principles and
landscape position was used for stream analysis. Based on this classification method and field
observations during the site visit, the stream appears to be a Type G5. Mud Creek's channel is about
18 to 22 feet wide at the top of the banks near the bridge, with slow flowing turbid water over a
substrate of sand and small gravel. Turbidity was related to suspended sediment in the water during
the field visit. Water depths averaged four to six inches at riffles and two to three feet deep in runs
and pools. Bank heights averaged five to seven feet above the water surface. Evidence of active
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 7

t
bank erosion was observed during the field survey and the channel appears to have been
straightened at some time during the past. Stream evaluation forms are included in the Appendix.
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
a. GeneralImpacts
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material during construction contributes
to erosion and possible sedimentation of nearby streams. Quick revegetation of these areas helps to
reduce the impacts by supporting the underlying soils. Erosion may carry soils, toxic compounds,
trash, and other materials into the aquatic communities at the construction site. As a result, sand
bars may be formed both at the site and downstream. Increased light penetration from the removal
of streamside vegetation may increase water temperatures. Warmer water contains less oxygen, thus
reducing aquatic life that may depend on high oxygen concentrations and/or lower temperature
regions.
The proposed project calls for replacing the bridge at the existing location. This will allow for
continuation of present stream flow within the existing channel, thereby protecting stream integrity.
No adverse long-term impacts are expected to result from the preferred alternative.
b. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
Bridge No. 120 is composed entirely of timber and steel. It will be removed without dropping any
components into the water.
D. BIOTIC RESOURCES
1. Plant Communities
Two plant communities occur in the study area: bottomland hardwood forest and man-dominated
community. Two wetlands were delineated within the project boundaries. Refer to Section III.D.4.b
in this report for additional discussion of wetlands.
a. Bottomland Hardwood Forest
The bottomland hardwood forest is the dominant community in the project area and is generally
located on undeveloped land along the floodplain terrace. This community appears to be a variation
of the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest identified by Schafale and Weakley. These
communities occur on floodplain ridges and terraces other than active levees adjacent to stream and
river channels. In the project area, this community covers approximately 3.6 acres within the project
study corridor. Dominant canopy and subcanopy species include tulip poplar (Liriodenclron tulipifera),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Ater rubrzrm), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), willow
oak (Quercus phellos), and loblolly pine (Pinars taeda). Shrubs and woody vines include flowering
dogwood (Corpus Florida), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), privet (Ligustrum sinense),
strawberry bush (Euonymus americana), blackberry (Kobus sp.), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), wild
grape (Vitis rotunclifolia.), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). The herbaceous vegetation
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 8

includes creeping grass (Microstegiuna vinzineum), chickweed (Stellaria media), and wild garlic (Allirrnr
z ~ineale) .
b. Man-dominated Community
The man-dominated community is comprised of the lawns, open areas, and maintained right-of--way
along Pickett Road. This community covers approximatel}' three acres within the study corridor.
Vegetation is dominated by various grass species (Poaceae family) and common weed species such
as mullein (Verbascunr spp.), plantain (Plantago spp.), and dandelion (Tara.~aarnr o~ciraale). A man-
made pond is also located on the southwest side of the bridge and adjacent to a private residence.
2. Wildlife
The project area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. The bottomland
hardwood forest and man-dominated communities offer a moderate diversity of foraging, nesting,
and cover habitat for many species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, especially those
adapted to developed areas. Species that may be associated with these types of communities are
described below. An asterisk (*) indicates the species that were directly observed or for which
evidence was noted during field reconnaissance.
Reptile species associated with the project area may include snakes such as the rough green snake
(Opheodrys aestivus), eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis triangrrlram trianguluna), and mole kingsnake (L.
calligaster rhombomaculata) which inhabit fields, woodlands, river bottoms, and stream edges of the
Piedmont and lower mountains in North Carolina. No reptiles were observed during the site visit.
Many bird species may inhabit or migrate through the project area. Inhabitants may include red-
bellied woodpecker* (Melanerpes carolinus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), downy woodpecker (P.
parbescens), Carolina chickadee (Faros carolinensis), tufted titmouse (P. bicolor), white-breasted nuthatch
(5'itta carolinensis), American robin (Turdus migratorius), northern cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis),
mockingbird (Mimes polyglottos), blue jay* (Cyanoritta cristata), house finch (Carpodacus mexzcanus),
Carolina wren (Thryothorars lzrdovicianus), dark-eyed junco (junco hyemalis), American goldfinch (Carduelis
tristis), and brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). Predatory species may include red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis), eastern screech owl (Otars asio), and barred owl (Stria varia).
A wide variety of mammals are expected to inhabit the project area and surrounding landscape.
Virginia opossum* (Dille phis virginiana), woodchuck (Marnaota monax), gray squirrel* (Sciurus
carolinensis), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontonys humrrlis), raccoon* (Procyon lotor), eastern spotted
skunk (Spilogale putorius), and white-tailed deer* (Odocoileiu virginianus) are species mostly likely to be
found. In addition, bats such as the little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugaas), Eastern red (Lasiurzrs
borealis), and big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) may also be present in the project study area.
3. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic habitat in the Mud Creek drainage area is expected to be minimal based on the observed
fluvial geomorphological conditions and the water quality at the time of the field visit. Both the
upstream and downstream reaches of Mud Creek appear to be incising due to active bank erosion
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 9

and sediment deposition. A visual survey of the stream found no evidence of macroinvertebrate
species, mollusks, or fish.
The amphibian population in the study area may include salamanders and frogs. Common species
include the eastern newt (Notophthalmar.r izrzde.rcen.r) and the spotted salamander (Anzl~y.rto~yrn nrnctrlnt~rnz).
Spring peepers (Hyln crucifer) and pickerel frogs (R~rnn pnlir.rtrz.r) may also be present. No amphibians
were obsen-ed during the field visit.
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a. Terrestrial Communities
The study area consists of approximately 3.6 acres of bottomland hardwood forest and 3.0 acres of
maintained/man-dominated land. Anticipated impacts to terrestrial biotic communities (Table 2)
are estimated based on the approximate construction limits for cut and fill slopes and roadway
approaches to the bridge.
Table 2. Anticipated Terrestrial Biotic Community Impacts (Acre)
Alternative A

Vegetative
(preferred) Alternative B Alternative B

Community
Permanent permanent Temporary

Impacts Impacts Impacts
Bottomland
Hardwood Forest 0.26 0.26 0.71
Man-Dominated/

Maintained 0.73 0.73 0.47
TotalImpacts 0.99 0.99 1.18
b. Wetland Communities
Construction is expected to have minimal impacts to wetlands in the study area. Alternative A
(preferred) and Alternative B will potentially create less than 0.01 acre of permanent wetland
impacts. Alternative B is estimated to have approximately 0.01 acre of temporary wetland impacts.
c. Aquatic Communities
Aquatic organisms are very sensitive to the discharges and inputs resulting from construction
activities. Impacts usually associated with in-stream construction include increased channelization
and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the substrate and impacts adjacent
streamside vegetation. Such disturbances within the substrate lead to increased siltation, which can
clog the gills and feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and amphibian species. Siltation
may also cover benthos with excessive amounts of sediments that inhibit their ability to obtain
oxygen.
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 10

Appropriate measures will be taken to avoid spillage of construction materials and control runoff.
Such measures will include an erosion and sedimentation control plan, provisions for storing and
handling waste materials, stormwater management measures, and appropriate road maintenance
measures. NCDOT's Best Management Practicer for Protection of S~rr~ace I~'aterr (BMP-PSW) and
Sedimentation Control guidelines will be enforced during the construction stages of the project.
E. SPECIAL TOPICS
1. "Waters of the United States:" Jurisdictional Issues
Surface waters and wetlands within the project area are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as "Waters of the United States." The USACE has the
responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of the provisions of the CWA. The
USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330.
Section 401 of the CWA grants authority to individual States for regulation of discharges into
Waters of the United States. Under North Carolina General Statutes, 113A "Pollution Control and
Environment" and codified in North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 15A, the NCDWQ has
the responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of the provisions of the CWA.
Jurisdictional surface waters include perennial and intermittent streams and certain impoundments.
Mud Creek is a perennial stream in the study area. Stream rating forms are included in the Appendix.
The man-made pond adjacent in the southwest quadrant of the bridge was constructed in an upland
area and is not subject to jurisdiction of the USACE.
Two wetlands were identified and delineated during the field survey. The delineated boundaries of
these wetlands were reviewed and confirmed during a field meeting with the USACE regulatory
agent on June 8, 2004. Copies of the wetland data sheets are included in the Appendix.
Wetland A is located on the northeast side of the bridge and covers approximately 0.26 acres. This
wetland is shown on the NWI map (Southwest Durham, NC) as a Palustrine Forested Broadleaf
Deciduous Seasonally Flooded (I'FO1 C) wetland.
Wetland B is located on the southeast side of the bridge at the toe of the roadway slope and is
approximately 0.06 acres in area. It is shown on the NWI map as a Palustrine Emergent Persistent
Temporarily Flooded (PEM1A) wetland. Its small size indicates it may have been impacted by past
land use practices and urban development.
Since the new bridge will be approximately 50 feet longer than the existing bridge, end bents will be
located approximately 25 feet from the edge of the stream. Only temporary impacts will occur to the
stream channel during removal of the existing end bents. Mechanized clearing is generally
considered a temporary impact. NCWRC indicated that no moratorium is required for work
occurring in the water. Estimated impacts to Waters of the United States are shown in Table 3.
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 11

Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the United States
Proposed Wetland Wetland Stream Stream Mechanized
Alternative Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Clearing
(permanent) (tem ora ) ermanent) (tem orary) (tem orary)
Alternative A
referred) <0.01 acre 0 0 0 0.01 acre
Alternative B <0.01 acre 0.01 acre 0 54 linear feet 0.04 acre
2. Permits
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act - In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit is required from the USACE for projects of this type for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." The USACE issues two types of permits
for these activities. A general permit may be issued on a nationwide or regional basis for a category
or categories of activities when: those activities are substantially similar in nature and cause only a
minimal individual or cumulative environmental impacts, or when the general permit would result in
avoiding unnecessary duplication or regulatory control exercised by another Federal, state or local
agency provided that the environmental consequences of the action are individually and
cumulatively minimal. If a general permit is not appropriate for a particular activity, then an
individual permit must be utilized. Individual permits are authorized on a case-by-case evaluation of
a specific project involving the proposed discharges.
It is anticipated that this project will fall under Nationwide Permit 23, which is a type of general
permit. Nationwide Permit 23 is relevant to approved Categorical Exclusions. This permit
authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity 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 environment. Activities
authorized under nationwide permits must satisfy all terms and conditions of the particular permit.
However, final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the USACE.
Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC) - A Section 401 General Water Quality
Certification is necessary for projects that require Section 404 permits. The state has General
Certifications which will match the permit type authorized by the USACE. The NCDWQ must issue
the 401 Certification before the USACE will issue the 404 Permit. Compensatory mitigation may be
required when more than 150 linear feet of stream and/or more than one acre of wetland impacts
occur. Written concurrence from the NCDWQ is not required.
Bridge Demolition and Removal -The bridge demolition activities associated with this
replacement will strictly follow NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance.
Bridge No. 120 is composed entirely of timber and steel. It will be removed without dropping any
components into the water.
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 12

:~ r
3. Mitigation
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the Council on Environmental Quality to include
avoidance, minimization, and compensation. These activities will be considered in sequential order.
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the
U.S. It is not feasible to completely avoid all impacts to Waters of the U.S. within the project area
since wetlands occur north and south of the bridge and the project will cross Mud Creek. Alternative
A is the preferred alternative because it avoids impacts to wetlands north of Bridge No. 120.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce adverse
impacts to Waters of the U.S. Alternative A minimizes impacts because it uses an off-site detour
during construction. Best Management Practices will also be used to minimize impacts.
Compensatory mitigation includes restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation of wetland
and stream functions and values that are lost when these systems are converted to other uses. The
USACE usually requires compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act when unavoidable impacts total more than 0.10 acre of wetlands or 150 linear feet
of perennial or intermittent streams. The NCDWQ may require compensatory mitigation for
activities authorized under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for unavoidable impacts to more
than 1.0 acre of wetlands or more than 150 linear feet of perennial or intermittent streams.
Compensatory wetland mitigation is not anticipated for either project alternative
F. RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Federal law (under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as
amended) requires that any federal action likely to adversely affect a species listed as federally
protected be subject to review by the USFWS or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Other
species may receive additional protection under separate laws such as the Lacey Act Amendments of
1981, the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1999, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, or the Eagle
Protection Act of 1940.
Species identified as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern (SC) by the NCNHP list of rare
plant and animal species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and
the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Federally Protected Species
As of February 2003 and reviewed June 2005, the USFWS identified two Endangered (E) species
and one Threatened (1~ species (proposed for de-listing) for Durham County. Since the project
study area is located in close proximity to Orange County, a review of protected species for this
county was also conducted. As of February 2003 and reviewed June 2005, the USFWS identified
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 13

four Endangered (E) species and one Threatened (T~ species for Orange County. Table 4 lists the
species identified for Durham and Orange Counties. Species descriptions follow.
Natural Heritage Program maps of element occurrences were reviewed on December 22, 2003 and
in March 2005 to determine if any protected species have been identified near the project area. This
map review confirmed that no species identified as Endangered or Threatened by the USFV%'S have
been identified within cone-mile radius of the project site.
Table 4. Federally Protected Species for Durham and Orange Counties
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoirles borealis Endangered
Dwarf wedge mussel fllasmidorata heteroa'on Endangered
Michaux's sumac Rhus nzichazrxzi Endangered
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalau Threatened
(Proposed for Delisting)
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered
This bird is a small, seven to eight inch tall woodpecker with a black and white barred back, and a
conspicuous large white cheek surrounded by a black cap, nape, and throat. Males have a very small
red mark at the upper edge of the white cheek and just behind the eye. The red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) is found in open pine forests in the southeastern United States. The RCW uses
open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine, for foraging and nesting
habitat. A forested stand optimally should contain at least 50 percent pine and lack a thick
understory. The RCW is unique among woodpeckers because it nests almost exclusively in living
pine trees. These birds excavate nests in pines greater than 60 years old that are contiguous with
open, pine dominated foraging habitat. The foraging range of the RCW may extend 500 acres and
must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
Living pines infected with red-heart disease (Formes pint) are often selected for cavity excavation
because the inner heartwood is usually weakened and therefore easier to excavate. Cavities are
located from 12 to 100 feet above ground level and below live branches. These trees can be
identified by "candles," a large encrustation of running sap that encrusts the tree trunk. The sap
encrustation serves as a deterrent for predatory species such as snakes and may be used by the RCW
as a visual indicator of nesting or foraging territories. Colonies consist of one to many of these
candle trees. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 10 to 12
days later.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 14

:~ ~
Suitable habitat for RCW does not exist within the project area. No pine dominated stands of
appropriate diameter or age are present in the project area. The pines that are present in the project
area are a minor component of the mixed hardwood stands in the study area. Natural Heritage
Program maps were reviewed on December 22, 2003 and in March 2005 to determine if any RCW
populations have been identified at or near the project area. This map review confirmed that no
known RCWs are located within atwo-mile radius of the project site. Based on this analysis, the
proposed project will have No Effect on the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Federal Status: Threatened (Proposed for Delisting)
State Status: Threatened
The bald eagle is a very large bird of prey that ranges in size from 32 inches to 43 inches tall and has
a wingspan of more than six feet. Adult body plumage is dark brown to chocolate-brown with a
white head and tail, while immature birds are brown and irregularly marked with white until their
fourth year. They are primarily associated with large bodies of water where food is plentiful. Eagle
nests are found in close proximity to large, open expanses of water (usually within one-half mile)
with a clear flight path to the water. Nests are made in the largest living tree within the area, with an
open view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause nest abandonment. Nests can be
as large as six feet across and are made of sticks and vegetation. These platform nests may be used
by the same breeding pair for many years. Breeding begins in December or January and the young
remain in the nest at least 10 weeks after hatching. Bald eagles eat mostly fish robbed from ospreys
or picked up dead along shorelines. They may also capture small mammals such as rabbits, some
birds, wounded ducks, and carrion. Bald eagles are ayear-round and transient species in North
Carolina.
As of July 6, 1999, the bald eagle is under consideration by the USFWS for a proposed de-listing of
the threatened status. However, this raptor will still be protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Populations will continue to be monitored for at
least another five years under provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for bald eagles does not exist in the study area. Natural
Heritage Program maps were reviewed on December 22, 2003 and in March 2005 to determine if
any bald eagles have been identified at or near the project area. This map review confirmed that no
bald eagles are located within atwo-mile radius of the project site. Based on this analysis, the
proposed project will have No Effect on the bald eagle.
Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmrdonta heterodon)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered
The dwarf wedge mussel is relatively small, rarely exceeding 1.5 inches in length. The shell's outer
surface is usually brown or yellowish brown in color, with faint green rays that are most noticeable
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 15

1
in young specimens. Unlike some mussel species, the male and female shells differ slightly, with the
female being wider to allow greater space for egg development. A distinguishing characteristic of this
mussel is its dentition pattern: the right valve possesses two lateral teeth, while the left valve has
only- one. This trait is opposite of all other North American species having lateral teeth. This mussel
inhabits creeks and rivers that have a slow to moderate current with a sand, gravel, or muddy bed.
These streams must be nearly silt free in order to support dwarf wedge mussels.
The dwarf wedge mussel is considered to be a long-term brooder, with gravid females reportedly
observed in fall months. Like other freshwater mussels, this species' eggs are fertilized in the female
by sperm that are taken in through their siphons as they respire. The eggs develop within the
female's gills into larvae (glochidia). The females later release these glochidia, which then attach to
the gills or fins of specific host fish species. Based on anecdotal e~-idence, such as dates when gravid
females are present or absent, it appears that release of glochidia occurs primarily in April in North
Carolina. While the USFW'S notes that the host fish species is unknown, evidence indicates that an
anadromous fish which migrates from ocean waters to fresh waters for spawning may be the likely
host species. However, recent research has confirmed at least three potential fish host species for
the dwarf-wedge mussel in North Carolina to be the tessellated darter, Johnny darter, and mottled
sculpin. These fish species are found in Atlantic coast drainages of North Carolina.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Mud Creek is completely- located within the Cape Fear River basin. Mussel surveys were conducted
by qualified biologists on November 24, 2004, from a point approximately 1,300 feet downstream to
a point approximately 300 feet upstream. No dwarf wedge mussels were observed. According to the
Natural Heritage Program the dwarf wedge mussel does not occur in this river basin. Based on this
information, the proposed project will have No Effect on the dwarf wedge mussel.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxir)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered -Special Concern
Michaux's sumac is a rhizomatous, densely hairy shrub, with erect stems from one to three feet in
height. The compound leaves contain evenly serrated, oblong to lanceolate, acuminate leaflets. Most
plants are unisexual; however, more recent observations have revealed plants with both male and
female flowers on one plant. The flowers are small, borne in a terminal, erect, dense cluster, and
colored greenish yellow to white. Flowering usually occurs from June to July; while the fruit, a red
drupe, is produced through the months of August to October. Only 36 extant populations are
known, with 31 in North Carolina, three in Virginia, and two populations in Georgia.
Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. It spreads by
producing cloning shoots from the roots of mature plants. Apparently, this plant survives best in
areas where some form of periodic disturbance provides open areas. At least twelve of the plant's
populations in North Carolina are on highway rights-of way, roadsides, or on the edges of artificially
maintained clearings.
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 16

