20072007 Ver 1_Application_20071130

e.. SU1E ^~
-~
~.~~,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
November 27, 2007
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Rd., Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 5
Dear Sir:
i ~i
'/ ~J 1.
~A~r~ry~s~~~ ~q;tKr,>~~ ~ ~~~~
rvR'~~,a'~k~~,.,~,
u, r.~,
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
07200'
SUBJECT: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permits 23, 33, & 12, Section
401 Water Quality Certifications, and Neuse River Riparian Buffer
Authorization. Replacement of Bridge No. 429 on SR 1839 (Leesville
Rd.) over Sycamore Creek in Wake and Durham Counties, North
Carolina. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1839(1), State Project No.
8.2406801, WBS Element 33136.1.1, TIP No. B-3528.
$570.00 Debit from WBS Element 33136.1.1.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 429
on SR 1839 (Leesville Rd.) over Sycamore Creek, on the Wake and Durham County Line. The
project proposes to demolish the existing bridge and replace with a reinforced concrete box-
culvert because the drainage area is less than five square miles. Please see the enclosed copies of
the permit drawings, buffer drawings, utility drawings, design plans, and Pre-Construction
Notification (PCN) for the above-referenced project. The CE was completed for this project in
October 2001 and the Construction Consultation was completed in October 2007, each were
distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies of these documents are available upon request.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: The project is located in sub basin 03-04-02 of the Neuse River Basin in
Wake and Durham Counties. This area is part of Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03020201. The
project area is located within the Central Piedmont ecoregion of North Carolina.
Sycamore Creek and an intermittent stream are located within the project study area and each has
been assigned Stream Index Number 27-33-9 by the North Carolina Department of Water Quality
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] Of 2728 CAPITAL BLVD. SUITE 240
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 919-715-1335 RALEIGH NC 27604
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER FAX: [phone]
RALEIGH NC 27899-1598
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG

(DWQ). Sycamore Creek enters the study area as awell-defined second order perennial stream.
The creek is described as having a substrate consisting primarily of sand, gravel, cobble, and
boulders, flowing southward towards Crabtree Creek and ultimately into the Neuse River.
Within the project study area, Sycamore Creek is approximately 3-6 feet wide and averaging
approximately 1 foot deep. An intermittent, unnamed tributary is also located within the project
study area. This channel is approximately 3 feet wide and deeply incised, the channel has been
dry during numerous site visits. The surface waters in the project study area have been assigned
a Best Usage Classification of B NSW.
No portion of Sycamore Creek, its tributaries, or other surface waters within 1.0 mile of the
project are listed on the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's (NCDWQ) 2006 Final
303(d) List of Impaired Waters.
No waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), nor
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
There is one jurisdictional wetland associated with this project. The wetland is located
approximately 40 feet east of Leesville Road and 30 feet south of Sycamore Creek. The
jurisdictional area is found between the natural stream levee and the base of an upland slope in
the adjacent field.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Regulatory Specialist Eric Alsmeyer visited the study
area on July 2, 2004 and verified the delineation of the wetland and classification of the
intermittent stream. A Notification of Jurisdictional Determination (Action ID. 200021137) was
issued on December 9, 2005. During this investigation it was determined that the intermittent
tributary to Sycamore Creek would not require mitigation.
Permanent Impacts: There will be 321 linear feet of permanent impacts to surface waters
associated with this project. 226 feet (0.06 acre) of Sycamore Creek (Site 1) will be impacted
due to the installation of the culvert, channel improvements, as well as rip rapping along the
stream banks for bank stabilization. The remaining 95 feet (0.01 acre) of impacts occur to the
intermittent stream (Site 2) located in the project study area. This stream will be piped through a
48-inch concrete pipe directly into the box culvert. It was determined during the JD visit, that the
impacts to the intermittent stream will not require mitigation.
Permanent impacts to the jurisdictional wetland (Site 3) located in the study area will be
minimal. Mechanized clearing for a construction easement will disturb less than 0.01 acre.
Temporary Impacts: There will be 127 linear feet (0.04 acres) of temporary jurisdictional impacts
associated with the construction of this project. At Site 1, 111 linear feet (0.03 acres) will be
disturbed as a result of the diversion channel constructed to de-water the channel during culvert
construction. Once construction has been completed, the water will be rerouted to flow through
the culvert, tying into the natural stream channel. The remaining 161inear feet (<0.01 acres) of
impacts directly result from the installation of the 48-inch concrete pipe (Site 2) in the
intermittent stream. These impacts occur at the inlet end of the pipe.
Bridge Demolition: The existing two-lane structure has a timber deck supported by steel I-beams
on concrete abutments, spanning Sycamore Creek. The substructure consists of reinforced
B-3528 Permit Application
2