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac does not exist at the project site. The study area is
characterized by a closed canopy forest on thin acidic soils. Natural Heritage Program maps were
reviewed on December 22, 2003 and in March 2005 to determine if anv Michaux's sumac
populations have been identified at or near the project area. This map review confirmed that no
populations are located within atwo-mile radius of the project site. Based on this analysis, the
proposed project will have No Effect on Michaux's sumac.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered -Special Concern
Smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows up to five feet tall from a vertical
root stock. The stems are smooth, with few leaves. The largest leaves are the basal leaves, which
reach eight inches in length and three inches in width, have long stems, and are elliptical to broadly
lanceolate, tapering to the base, and smooth to slightly rough. Mid-stem leaves have shorter stems or
no stems and are smaller in size than the basal leaves. The rays of the flowers (petal-like structures)
are light pink to purplish, usually drooping, and two to 3.2 inches long. Flower heads are usually
solitary, with flowering occurring from May through July. The species is now known to survive only
in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Six populations surnive in North Carolina.
The North Carolina populations are in Durham and Granville Counties.
The habitat of smooth coneflower is open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone
bluffs, and power line rights-of--way, usually on magnesium- and calcium-rich soils associated with
limestone (in Virginia), gabbro (in North Carolina and Virginia), diabase (in North Carolina and
South Carolina), and marble (in South Carolina and Georgia). Optimal sites are characterized by
abundant sunlight and little competition in the herbaceous layer. Natural fires, as well as large
herbivores, are part of the history of the vegetation in this species' range.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower does not exist at the project site. The study area is
characterized by a closed canopy forest on thin acidic soils. Natural Heritage Program maps were
reviewed on December 22, 2003 and in March 2005 to determine if any smooth coneflower
populations have been identified at or near the project area. This map review confirmed that no
populations are located within atwo-mile radius of the project site. Based on this analysis, the
proposed project will have No Effect on smooth coneflower.
2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7. Species designated as FSC are defined
as taxa which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2)
species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to
support listing.
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 17

Tables 5 and 6 show FSCs for Durham and Orange Counties as of the USFWS February 2003 list,
their state status, and the potential for habitat in the study area. On December 22, 2003, review of
NCNHP maps found that one FSC and one state protected species have been identified within one
mile northwest of the project site. Sweet pinesap (Monotrop.ri.r odorata) is a vascular plant listed as an
FSC in both Durham and Orange Counties. An amphibian species listed for state protection, the
four-toed salamander (Hemidactyliunr .rcutatunr), is listed as an SC species in both Durham and Orange
Counties. An additional map review in March 2005 found no changes from the previous review.
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern in Durham County, State Status, and Potential Habitat
Common Name Scientific Name State Status Habitat
Available
Carolina darter (Eastern
Piedmont population)**
Ftheo.rtorna colli.r pop. 2
SC
Yes
Pinewoods shiner** Iythrurus mata~tinu.r SR Yes
Atlantic pigtoe Furconaia ma.roni E N o
Septima's clubtail* Gomphuc .reptima SR No
Yellow lampmussel Lamp.rillir cario.ra E No
Green floater Ilr.rmigonn .rubvirzdir E Yes
Panhandle pebblesnail ,S'omntogyru.r t~irginicu.c SR No
Tall larkspur Dephinium exnltatum E-SC No
Sweet pinesap Monotrop.rir odorata SR-T No
Liverwort Plagiochila Columbiana None No
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 18

Table 6. Federal Species of Concern in Orange County, State Status, and Potential Habitat
Common Name Scientific Name State Status Habitat
Available
Carolina darter (Eastern
Piedmont population)*
t=tl~eostoma Collis pop. 2
SC
Yes
Carolina redhorse Moxostoma sp. None Yes
Brook floater Alasmidonta a~aricosa E No
Carolina well diacyclops* Diacyclo~isjerrnneliputei SR No
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni E No
Yellow lampmussel I~rnrpsilis cariosa E No
Green floater Lasrnigona subt~irzdis E Yes
Savannah lilliput Toxolasmapullus E No
Creamy tick-trefoil* Desrnodium ocbroletrcum SR-T No
Butternut Juglans cinerea None Yes
Sweet pinesap* Monotropsis odorata SR-T No
Torrey's mountain-mint Pycnantliemum torrei SR-T No
Liverwort Plagiochila colum6iana None No
Notes for Tables 5 and 6:
*-Historic Record, **-Obscure, SC-Special Concern, E-Endangered, SR-Significantly Rare,
-T-Throughout
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. COMPLIANCE GUIDELINES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires federal agencies to
take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on
properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and to afford the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
B. HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on July 22, 2003. All structures
within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by NCDOT architectural historians and staff
at the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). In a concurrence form dated October 14, 2003,
NCDOT, HPO, and FHWA concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either listed
in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places within the APE. A copy of the
concurrence form is included in the Appendix.
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 19

C. ARCHAEOLOGY
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated March 4, 2004, stated that there are no known archaeological
sites within the project area and therefore the SHPO recommended that "no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project." A copy of the SHPO memorandum is
included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the structurally deficient
and functionally obsolete bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No substantial
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of--way acquisition will be
limited. No relocations of residents or businesses are expected with implementation of the
proposed alternative.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to determine whether
minority or low-income populations were receiving disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental impacts as a result of this project. The investigation determined the project
would not disproportionately impact any minority or low-income populations.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider
the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction
projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS). Since the proposed bridge will be replaced at the existing location the Farmland
Protection Policy Act does not apply. '
The project is located in Durham County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
nonattainment area for ozone (03) and the Raleigh-Durham for carbon monoxide (CO) as defined
by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as moderate
nonattainment area for CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 20

redesignated as maintenance areas for CO on September 18, 1995. The area was designated
nonattaninment for O; under the eight-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2004. Section 176 (c)
of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the
state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation
control measures for Durham County. The D~rrhanz-Chapel Hill-Carrboro ~ZPO 2030 Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the 2004-2010 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
(1~ITIP) has been determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT made a conformity
determination on the LRTP on June 15, 2005 and the MTIP on June 15 2005. The current
conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and
93. There have been no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope, as used in the
conformity analyses.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no receptors
located in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air quality will not be
substantial.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990
CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Division of
Solid V~'aste Management revealed no hazardous waste sites in the project area. A field
reconnaissance survey and records search was performed and no underground storage tank (UST)
sites were found within the project area. If any unregulated USTs or any potential source of
contamination is discovered during right-of--way initial contacts with impacted property owners,
then an assessment will be conducted to determine the extent of any contamination at that time.
The drainage area of Mud Creek at the proposed crossing is 5.37 square miles. Durham County is
currently participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. This crossing of Mud Creek is in
Zone AE, a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone. A Flood Insurance Rate Map is attached (Figure 5).
It is not anticipated that a floodway modification will be required since the bridge will be an "in
kind" replacement. It is not anticipated that this project will have any substantial impact on the
existing floodplain or floodway.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve them in
the project development with scoping letters. Scoping letters were also sent to various agencies. An
informational newsletter was mailed to area residents and appropriate officials in February 2005.
No comments were received in response to the newsletter.
T.I.P. No. B-4109
Page 21

1731
1 1785 w"~ 1 1308
1 C \
1 ~ I
j U O I
'P ~ i
c
nie %~ Mount i ~~ ._" s1
Sinai a~ ..
r: _~/
~~ , DURH
~, aTY I
`!s 1 ti
~ ~ '" ~ '~ 8
.___ ~. 1734 -' ~ / ~i_~
-r- W' ~ ,~~ /7791 \ 1
~`.~ _ gig ~- --T~'< i 1'-J /
\.
<, Pa '~ 'i
• __ ._ .
~~ , __ c
1737 ~p 1J__~_____~
u n34 U
CHAPEL HILL 601 . '
CITY LIMITS ~ ~ ~\__-.
1734 C
~ zzzo ~
Dl,mm,l s1. ao
1838
2 `,;';
Oa
w. ---
North Carolina Department of Transportation
roject Development & Environmental Analysi
DURHAM COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 120 ON SR 1303
OVER MUD CREEK
8-4109
FIGURE 1
DETOUR ROUTE

t DURHAM
'
~-'~
~ CITY LIMITS
,;
i~
~
;,'~ I /
I /~ 751
' O •
~~O Rd 15 j ~
1308` 501
~ i:~

Lakewood ~

.a Elam Sch.
oz .3.z Jai NO. 120
~. .
Cic i 5s~%

~ 501 { ~

~ `°""`mya
~
136x' ( ^ 1308

~
`
l jJT-._
_ " i I
~ / __ _.__ ___
• _
PidceltRd.
d
~~ .09 44 09 7303
~ i
85 j
, D ~ ~, BUS
PICke[L
15
501
, ~
Aeademmy
lx rc 1 I ~ Y Hgh Sth. O
1303 75
BUS
QD Ropei
127
- -° 1118
'
I 15 ~
Mldtl.
S
j
% 501 H
1dA
51
~
I C
~°
~
, ~ DUmam •
Aead. u
i
.I TS
••~
/
~ ~ 6p1 /
~ J~ rHOpe Iley
Elem. ~eh.
j
'S'O
i 1 ~ t
p

_ e
''~-_ . '
„/i % ~ '

733 soutll SQ.
O.

! D. /
a /

= 2z
j

; 75
,
~ti.: ••T ~ ; ~ tl i
~,
' ,
\ - i Rmmolc SL
..1 i'
'
~
~
~ nae
r ----~
~
~
`• i '

~'(r• ~
•~ Shannon / i ~
` wP° I
c zzzo . i
_ ..
~ i
~ ~ / DURHAM
1 I
~• /
• CITY LIMITS
\ ~
GBhsna /'
Middle 3ch. .! zzzo
ha t MiBRd\
.
1118 i
~
~ ~,
; ^
e
~ t i~

~ , j
View of west approach from Bridge No. 120.
View of east approach from Bridge No. 120.
Bridge No. 120 side view from south.
Figure 2
B-4109 Bridge No. 120 on SR 1303 over Mud Creek

8 ft.* 12 ft. i 12 ft. 8 ft. 12 ft. b ft. 10 ft.
i
4 ft. ~ 4 ft.
P ~ ; ~ PS o ~
°' U
,O 0.02 , 0,02 , .0 Z ~ 'L'1 VARIABLE
~ = SLOPES
VAR• b:1 ZO 2• 6.1 ~:~ b:l
--y~~~~~ GRADE POINT
TYPICAL APPROACH SECTION
* 11 fi. WITH GUARDRAIL IS WARRANTED (PROPOSED)
~ 1s , ~ t. ! , ~ i. . ~
BICYCLE SAFE RAIL
TRAFFIC DATA
(CONST. YR.) 2006 ADT = 5,550
(DESIGN YR.) 2030 ADT = 12,400
DUAL 2%
TTST 1%
EXISTING BRIDGE LENGTH = 50 ft.
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
URBAN LOCAL

i
I
I
0.02 ; 0.02

GRADE POINT -~ ~
TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION
(PROPOSED)
BICYCLE SAFE RAIL

r~
~' ,~>r /
ZONE X ~~ ~,,~~ ZONE X ZONE X
PINE VIEW `
CIR ~/ /
G
~% ,,~~`'
- ~ DONNIGALE AVE
/ ,
266 ~~ ~ ~ ~
ZONE X °l~ ~ '
:,~~f.
F~~ ZONE X
P/~KF 266 t:
~' ~oqo ZONE X ~ ?'~ 266
PICKETT ROAD
151 ~1~/~ B-4109
F Bridge No. 120
:. .254. F
ti ZONE ~~~
~O
'9~ X ~ZON~ ~ r/~
AE f /~~ f'~~ ZONE X
0 36 .~ ~~
k ~ ~~
oP Z
EN ~~j/~
_ ,,~~
SAND RIDGE
ROAD ~/ ',, ' ,%~~
37 ,~/
BERRYBUSH N ,~ /~
LANE Y ~r~
~.
~.
~ 259
ZONE X ZONE
X
'C°~
ZONE X 152. °°~
APPROXIMATE SCALE
500 0 500 FEET
NA110NA1 FLOOD INSURANCE PR06RAM
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
DURHAM COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 1510E 280
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTEDI
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
DURHAM. UTY Cf 3TOOB6 DI51 G
UNXJCORPOMrEO AREAS 3100A5 0161 G
Nglw b Usa-. TM IMP NUMBEfl shown baldv. houtl be aped
abbe pPAO l! bs aped M npueienw eppRCedgnN IgBhe auElen
gnmuniry
MAP NUMBER
31063001516
°'~` "Me EFFECTIYE DATE
e° ~' FEBRUARY 2,1996
Federal Emergency Management Agency
This is an olflcial copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It
was extracted using F-MIT On-Line. This map does not reflect changes
or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the
title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance
Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.gov
..
Figure 5

~ .:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS {
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action 1D. 200420704 County: Durham U.S.G.S. Quad: Southwest Durham
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: NCDOT -Division of Hi~h~ti~avs ~ ~r~" ~ `- ~; ~"'~ 7
Address: Attn: GreQOrv J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Dir., PDEA ~~ ' E- ~! `'~l~ ~~s ~.,~~~.1
1548 Mail Service Center f'
Raleieh, NC 27699 ~~ ~r~ j. ~~ ~il~~
Telephone No.: (9191733=7844,~ext. 266 4(1
Property description: r "" "'~ `""" ''~"` `~' +.:' t~ t~
se.tiomnet ,r a: .. i,y~ti-, .~y5~e~i q.s
Size (acres) n/a Nearest Town Durham
Nearest Waterway Mud Creek River Basin Cape Fear
USGS HUC 03030002 Coordinates N 35._,9752. W 78.9843
Location description Study area for briilee replacement (TIP B-41091 as~shown on the drawings sutirriitted on
June 25, 2004.
Indicate Which of the FolfowinQ Apply:
_ Based on preliminary information, there maybe wetlands on the above, described property. We strongly suggest you have
. this property inspected to deterrnii3e the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction: To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an~appealable action . ~ .
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part,331).
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States. within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and FIarbocs Act and Section 404 of tl~e Clean Water Act. Unless there is a charge in the law or ~',
our published regulations, this determination may be relied. upon for a period not ~to exceed. five-years from the date of this
notification:
X There are waters of the i).S. including wetlands on the above described project area subject to the perntit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC §' 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination-maybe relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification..,
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your project area delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be:able to. accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. Fora more time]y
delineation; you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be vei-ified by the Corps.
X The waters of the U.S. including wetland on your project area have been~delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the~Corps. We strongly suggest you have this~delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. C)nce vei;if ed, this survey. will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject'to
CWA, jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, maybe
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
Tl~e wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on 'the plat signed by the Corps
.Regulatory. Official .identified below on' .Unless 4liere is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There.are'no waters of the U.S.,' to include wetlands, present oh the above~clescribed project area which are subject to the
. permit requirements of.Section ~404of the Clean Water Act (33 USC.1344). Unless there'is a.change in the law or o~rr
published regulations, this deternririation,may be relied upon for a period-n6t.to exceed five years from the date of this
notification. ~ ,.. ~ ~ .. ~ _ _ .
_ .The property is located in one of the ?0 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(LAMA):. You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in ~Viimingfon, NC; at [phone] tti determine
their requirements:
Page 1 of 2

Action ID, 200420704
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § l31 l ). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Eric Alsmever at f919) 876-8441, ei;t. 23.
Basis For Determination: The study area contains a stream channel of Mud Creek a tributary of New Hone Creek and
the Cane Fear River, with indicators of ordinary high water marks, and wetlands adjacent to the tributaries
Remarks: The bermed pond west of A'Iud Creek and south of SR 1303 anaears to have been excavated from a non
wetland area of the flood lain of Mud Cre and as such is not re ulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Corps Regulatory Official: ~ sz
Date 02/15/2005 Expiration Date 02/15/2010
Copy furnished: Ms. Cindy Can
• ~ ~ Mulkey Engineers
P.O. Box 331•:27
Raleigh, NC 27626 ~ •

.~
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND.
RE UEST FOR APPEAL
A ]icant: NCDOT TIP B-4109 File Number: 200420704 Date: 02/15/2005
Attached is: ~ See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of ermission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of ermission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I -The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above
decision. Additional information maybe found at http://www.usace.ariny.miUinet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg or
Co s re ]ations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may acceptor object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature.
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the perirtit (Standard. or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return
the form to the district engineer. Your: objections must be received. by the district engineer within 60 days of
the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the pertnit in the future. Upon receipt of your
letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your
concerns; (b) modify the'pertrtit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having
determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating~your objections, the
district en ineer will send ou a roffered erniit for our reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accent or anneal the nerrnit
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Peiznit or acceptance of the LOI' means that you accept the permit in its entirety; and-waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and
conditions therein, you may appeal the declined-permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appea]
Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must
be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL:. You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form
must be received b the division en ineer within 60 da s of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new inforn~ation. .
ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Coops to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days'of the date of
this notice, means that-you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by ccsmpleting Section II of.this form and sending the fgrm fo the division~engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within b0 days of the'date of this notice. - ~ ~ -
E: PRELIMINARY JURISAICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to resporid to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD, The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the. Corps to reevaluate the JD.. ~ ~ .