concrete full height abutments. The existing bridge will be removed without dropping
components into Sycamore Creek. All guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be
followed in addition to Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
Utility Impacts: There will be unavoidable utility impacts associated with this project. Final plan
designs have the culvert lying on a 10-inch PVC sewer line. This line will have to be replaced,
resulting in an open cut of the creek bed. A temporary diversion channel will be utilized to allow
stream flow around in-channel construction. This will account for 0.01 acre of temporary surface
water impacts. An additional 3 feet (trench width) of stream will be temporarily impacted during
the installation of the new 10-inch restrained joint ductile iron sanitary sewer line. Two
additional manholes will be constructed during this project, and one existing manhole will be
modified. All utility construction will be maintained within the construction limits of the culvert,
therefore no permanent linear stream footage or additional buffers will be impacted.
IMPACTS TO THE NEUSE RIVER RIPARIAN BUFFER
This project is located within the Neuse River Basin and is therefore subject to Neuse River
riparian buffer rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). 'The construction of the culvert and new road
alignment will impact buffers along Sycamore Creek. These buffer impacts are classified as
impacts resulting from a road crossing and are allowable with mitigation because over 1501inear
feet of stream are being impacted. Impacts to the buffers of the intermittent stream are
categorized as road impacts other than crossings of streams. During the installation of the 48-
inch RCP, buffers adjacent to the unnamed tributary will be impacted. These impacts are
allowable with mitigation. Zone 1 impacts account for 20,154 square feet, while 10,079 square
feet of Zone 2 will be impacted. There will be 30,233 square feet of mitigable buffer impacts.
Practical Alternatives Analysis
This bridge has been determined to be structurally deficient and functionally obsolete.
Replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations.
Because this bridge needs to be replaced, impacts to the riparian buffers of Sycamore Creek and
the unnamed tributary to Sycamore Creek are unavoidable.
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 three Federally Protected species for Durham County and four
Federally Protected species for Wake County, as of May 10, 2007. Table 1 lists the species and
their federal status.
B-3528 Permit Application
3

Table 1. Federally Protected Species in Wake and Durham Countiec_ N('
Common Name Scientific Name Federal County Biological Habitat
Status Conclusion Present
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus
leucoce halus Delisted Wake/Durham Not Required No
Michaux's

Sumac Rhus michauxii T Wake/Durham No Effect Yes
Smooth Echinacea

Coneflower
laevi ata E Durham No Effect No
Red-cockaded

Wood ecker picoides borealis E Wake No Effect No
Dwarf Alasmidonta

Wed emussel
heterodon E Wake No Effect No
The bald eagle was officially delisted on August 8, 2007 (CFR 50 Part 17). The bald eagle is still
afforded protection under the Golden and Bald Eagle Protection Act. A description of the bald
eagle and its habitat is included in the CE. Suitable habitat for bald eagle nesting/foraging does
not exist within the project study area. Additionally, a review of the Natural Heritage Program
database (last updated in September 2007) revealed no occurrences of this species within 1.0
mile of the project study area. Therefore, the proposed project will not affect the bald eagle.
Suitable habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker and smooth coneflower is not present in the
project study area. A survey for dwarf wedgemussel (DWM) was conducted on September 21,
2000 by NCDOT biologists and yielded no individual DWM. It was determined that suitable
habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel does not exist in this reach of Sycamore Creek. The
sedimentation from upstream development is too severe to support DWM. Therefore, the
biological conclusion of "No Effect" is applicable to the DWM.
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac, in the form of sandy and/or rocky open woods and
roadsides is present in the project area. Surveys for this species were conducted in September of
2000, on June 1, 2004, and most recently by NCDOT biologists, on May 30, 2006. No
individuals of Michaux's sumac were observed during any of these surveys. Furthermore, a
review of the Natural Heritage Program database (last updated September 2007) revealed no
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Based on survey results and the lack of
documented occurrences, a biological conclusion of "No Effect" is warranted for Michaux's
sumac.
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION and 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.
B-3528 Permit Application
4