~~ .
SECTION.II - RE UEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OIt OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location .of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR UESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding~this decision
- If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal
process you may contact:, . ~ .may also contact:
Eric Alsmeyer ~ ~ ~ 1VIr. Michael Bell, Administrative
Appeal Review Officer
Raleigh Regulatory- Field Office ,
CESAD-ET-CO-R . '
IIS Army Corps of Engineers ~ ~ U.S.. Army Corps.gf fingineer$, South Atlantic Division.
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 ~ ~ 60 Forsyth Street, Rooirt 9M 1 S ..
Ralei ,North Carolina 27615 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. ~'
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
'
investi ations.
. ~ ~ Date: ~ - Telephone~number:
Si . 'tore of a. , ellant or a ~ ent.
DIVISION ENGINEER:
Commander
U.S_ .Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3490

:~ 3~
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
February 18, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
~~~ ~1 ~'
FEB ~~ X004
b
'~O
arvr~,ror~
oy4`~,T HtGHWgYSF '~
~ ~`~~~C R t~ At-Y
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed replacement of the following
ten bridges:
• B-4002, Alamance County, Bridge No. 96 on SR 2116 over Meadow Creek
• B-4063, Chatham County, Bridge No. 20 on NC 902 over Sandy Branch
• B-4109, Durham County, Bridge No. 120 on SR 1303 over Mud Creek
• B-4216, Orange County, Bridge No. 66 on SR 1002 over Strouds Creek
• B-4300, Wake County, Bridge No. 29 on SR 1007 over Clarks Creek
• B-4301, Wake County, Bridge No. 229 on SR 1007 over Poplar Creek
• B-4302, Wake County, Bridge No. 336 on SR 1301 over Terrible Creek
• B-4303, Wake County, Bridge No. 102 on SR 1844 over Lower Bartons Creek
• B-4304, Wake County, Bridge No. 143 on SR 2217 over Beaver Dam Creek
• B-4592, Orange County, Bridge No. 64 on SR 1561 over Eno River
These comments provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish anti
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
For bridge replacement projects, the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland, forest and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practical;
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities

1~ :~
to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation easements, land trusts or by
other means should be explored at the outset;
3. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of
fish and wildlife habitat. At the completion of construction, the detour area should be
entirely removed and the impacted areas be planted with appropriate vegetation, including
trees if necessary;
4. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 -June 30;
5. New bridges should be long enough to allow for sufficient wildlife passage along stream
corridors;
6. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; __
7. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a
vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large enough
to alleviate ariy potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
8. The bridge designs should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology or
impede fish passage. To the extent possible, piers and bents should be placed outside the
bank-full width of the stream;
9. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. If spanning the flood plain is not feasible,
culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to restore some of
the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of flood waters
within the affected azea.
A list of federally protected species for each county in North Cazolina can be found at h ://nc-
es.fws.gov/es/coon .html . Additional information about the habitats in which each species is
often found can also be found at http://endangered.fws.g~ov . Please note, the use of the North
Cazolina Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if
suitable habitat occurs near the project site. If suitable habitat exists in the project area, we
recommend that biological surveys for the listed species be conducted and submitted to us for
review. All survey documentation must include survey methodologies and results.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that maybe required for these projects, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in

i
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for these projects include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that maybe directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat and waters of the US;
7. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on these projects. Please continue to advise
us during the progression of the planning process, including your of5cial determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
,~p~ Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor

:.
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC
John Thomas, USACE, Raleigh, NC
Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

:~ R
Federal Aid # BRZ-1303(3) TIP # B-4109 County: Durham
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 120 on SR 1303 over Mud Creek
On 10/14/2003, representatives of the
~ . North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
f ~ ederal Highway Adnrinistration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
Other
Reviewed the subject project at
^ ~Scoping meeting
Historic azchitectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
^ There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
~j' There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
There are properties over fifty yeazs old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
h' ncal inf rmation available and t] ~e~photographs of each property, the property identified as
_ '' is considered not eligible for the National
Regis and no further evaluation f it is necessary.
There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed:
~'0
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
~aa-
Date
Repres ive, HPO U care
_ a'~ I,O- ly -- D.~ _
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

~~
d*`s`'"r~
~~~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State historic Preservation Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffiey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 4, 2004
I~~IEI\~IORANDUI~~i
TO: Stacey Baldwin
Project Development and EmTironmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
~+ ~~ ~ . {
FROM: David Brook ~''`" '~ -~/ ~Q~,,,~~~` ~`~~~. ,
SUBJECT: Request for commert~s on Bridge Replacement projects
B-4002, Alamance County
B-4063, Chatham County
B-4109, Durham County
B-4216, Orange County
B-4300, Wake County
B-4301, Wake County
B-4302, Wake County
B-4303, Wake County
B-4304, Wake County
B-4592, Orange County
ER03-0389 through ER03-0398
Thank you for your letters of February 5, 2004, concerning the above projects.
Division of Historical Resources
David L. S. Brook, Director
We are unable to comment on the potential effect of these projects on historic resources until we receive further
information.
Please forward a labeled 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map for each of the above projects clearly indicating the
project vicinity, location, and termini. In addition, please include the name of the quadrangle map.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our knowledge of the area, it
is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for conclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
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.
www.hpo.dcr.statanc.us
I.ocatioa Mailing Address TelephonelF'z
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone].733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Malt Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone].715-4801

March 4, ?001
Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future communication
concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: 1~4ar}~ Pope Furr, NCDOT
1~Iatt Wilkerson, NCDOT

R
Carolina Wildlife Resources
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinato~~. ~~ /" '--~
Habitat Conservation Program ;/
DATE: February 27, 2004
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Alamance, Chatham, Durham, Orange, and
Wake counties. TIP Nos. B-4002, B-4063, B-4109, B-4216, B-4300, B-4301, B-
4302, B-4303, B-4304, and B-4592.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 2 7699-1 72 1
Telephone: [phone] ext. 2S1 • Fax: [phone]

~ ;.
Bridge Memo
2 February 27, 2004
If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Hal
Bain should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
l 1. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:

Bridge Memo
February 27, 2004
The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural strearrrbed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. Thy area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-4002, Alamance County, Bridge No. 96 over Meadow Creek on SR 2116. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
2. B-4063, Chatham County, Bridge No. 20 over Sandy Branch on NC 902. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
3. B-4109, Durham County, Bridge No. 120 over Mud Creek on SR 1303. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.

r .
Bridge Memo
4 February 27, 2004
4. B-4216, Orange County, Bridge No. 66 over Strouds Creek on SR 1002. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Due to the close proximity of the Eno River we
request conducting a survey for the following state endangered and federal species of
concern mussels: Yellow lampmussel and Atlantic pigtoe. Also, a significant fishery for
sunfish exists at this site, therefore we request an in-water work moratorium for sunfish
from April 1 to June 30. Standard recommendations apply.
5. B-4300, Wake County, Bridge No. 29 over Clarks Creek on SR 1007. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines
for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15
to June ~~ Standard recommendations apply.
6. B-4301, Wake County, Bridge No. 229 over Poplar Creek on SR 1007. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines
for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15
to June ~~ Standard recommendations apply.
7. B-4302, Wake County, Bridge No. 336 over Terrible Creek on SR 1301. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
8. B-4303, Wake County, Bridge No. 102 over Lower Bartons Creek on SR 1844. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
9. B-4304, Wake County, Bridge No. 143 over Beaver Dam Creek on SR 2217. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
10. B-4592, Orange County, Bridge No. 64 over the Eno River on SR 1561. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. We request conducting a survey for the following
state endangered and federal species of concern mussels: Yellow lampmussel and
Atlantic pigtoe. Also, a significant fishery for sunfish exists at this site, therefore we
request an m-water work moratorium for sunfish from April 1 to June 30. Standard
recommendations apply.
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shallowed during initial bridge installation.
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
continent on these projects.
Cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

t p~~I~~ -
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary 'Philip K. McKneliy, Director
MEMORANDUM
T0: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Bridge Replacement Unit
Department of Transportation Z
FROM: Brian Strong, Environmental Review Coordinator />
DENR, Division of Parks and Recreation
DATE: September 6, 2002
SUBJECT: Review of Department of Transportation Bridge Replacement Projects
The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit comments prepared by the Division of
Parks and Recreation (Division) on a number of proposed bridge replacement projects. These
projects were received from Mr. William T. Goodwin (dated Apri124, 2002) and John Williams
(received June 25, 2002).
Prior to discussing individual comments on specific projects I would like to make one
general comment. A number of projects are listed as replacement of bridges with culverts. The
Division would like to express concern with this type of replacement. As you know, culverts are
often beset by a number of persistent problems associated with their installation and
mainienance. Culverts are frequently the focus of restoration projects as either culvert removal
or mitigation efforts designed to remediate their destabilizing influence. Since culverts are often
used in lieu of bridges as a cost savings alternative, the proper design of the culvert is often not.
factored into the cost of the project. Impacts of improper design and installation include the
an;le of insertion (too high or too low), sizing of culverts, culvert placement (too low or too -
high), and lack of culvert maintenance resulting in degradation of streams. In addition, culvert
are often insufficiently designed to handle fish passage due to inadequate depth of water at time
of passage, inappropriate water velocity, inadequate resting places above and below the stream
structure, and-physical obstructions to passage. Culverts have been identified as one of the
greatest sources of stream morphology change in the United States. In general, the Division
recommends that bridges be used in all instances where practical.
Enclosure 1 presents the bridge replacement projects were potential environmental
impacts were identified. The majority of the impacts involve impacts to significant natural
heritage areas, rare plant and animal species. Other impacts include proximity to state trails,
state parks, and natural heritage aquatic habitats. Enclosure 2 presents the accompanying maps
discussed in Enclosure 1.
Please let me know if there is any further information you need or if you have any
questions regarding the enclosed material, my telephone number is [phone].
l61 ~ ~(sil Sz;vice Center, Rzlziah, ~'orh Carolina ?7609- l 61 ~
f1L__ _. .11 ~l T` ~ t . I ~. C.a•• l~ I .; ~1 ~ :1~\; Lnrsnn ~.- ~~-a i.^tt: nr.-n •~~L•c nor