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 avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization: Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to "Waters of the US". The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all
reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts and to
minimize impacts as part of the project design.
• 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) highlighted in NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for Construction and
Maintenance Activities".
• Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and Bridge Demolition and
Removal will be implemented during the entirety of this project.
• During construction, traffic will utilize an off-site detour, approximately 2.9 miles long.
• The culvert will be buried one-foot below the streambed in order to maintain aquatic habitat
and flow regime.
• As an avoidance and minimization effort, Verizon will install a directional bore for telephone
conduit under Sycamore Creek, avoiding impacts to the stream as well as leaving the existing
buffer intact.
• All utility construction will be maintained within the construction limits of the culvert,
therefore no permanent stream footage or additional buffers will be impacted.
Compensatory Miti ation:
The Jeffreys Warehouse Mitigation Site was originally constructed as on-site mitigation for
R-1030, US 117 from south of NC 581 in Goldsboro to the US 264 Bypass in Wilson. There are
two parcels associated with this mitigation site. The west parcel (approximately 50.2 acres) is
bounded on the northwest by the Little River and on the southeast by the US 117right-of--way.
The east parcel (approximately 37.5 acres) is bounded on the northwest by the US 117right-of-
way, on the northeast by a Wayne County Board of Education school bus maintenance shop, and
on the east and southeast by private property. The site was constructed in 2006 and has
undergone one year of hydrologic and vegetative monitoring.
The site was originally debited for R-1030AA. To offset the unavoidable 2261inear feet of
stream and 30,233 sq. ft. (0.694 acres) of buffer impacts associated with T.I.P B-3528, the
Jeffreys Warehouse Mitigation Site will be debited 4521inear feet of stream restoration and
75,581 sq. ft. (1.735 acres) of Neuse Buffer Restoration. These debits are reflected in the debit
ledger below (Table 2).
B-3528 Permit Application

Table 2. Miti ation Debit Led er
Site name Site TIP HUC River Division County
Basin
Jefferey's
Warehouse R-1030AA 3020201 Neuse 4 Wayne
JALO
Mitigation Type As Built
Quantit Available Debit Debit
R-1030AA B-3528
Stream Restoration 3,731 2,279 1,000 452 226 2:1
Riverine Wetland 3.66 3.66
Restoration
Non-Riverine Wetland 23.02 23.02
Restoration
Riverine Wetland 12.36 12.36
Preservation
Neuse Buffer Restoration 7.266 5.531 1.735
SCHEDULE
The project calls for a let date of March 18, 2008 and a review date of January 29, 2008. This
project has a date of availability of April 29, 2008. It is expected that the contractor will begin
construction shortly after that date.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the impacts from the construction of the box culvert will
be authorized under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23, and impacts sustained during the sewer
line installation will require a Nationwide Permit 12. A Nationwide Permit 33 will also be
required during the construction phase of this project due to the need of dewatering the channel.
We are therefore requesting the issuance of Nationwide Permits 12, 23, and 33 for the impacts
sustained during the construction of this project.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate Section 401 General Water Quality Certifications (WQC)
3699, 3701, and 3688 will be applicable to this project. This project will impact greater than 150
linear feet of stream and impact Neuse Riparian Buffers, written concurrence will be required. In
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and 15A NCAC 2B.0200 we are providing
five copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review. In compliance with Section 143-
215.3D(e) of the NCAC we will provide $570.00 to act as payment for processing the Section
40l permit application.
Buffer Certification: This project has been designed to comply with the Neuse Riparian Buffer
Regulations (15A NCAC 2B.0242). NCDOT requests a Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization
from the Division of Water Quality.
B-3528 Permit Application
6

A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http:l/www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.html. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Ashley Cox at 919-715-5534 or [e-mail].
Sincer y,
~. ,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Cc:
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
w/o attachment (see permits website for attachments)
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, PE., Division Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Theresa Ellerby, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Ms. LeiLani Paugh, NEU
Mr. Randy Griffin, NEU
B-3528 Permit Application
7