Brid a Re lacement Pro'ect Potential Im act
Durham County Impacts to SNHA: Regional significance
Replace Bridge No. 120 on SR 1303 over
Mud Creek
'B.-4109 ~~ ~~r
Harnett County Impacts several raze mussel species
Rehabilitate Bridge Deck No. 46 on US 401
over Cape Fear River
B-4138 ~'bh nsa,,
Jackson County Impacts to SNHA river: National significance
Replace Bridge No. 108 on SR 1002 over
Tuckasegee Creek
y
B-=I159 ~;~~i
~
~~
Jackson County Impacts to SNHA river: National significance
Replace Bridge No. 82 on SR 1002 over
Tuckasegee River
B-416o W ~1<i~~-,
Montgomery County ~ Impacts to SNHA: State significance
Replace Bridge No. ?8 on NC 109 over Rock
Creek
B-4204 ~~ ~
Montgomery County ~ Impacts to SNHA: State significance
Replace Bridge No. 128 on SR 131 over
Densons Creek
B-4206 ~j ~,~
Orange County Trib is located 250 yards from Eno River
Replace Bridge No. 66 on SR 1002 over State Park and 450 yards from the Eno River
Strounds Creek
B-4216 ~G~
Rutherford Counry Impacts to rare fish
Replace Bridge No141 on SR 1 X49 over
Cathey's Creek
B-4263 ~ Cr'i;,,,~
Sampson County Impacts to rare mussel
Replace Bridge No. 90 on SR 1214 over
Little Coharie Creek
B-4269
,b~`~U~ ti

i
North Carolina
Michael F. Easley, Governor
'~ :~.~~
NCDENR
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
•-~ ..
February 27, 2004
~ ~; . .
,-
' :,
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe
N.C. Department of Transportation ~' ~ ~ Q
Project Development and Environmental Analysis ~;•s ~~ ~
1548 MSC -•, GQ~~~~S
Ralei h NC 27699-1548 • ~' ~:~! ,~N~
g ~ ~~.~R
Subject: Replacement of Bridges in Alamance, Chatham, Durham, Orange, and Wake counties
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area, for the projects listed below:
B-4002, Alamance County, Bridge No. 96 over Meadow Creek on SR 2116 (Preacher Holmes
Road)
B-4063, Chatham County, Bridge No. 20 over Sandy Branch on NC 902
B-4109, Durham County, Bridge No. 120 over Mud Creek on SR 1303 (Pickett Road)
B-4300, Wake County, Bridge No. 29 over Clarks Creek on SR 1007 (Poole Road)
B-4301, Wake County, Bridge No. 229 over Poplar Creek on SR 1007 (Poole Road)
B-4302, Wake County, Bridge No. 336 over Terrible Creek on SR 1301 (Sunset Lake Road).
Our Program does have records of rare species, significant natural communities, or priority
natural areas at the site or within a mite of the project area, for the projects listed below:
B-4216, Orange County, Bridge No. 66 over Strouds Creek on SR 1002 (St. Marys Road). This
site lies just upstream of the Eno River, where there are numerous rare aquatic animal species.
Species recorded at the confluence of Strouds Creek and the river (at Lawrence Road) are -
yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), State Endangered and Federal Species of
Concern
eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata radiata), State Threatened
notched rainbow (Villosa constricta), State Special Concern
Neuse River waterdog (Necturus le>•visi), State Special Concern
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 NorthCa><'olina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENRI ~atura!!t~
An Eaual ooaortuniN 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50 °•~o ReCyGed 1'0 v Post Consumer Paper

t~ :~
B-4303, Wake County, Bridge No. 102 over Lower Bartons Creek on SR 1844 (Mt. Vernon
Church R.oad). The Lower Barton Creek Ultramafic Slopes natural area lies on the south side of
the road; this is an unprotected site of Local significance. Just downstream of the bridge is the
following -
Carolina ladle crayfish (Cambarus davidi), State Significantly Rare
B-4304, Wake County, Bridge No. 143 over Beaver Dam Creek on SR 2217 (Old Milburnie
Road). There is a vague, historic record of the following, just downstream -
veined skullcap (Scutellaria nervosa), State Significantly Rare
B-4592, Orange County, Bridge No. 64 over the Eno River on SR 1561 (Lawrence Road). See
comments for project B-4216. This site is a few miles above Eno River State Park. Also, a tract
just upstream of the bridge has been recently acquired, or is in the process of being acquired. In
addition, the section of the Eno River from Hillsborough to the confluence with the Neuse River
is a Nationally significant aquatic habitat, for many additional rare species than those listed
above.
Our program recommends that NC DOT enact strong sedimentation controls to ensure that
populations of these rare species, and particularly the water quality of the Eno River, not be
impacted during the bridge replacements. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not
be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for
rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at
<www.ncsparks.net/nhp/search.html> for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant
natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
HEL/hel
cc: Brian Strong, Division of Parks and Recreation, Resource Management Program
David Cook, Superintendent, Eno River State Park

DURHAM PUE3LIC SCHOOLS
TO: William T. Goodwin, Jr. PE
Project Developmen d Environment /alma's
L
FROM: Henry Kirby
Executive Director of Tr ortatr<on
Durham Public Schools
DATE: October 2, 2002
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 120 on SR 1303 over Mud Creek, Durham
County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1303(3), State Project No.
8.2353401, TIP No. B-4109
You requested, on August 21, 2002, the specific number of bus crossings per day and if
road closure could be handled by re-routing or other changes.
Our staff has researched your request and found that we have 22 bus crossings per day.
We will, of course, make every effort to route our buses around the site during the time of
construction.
If you have any further questions, please let me know.
c: Hugh Osteen
VISION STATENIENr
Dtrham Public Sd~oods will ensure that aN students achieve at their highest poten0al regar~ess of iacae, gender, or soao-eamarnic status.
r=aah stunt wi/I make continuous Exogress arm be at or above grads level
F0. Box 30002 • Durham, North Carolina 27702

.: . {
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: B-4109, Bridee No. 120 on SR 1303 Date: 1/14/04
Applicant !Owner: NC Deparnnent of Transportation County: Durham
Investigator: Cindv Carr. Mulkey Engineers & Consultants. Inc. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID:
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes Wo X Wetland
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes Wo X Transect ID: WA
(explain on reverse if needed) Plot ID: WA3
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1. Liriodendron tulipifera Stratum Indicator
Tree FAC Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
10.
2. Liquidambar styraciflua Tree/Shrub FAC 11.
3. Acer rubnun Tree/Shrub FAC 12.
4. Ulmus americana Shrub FACW 13.
5. Dulichium arundinaceum Herb OBL 14.
6. Carex spp. Herb 15.
7. 16.
8. 17.
9. 18.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). 100
Remarks: Herbaceous vegetation limited due to time of year.
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other ~ Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
_ No Recorded Data Available ~ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
~ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 3 (in.)
Secondary indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 1 (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
~ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) _FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Rainfall recorded at Raleigh/Durham Airport for Durham County at 0.06 inches on 1117104 and
0.28 inches on 1/18/04.