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 2 ~ Q 7 2 ~ 0 7
~~~ nny parttcutar ttem is not appttcaote to tats 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: NW 12, 23, & 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina 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: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: Gres;ory J. Thorpe Ph.D Manager
Project Develoyment and Environmental Analysis Branch
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address:. gthome(a,dot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 9

III. Project Information
5.
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: Replace Bridge No. 429 over Sycamore Creek on SR 1839 with a culvert
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3528
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Wake/Durham Nearest Town: Raleigh
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Site is located on SR
1839 (Leesville Roadl on the Durham and Wake County line.
Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line,
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): °N
attach a sheet that
oW
6. Property size (acres): Please refer to attached drawings.
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Sycamore Creek
8. River Basin: Neuse
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
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 local area surrounding the proposed project consists of
gently rolling hills and land use is best described as residential development and natural
forest vegetation.
Page 2 of 9

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: NCDOT
proposes replace Bride No. 429 over Sycamore Creek with a box culvert and realigZn SR
1839. Existing utilities will need to be rerouted to account for the realignment and culvert
construction. Heavy construction equipment such as cranes excavators and dump trucks will
be utilized during construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The existing bride was constructed in 1950 and
received a sufficienc ratin of 23.2 out of a ossible 100 for a new structure durin the last
bride inspection. Based on this rating the bridge is considered functionally obsolete and
structurally deficient. The project proposes to demolish the existing_bridge and replace with
a reinforced concrete box-culvert resulting in safer transportation.
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. Notification of JD was issued on December 9 2005 Site was initially
inspected on July 2, 2004. Action ID• 20002 1 1 3 7
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs 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.
Page 3 of 9

1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: There will be a roximatel 226
linear feet of warm perennial stream will be impacted resulting from a box culvert Another
95 linear feet. UT to Sycamore Creek will be permanently impacted by a pipe culvert Less
than 0.01 acres of wetland will be impacted by mechanized clearing
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and fl~~dina_

Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)

Type of Impact
Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) --o
Located within
100-year
Floodplain
( es/no)
Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet)
Area of
Impact
(acres)
Site 3 Mechanized clearing Scrub/Shrub Yes 30 < 0.01

Total Wetland Impact (acres) < 0.01
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.24 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. To calculate acreage, multi ly len h X width then divide b 43 560
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
(linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres
Site 1 Sycamore Creek Box Culvert Perennial 2.5 - 6 feet 226 0.06
Site 2 UT' Sycamore Creek Concrete Pipe Intermittent 3 feet 95 0.01
Site 1 (TEMP) Sycamore Creek Box Culvert Perennial 2.5 - 6 feet 111 0.03
Site 2 (TEMP) LTT Sycamore Creek Concrete Pipe Intermittent 3 feet 16 < 0.01

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 448 0.11
Page 4 of 9

5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number

(indicate on ma)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
T e of Im act
~ P Type of Waterbody

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

Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Open Water Impact (acres) p
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the nrc,iect~
Stream Impact (acres): 0.11
Wetland Impact (acres): < 0.01
Open Water Im act (acres): NA
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.12
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 448
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.
N/A
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.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
Page 5 of 9

were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
See 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 lineaz 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 similaz
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
http://h2o. enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmQide.html.
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/lineaz 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 sepazate sheet if more space is needed.
Comyensatorv mitigation will be derived from an inventory of assets already in existence
within the same 8-digit cataloQUing unit (Jeffereys Warehouse)
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 aze will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
Page 6 of 9

[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)
1. 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 ^
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
(Meuse), 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 ^
Page 7 of 9

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* Im act
s uare feet
~ )
Multiplier
Required
Miti ation
1 20,154 3 60,462
2 10,079 1.5 15,118
Total 30,233 75,580
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
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
Restoratibn Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified within 15A NCAC 2B
.0242 or .0244, or .0260. Mitigation will be provided by NCDOT utilizing surplus credits from
the Jeffereys Wazehouse mitigation project located in HUC 03020201
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.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-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 neazby 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
Page 8 of 9

i a
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).

Applica~t/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

0
i
E
0
v
0
0
3
a
c a o
H m
~ S r
~~'
NCB®~C

~~~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAgE /DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT:3313611 (B-8528)
BRIDGE NO. X129 OVER
SYCAMORE CREEg
ON SR 1839
SHEET 1 OF l0 7 / 16/ 07
N~Ig7C~I ~A]f~~]LdNA

~~~~ ~~~
I ~ 1906 / ~ ~i ~ ~, ',\ V 1900 ~ ~~
\ ~- J/ _ /
-~~- /- / ^d7 198I l ~
-~KEip`V~ n -~~~ / ~ a 9 ~ ,~~ l Re R
L~ ;NAM pU -:~~~ ~~ _ e -- --
~ ~ i839
1~ ~ 18291
U " ~ /~~ 54
~~ _',~ ~ yr-- -- t ~ - -
~~ /~ j _ ~ _
~ _ ~ ~ / _
z
~~ _-~ _
0~~ ~ _ "~ y ~o ~ ~'~
~ lei ~ ~~ ~~ .~ E -f
ti -~ Win.. ~~~y l2I' ~ r~~ ~'9 ~O ~~~ 0 1647 ~~
~ VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
~~~~
NCI®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAKE/ DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT:33136.1.1 (B-3528)
BRIDGE NO. X29 OVER
G ~ I SYCAMORE CREEK
ON SR 1839
SHEET 2 OF -O 7/16/07

~~~~~N~ ~~~~N~
~4JL(}~ WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES PERMANENT
SURFACE WATER IMPACT
® DENOTES PERMANENT
SURFACE WATER IMPACT
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
SURFACE WATER IMPACT
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
• .
• CLEARING
-~ ~ FLOW DIRECTION
TB
'-1- TOP OF BANK
WE EDGE OF WATER
- - ~ -PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- - ~ - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-~ PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - -NATURAL GROUND
- P~ - PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
W SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE

~~~
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE

LEVEL SPREADER (L S)
-TOE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE ~ GRASS SWALE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
---~------ WATER SURFACE
X XXX X X LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
COIR FIBER ROLLS
~~
~Q
~n
NCB®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAKE/DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 33136.1.1 (B-35Y8)
BRIDGE NO. X29 OVER
SYCAMORE CREE[
ON SR 1839
SHEET 3 OF 10
7/16/

SUMMARY OF AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
E
0
0
C
O
a
a
~ao
~a;
TRACT N0. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS SITE N0.
O2 LEESVILLE HOLLOW. LLC 7474 CREEDMOOR RD.
RALEIGH. NC 27613 SITE I
O3 ZINA CHRISTIAN CENTER INC. P.O. BOX 25613
RALEIGH. NC 27611 SITE I AND 2
O4 ZINA CHRIASTIAN CENTER INC. P.O. BOX 25613
RALEIGH. NC 27611 SITE 2
O5 ALMA C. SORRELL 7603 LEESVILLE RD.
DURHAM. NC 27703 SITE I

GLI

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPA TS URFACE 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 -L- 17+66 2 @ 11' x 9' RCBC --- -- --- --- -- 0.06 0.03 226 111 ---
"2 -L- 17+42 TO 18+24 as" RCP -- --- --- --- --- 0.01 < 0.01 95 16 ---
3 -L- 17+g1 RT < 0.01

TOTALS: < 0.01 0.07 0.03 321 127
*' Intermittent Stream - No Mitigation Required
Perennial & Intermittent Total -Mitigation Req'd: 226 ft
Intermittent Total -Not Requiring Mitigation: 95 k
Revised 31J 1/OS -

REC'E~~E~
JUL 26 2007
OIV1ElON OF HI~~IiVAYS
PDEA-OffICE OF i~i;TliRl~L ENVIRONMENT
s
~m
~'~.._ ~
~, ! `i~ 3 ' -' ' 1905 ~~_ ;-____,_ \s ' ~'~ 1901 ~ 184
~~~ ~ END .f~4 JECT `~'~~` ~ ~ `' -. ~-~ -
0
\ `` 1906 ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~ '~ 1900
~ i ~~ ` ~ ~; ~~ 90'3 ~, ~ ~ ; ~-``- -~
o ~. i--- ,.-- 'd 1981 _'''_ ~
_; ' .
~'~ ~ ~ tea' ~
~_ r e - ~----- - ,.
~. k.: -~
~~ ,' a i~
\_^ , ~J a1 i OU~ ~/~ ~ ~~~~ 198 ee~` -f . ~ `~.
_ __ 1839 / ~
_~ i ~-,~
~v'~ i ~
~I ~~ /' U ~`Z /
'~~
'. ~-
\ _,
-- ~ i r
,,\ t`g 1 J ~ ~ ,~
t' _ ~~- .~~~ 1845 •`°
~1 ~ ~ ~ _ ~~
LIMIT, o ~ i n~ r
~,
\~ i
{~~~ ~ ~ `~
~~ ~ ~~
S ~~
647
~~~~
~~
THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN THE
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY OF RALEIGH
NOT TO SCALE
NEUSE RIVER BUFFER
~~~~~~~~
~~~~
N. C. DEPT. ®F TRANSP®RTATI®N
DIVISI®N ®F HIGHWAYS
WAgE.~ DURHAM C®UNTY
PR®JECT: 33136.1.1 (B-3528)
BRIDGE N®. X29
®VER SYCAM®RE CREEB
®N SR 1839
SHEET 1 ®F (0 7 % 16 % 09