E
1~~fW~/1A~'~T~ ER ST,ORAGE~r l/~ /J /' .// /~ Q /~ .p~ f ,/
G a v ~~ . c7 _ ~"
Z. BANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION
L~r ~•c. o-~.c, S ~ Cc~~/.~~D ~ /'t~ ~~fZf' c~ r3 .- / ~ o ~'u~7~~ ~-,,cJ
/'% ~.
~..
3. POLLUTANT REMOVAL t
G
4. WILDLIFE HABITAT
r U' r/
~/o G~~~
5. AQUATIC LIFE HABITAT
l l v
6. RECREATION/EDUCATION

.,
~C:~ ~~Y'.J~r-~
~~

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project I Site: B-4109 Bride No. 120 on SR 1303 Date: 1/14/04
Applicant /Owner: NC Department of Transportation County: Durham
Investigator: Cindv Carr. Mulke +~Ensineers & Consultants Inc. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X _ Upland
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Transect ID: WA
(explain on reverse if needed) Plot ID: WA3
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Saecies Stratum Indicator
1. Liriodendron tulipifera Tree FAC Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
10.
2. Ligustrum sinense Shrub FAC 11.
3. Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC 12.
4. Microstigeum vimenium Herb FAC+ 13.
5. 14.
6. 15.
7. 16.
8. 17.
9. 18.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). 100
Remarks: Herbaceous vegetation limited due to time of year.
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other _ Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
_ No Recorded Data Available _. Water Marks
- Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
- Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.)
Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
,Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) _FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

e~
1. WATER STORAGE ~/
// ~ ~~~ ~Lf/~1 G~ ~ ~ ~G!/~~ ADO y~i~ • ~ ~f/LEIj./i''~..~
~i{.~ G"v'E~'LULLr-~K.. ~ L~'~`./E;-~~-'fx/ ~ ~22G~~G!/~~?'r `/-~JIJ J~[.i~(iP~' (/~ ~ `~/~'
U / ~/ ~ 70
~~G~. ~ X020 ~-~~c~ :z..~
ANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION ~ r / ~ -L- ~/~ ~ j~ ~
/u~v `~-=~-~ .a.oCt..~.%i ~ `fv ' ~-r~-L~yr...up~~-.c-2.~; . ~ i
~;
-`'/
3. POLLUTANT REMOVAL ~ ~O to l~~ ~ ,~.G ;. F ~ / ,~ ~~,~, q l~~ ~ ~~~ G ;
~O v~rJ ~~!~. IL ~~~~C. f G~/Z GC G~G-[ ~'~.~.- ~'~~ ~.~/Y-~ ~ f y ::f1t ~~ ~ '? r' s~? r)J
4. WILDLIFE HABITAT
~Q.t~d/`.(< ,-.~ d;.c ~.e~~,..-- ~ L f.~ , .SU - ~/o~oa~d. ly~~~~ ~vtti 3d J 1' r ~
~h~~~ ~~~-- ~ ~
5. AQUATIC LIFE HABITAT
~~ ~
6. RECREATION/EDUCATION
~---_
V

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: B-4109, Bridee No. 120 on SR 1303 Date: 1/14/04
Applicant /Owner: NC Department of Transportation County: Durham
Investigator: Cindy Carr, Mulke~l:ngineers & Consultants. Inc. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID:

Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X _
Wetland
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes IVo X Transect ID: WB
(explain on reverse if needed) Plot ID: WBS
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Saecies
1. Acer rubrum Stratum
Tree Indicator
FAC Dominant Plant S~ecfes Stratum Indicator
9.
2. Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC 10.
3. Rosa palustris Vine OBL 11.
4. Dulichium arundinaceum Herb OBL 12.
5. Typha latifolia Herb OBL 13.
6. Carex grayi Herb FACW 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _ Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
_ IVo Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
~ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators•
Depth to Free Water in Pit• 0 (in.)
• Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
~C Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) _FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomorahology .Absent Weak Moderate Strong

1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? ~ 5 1 1 5

2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel?
~07
5
1 _
15 _
3) Does Topography Indicate A

Natural Drainaee Wav?
0 f~
r 5)
1
1 5
SECONDARYGEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATORPOINTS: ~'S
II. Hvdrofo~y Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 1 5 ~ S
0
Last Known Rain? /+NOTE: IfDitch Indicated !n #9 Above Slda This Step And #5 Below*1
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 ~ 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growin Season ?
6) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)~ Yes=1 S No-0
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong

4) Are CravSsh Present? ~ 0 ~ 5 1 1 5
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? ;' 0 ~ 5 1 1 5
SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
2 1 .75 0.5 0 0
f+ NOTE: NTotal Absence O/AU Plonts In trreambed As Noted Above SAin This Sten UNLESS SAV PresenPl
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: n
~5 3.5 ~
TOTAL POINTS' (Primary +Secondary)= a g'
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 (1.5
al rue weuana rian[s to sIIeamoea!

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project /Site: B-4109, Bridge No. 120 on SR 1303 Date: 1/14/04
Applicant /Owner: NC Department of Transportation County: Durham
Investigator: Cindy Carr, Mulkey Eneineers & Consultants. Inc. State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID:_
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X Upland
is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Transect ID: WB
(explain on reverse if needed) Plot ID: WBS
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1. Acer rubrum Stratum
Tree Indicator
FAC Dominant Plant Species
9. Stellaria media Stratum Indicator
Herb FACU
2. Liquidambar styraciflua Tree FAC 10. Microstegium vimineum Grass FAC+
3. Liriodendron tulipifera Tree FAC 11.
4. Juniperus virginiana Tree FACU 12.
5. Fraxinus pennsylvanica Tree FACW 13.
6. Lonicera japonica Vine FAC 14.
7. Rosa multiflora Shrub NI 15.
8. Allium vineale Herb FACU 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). 75
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
7C Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _ Inundated
_Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: ~ Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) _Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) _FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: 2 to 4 % slopes.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
"` These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

~~
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;;,,~; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET _ -
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NG D ~ T 2. Evaluator's name: ~ /ND S/ C~A2 k , MUGKE
3. Date of evaluation: I~I'~ ~ O ~ 4. Time of evaluation: /~,Oi»
5. Name of stream: M ~ ~ G ~~ E~ 6. River basin: GA ~ F~ 1~
7. Approximate drainage area: ~ ~J m~ y_ 8. Stream order. ~~~ ~
9. Length of reach evaluated: e.~'OD ~% 10. County: bU ~ry~ ~
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):,
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
Longitude (ex. -77.55bb11
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
132/DGE ~o • Ia.D on- Sf21'D3 ~f!(~"-E7T ~r3~ IJEAi° PIJJEYi~vt1 GIi2GL.L
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: ~.D ltJ - :' ~' /~ ~~ 5 ~ J'.~0 /?A t ~..J t -`I t^.. "' ~+~'' ~9C.i1~ c
16. Site conditions at time of visit: G L Efl ~ , Su ~ N t/ "" ~ =' `:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ®If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ~ NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: ~'~ % Residential ~'~% Commercial 1 D % Industrial _% Agricultural
SD % Forested ~% Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 8 ~ ~ 2 ~% 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): ~ fD ~ f= T
24. Channel slope down center of stream: 1' Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: ~ Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect as overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the chazacter of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 5~ Comments:.5''T~EAI/I MA•~/ ~G ~c.~t?;~"~'C" '`r ~
L.C'f!1 F~Rl.tl ~.1'.ilt!'~-~~~J ~~.r.-~L~SG 1'f fS !~ TR/ASSfG 13f1~S<l` /,~EAVV
~EpIMF~JT 1.Li~SlTiolt) Wr9S CVff~6pli AT TIME v Ji?'6 Y~.s~T- '
/ ~1 f
Evaluator's Signature ~~-^~= J ~~~/f'~' f Date '~ - ~ ~' ~ T
This channel evaluation form is intend to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals fn
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla and Wehadkee Soils Drainage Class: _ Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup):- Fluvaauentic Dvstrochrepts/
Tvoic Fluvaauents Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mott]e Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Mansell Moistl (Mansell Moistl Contrast Structwe. etc.
0 - 14 B 1 7.5 YR 4/3 n/a n/a Clay
14 - 20 B2 10 YR 5/3 n/a n/a Sandy Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol ~ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfldic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
._ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ~ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wehadkee soils are listed as hydric "A" and Chewacla soils are listed as hydric "B" on the NC
hydric soils list.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Within a Wetland? Yes_ No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Remarks: Sample plot was taken approx. 15 feet downhill of wetland flag WB 5.

w
R
NCDWU Stream Classification Form
Project Name:
~ _ / o y River Basin•
Ga ~.e~ r County:
~llrha.~~~ Evaluators:
~i~~d./..I ~~. v~
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Latitude: Sig ure:

Date•
I
~ USGS QUAD:
R
/~Rf~1
SW T Longitude: Location/Dir~'tions:
"U
/ ~ /v .
,v ~~y~Er T A? /~ t1/~7-/P ~rU~
C~/OGLE
*PLEASE NOTE: Ijevaluator and landowner agree tl:at the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not
necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement ojthe evaluator, tl:e feature is a matt-made ditch and not a modified
ttattrral stream-this rating system should trot be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number PerLine~
I. Geomorpholosy Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is There ARiffle-Pool Sequence? 0 ~ 2 3
_
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surroundine Terrain? 0 1 ~9 3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 ~ 2 3

4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1~ 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodplain Present? 0 1 2 3n
6) Is The Channel Braided? ~ 1 2 3 _
,7~ Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 0 ~17 2 3
S) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 ~~ 2 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
f•NOTE: If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditchine And WITHOU T Sinuosit y Then Score=D')
10) Is A 2"d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated

On Topo Map And/Or In Field) Present? //~~
Yes `3l
No=O
i~.1
PRIMARY GEOMORPIIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: I ~
II. HydroloQy Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater Flow/
Discharse Present? 0 1 2 ~7
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 3
III. Biolow Absent Weak Moderate Strom
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
-~ ~
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? (~ 2 1 0
21 Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? X37 2 1 0

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla and Wehadkee Soils Drainage Class: Poorlv Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaouentic Dystrochrepts/
Tvpic Fluva puents Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriotion:
Depth Matrix Colors
inches Horizon (Mansell Moist) Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Textare, Concretions,
(Mansell Moistl Contrast Structure, etc.
0 - 2 A 7.5 YR 2.5/1 n/a n/a Clay Loam, many fine roots
2 - 17 B 10 YR 6/l 7.5 YR 5/8 Common, Distinct, Firm Clay, thin layer of
Medium organic material streaking

Hydric Soil Indicators:
- Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon ~ High Organic Content in SurFace Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
~ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ~ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wehadkee soils are listed as hydric "A" and Chewacla soils are listed as hydric "B" on the NC
hydric soils list.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Hydric Sofls Present? Yes X No
Remarks: Wetland B is classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987 Army
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Sample plot was taken approx. 15 feet downhill of
wetland flag WB 5.

D.~(o ~Ei
NCDWQ WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION)
Project Name: /:~ - ~/ D ~ County: ~U~~-~~
Nearest Road: p/GKC'TT ~b Date: ~/ / ~fJ v y
Wetland Area (ac): ~ %r.{ Q.G Wetland Width (ft): -+-SO F'~"
Name of Evaluator(s): G//J~ Gq'P~R
NI vLK E-dG~ ~.r~-c~? 5
WETLAND LOCATION: ADJACENT LAND USE:
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope or radius)
on sound or es[usuary, pond or lake / forested/natural vegetation `7D %
on perennial steam / agricultural/ urbanized oZ ~ ~~
on intermittent stream V impervious surface ~- %
/ within interstream divide Adjacent Special Natural Areas
other
SOILS: /I / DOMINANT VEGETATION: / /'
Soil Series: Cl~~ya~. I Q• /~ re~N~/r(G7Q~ 1 ~~ t'lO ~G)~rOt~ 7Ze. N.~ l ~ff.'X~
preduminantly organic (humus, muck or peat) 2 ~Qu id 4ra7b:~~r ~, ; r%r~t lec~.
predominantly mineral (non-sandy) 3 ~ ruloryn-, -
predominantlysandy 4 Du1tGYuUm 0~-'Gt tnaClU/'h
HYDRAULIC FACTORS:
/ freshwater
brackish
steep topography
ditched or channeliud
total wetland width >= 100 feet
FLOODING AND WETNESS:
semipermanently to petmenently flooded or inundated
-~ seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wl+;l'LANll'1'YYl';: (selcclone)*
V Bottomland Hazdwood Forest Bog/Fen
Swamp Forest Headwater Forest
Cazolina Bay Bog Forest
Pocosin Ephemeral Wetland
Pine Savannah Other:
Freshwater Marsh
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt and brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
1. WATER STORAOE ~ X 4.00 =
~
2. BANK, SHORELINE STABII RATION X 4.00
3. POLLUTANT REMOVAL ~ * X 5.00 = S

WILDLIFE
~ [
'7
4.
HABITAT X 2.00 =
5. AQUATIC LIFE HABITAT '~ X 4.00 = f t,~
~ Q
6. RECREATION/EDUCATION X 1.00 =
TOTAL WETLAND SCORE = 3
* Add one point if in sensitive watershul and >109o nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla and Wehadkee soils Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup):_ Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts/
Typic Fluva ouents Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Mansell Moist) (Mansell Moistl Contrast Structure, etc
0 - 3 A 7.5 YR 4/4 n/a n/a Loam Cla

3 - 14 B 1 10 YR 5/4 n/a n/a Firm Cla
Common, Distinct, Sandy Clay Loam,
14 - 19 B2 10 YR 5/4 7.5 YR'/. Coarse Fe Concretions

Hydric Soii Indicators:
_ Histosol ~c ,Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in SurFace Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
- Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
___. Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors X Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wehadkee soils are listed as hydric "A" and Chewacla soils are listed as hydric "B" on the state hydric
soils list.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Within a Wetland? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Remarks: Data point taken approximately 20 feet uphill of wetland flag WA3.

WCTLA N/~ ~
D. D~ ~~
NCDWQ WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION)
Project Name: ~ "7 / V q County: LiUf~~~1'1~
Nearest Road: p/GKE ~'~ /~A Date: /~ 14 / D N-
Wetland Area (ac): ~ Q. / Wetland Width (ft): -~ /Q ~T
Name of Evaluator(s): /1~//~l/ CF}{a~ . M UL/GF(/ C/t!G /i`J~--b (;
WETLAND LOCATION:
on sound or estusuary, pond or lake
on perennial steam
on intermittent stream
t/ within interstream divide
other
SOILS:
Soil Series: C'Gteula.~-Ca~~C~~~~G~yi~
predominantly organic (humus, muck or peat)
/ predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
HYDRAULIC FACTORS:
feshwater
brackish
steep topo;raphy
ditched or channelized
total wetland width >= 100 feet
Wlr~1'LANll'1'YYI;': (selectone)*
ADJACENT LAND USE:
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope or radius)
y forested/natural vegetation ~_ ~a
y agricultural/ urbanized o2 S q~
V impervious surface S q~
Adjacent Special Natural Areas
DOMINANT VEGETATION:
~ ~.i'2~ SrJ
4 Ty ty ha Lief, D lI GZ,.
FLOODING AND WETNESS:
semipermanently to permenently flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
~ intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Bottomland Hardwood Forest Bog/Fen
Swamp Forest Headwater Forest
Carolina Bay Bog Forest
Pocosin Ephemeral Wetland
Pine Savannah Other:
Freshwater Marsh
* The rating system cannot be applied to sa1C and brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
1. WATER STORAGE J X 4.00 = ~

2. BANK, SHORELWE STABII.IZATION ~
X 4-00 = L
'
7
3. POLLUTANT REMOVAL ~ * X 5.00 =
4. WILDLIFE HABTfAT ~ X 2.00 = c2-
5
AQUATIC LIFE HABITAT /"~ J
. X 4.00 = /
6. RECREATION/EDUCATION D
X 1.00 = ~ ?0
TOTAL WETLAND SCORE = d~
* Add one point if in sensitive watershed and >]09o nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.

..
t
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla and Wehadkee soils Drainage Class: Poorlv Drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts/
Typic Fluvaquents Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colo rs Mottle Abundance! Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structure, etc.
0 - 1 A 2.S Y 3/2 n/a n/a Silty Clay Loam, many fine
roots
2 -12 Bg 2.5 Y 5/1 10 YR 5/6 Many, Distinct, Very Firm Clay,
Medium Fe concretions,
12 - 16 B 10 YR 5/3 7.5 YR 5/8 Few, Faint, Fine Sandy Clay Loam,
Fe concretions

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol x Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
~C Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors X Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wehadkee soils are listed as hydric "A" and Chewacla soils are listed as hydric "B" on the
state hydric soils fist.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Remarks: Wetland A is classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987 Army
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.

s
NCDOT Proposes Replacement
ofBridge No. 120 on
SR 1303 (Pickett.Road) over
Mud Creek,
Duthanx County, NC
TIP Na. B-4109
February 2005
.~
a '~''
'~
~~
~~
~, o
w ~~
~ a ~
a,.~~~
~ ~ :~
,a~vv°
~A ~~~V
~~ ~~~
~ U A ~ .sJ"
v ~ .~
~; o~o~
~z~~~ -
Contact Information
If you have questions or camments
regarding anything in this newsletter,
you ma}* c111, write, or e-mail one of
the contacts provided below.
Theresa I;llerby
NCDOT-PDIJA
15=18 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
919-733-7844 ext. 266
tellerby@dot.s tate.nc.us
Pam `~Iilliams
Mulkey Engineers 8c Cansuitants
PO Box 33127
Raleigh, NC 27636-3127
919-85$-1908
pwilliains@mt~lkeyinc.com
We're on the Web!
www.ncdot. org
-,

Project Introduction
The North Carolina Department of Transpor-
tation (NCDOT) is planning to replace Bridge
No. 120 on SR 1303 (Pickett Road) over Mud
Creek. The new bridge will provide safer,
more efficient traffic operations.
Data has been collected on the existing
human and. natural environments, alternatives
have been developed, and the impacts of each
alternative have been analyzed. NCDOT
realizes that citizens and business owners in
the vicinity of the bridge want to be informed
of the potential irripacts that this project may
have on their homes and businesses. This
newsletter is part of the public involvement
process to provide this information.
Proposed Replacement Structure and
Preferred Alternative
NCDOT recommends replacing Bridge
No. 220 on the existing alignment with a new
bridge approximately 100 feet in length. Two
alternatives were st«died far the bridge
replacement.
Alternative A replaces the bridge in place.
During construction, traffic will be maintained
with an off-site detour. Alternative B
replaces the bridge in place. During
construction, txaEftc will be maintained by an
on-site detour north of the e:isting bridge.
Alternative A was selected as the preferred
alternative because it minimizes impacts to
area residents and wetlands and has a shorter
construction period. Construction will be
scheduled around the summer months.
Additional Information
Public involvement is an important part of the
planning process. The NCDOT encourages
citizen involvement on transportation
projects, and will consider your suggestions
and address all concerns. Please send your
comments to one of the contacts listed in this
newsletter. Your opinions are important to usl
Project Development Process
Step t
Data Collection
Step 2
Alternative Development
Step 3
)/nvironmental Analysis
Step 4
Selection of Preferred Alternative
Step 5 ~®/1 We are here.
Citizens Informational Newsletter
Step 6
Complete I/nvirorunental Document
Construction & Right-o£ Way Cost
Preliminary Cost Estimate
$685,000
Schedule
Right-of--way in fiscal year 2U06
Construction in fiscal year 2UU7
..~
.r.
If you have transportation questions on other
projects, call our Customer Service Center toll
free at 1-877-DOT-4YOI1, or visit the
NCDOT website at www.ncdot.org.