ARID
NAB 83
c~i-r r
NOT TO SCALE
NEUSE RIVER BUFFER

l°~~~~
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSP®RTATI®N
DIVISI®N OF HIGHWAYS
WAgE ~ DURHAM C®UNTY
PROJECT: 33136.1.1 (B-3528)
a
s
~<
SHEET 2 OF 6 7 ~ 16 ~ 07
BRIDGE N®. X29
®VER SYCAM®RE CREEg
®N SR 1839

~~~~°~~ ~,~~~~~ I
-1~JL8-~- WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
WETLAND
L PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE I PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
~ (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
\
~ ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2 EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
~
MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE I SINGLE TREE
\\ MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
- BZ - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE

- BZI - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 1
30 ft (9.2m) ~ ROOTWAD
- BZ2 - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 2
20 f t (6.1m) RIP RAP

-~ -~ FLOW DIRECTION

~~ TOP OF BANK ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
WE 5
OR PARCEL NUMBER
EDGE OF WATER IF AVAILABLE
- ~ - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
- F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-~ PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
- - N~- -NATURAL GROUND
- rl-- - f'PJf'EPTY LINE

- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE ~ GRASS SWALE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
----~-~---- - WATER SURFACE N. C. DE1~T. ®F TRANSF®RT.~'I'I®N
x IVE STAKES DIVISI®N ®F ~IIGI~W~YS
X X
X X L
W~I~E% DURI~I.~lbt C®UNTY
BOULDER
P
JE
3
R®
CT:331
6.1.1 (B-3528)
~~ COIR FIBER ROLLS BRIDGE N®. X29
®VER SYCAI~I®RE CREED
®N SR 1839
SKEET 3 ®F 6 7 % 16 % 09
s
00

SUMMARY OF AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
TRACT N0. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS SITE NO.
O2 LEESVILLE HOLLOW. LLC 7474 CREEDMOOR RD.
RALEIGH. NC 276!3 SITE I
O3 ZINA CHRISTIAN CENTER INC. P.O. BOX 25613
RALEIGH. NC 27611 SITE I & 2
O4 ZINA CHRIASTIAN CENTER INC. P.O. BOX 25613
RALEIGH. NC 27611 SITE 1 & 2
5O ALMA C. SORRELL 7603 LEESVILLE RD.
DURHAM. NC 27703 SITE I & 2

GLI
~a
0

BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACT BUFFER
TYPE ALLOWABLE MITIGABLE REPLACEMENT

SITE NO. STRUCTURE SIZE /
TYPE STATION
(FROM/TO) ROAD
CROSSING
BRIDGE PARALLEL
IMPACT ZONE 1
(ftZ) ZONE 2
(ft2) TOTAL
(ftZ) ZONE 1
(ft2) ZONE 2
(ftZ) TOTAL
(ftZ) ZONE 1
(ft2) ZONE 2
(ftZ)
1 2 11' x 9' RCBC -L- 14+66 - 19+47 X 20154 10079 30233

TOTAL: 0 0 0 20154 10079 30233

~' RO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
a Consulting Engineers
mu soave vR, sur1E rn wsce.n.c:fros
LATERAL SWALEDITCH W/ROCK CHECK
5
LOCATIONS
iEET ALIGN STATION - STATIOIN SIDE REMARKS
4 -L- 18+26 - 20+00 LT II' SPACING
2:1 Max
Fill Slopes Variable
See X-Sections
& Note
I'/FT
-_..
3,~
I.0 ft Min
5'
1~1i ~
\~ ~ j/
~-- ~--J
PSRM~/
(Permanent Soll
Reinforcement Mat)
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
Rock Check Spacln
-les From II fit - 5C
See Plans & Note
Top of Swale Bank
Class I R
(Embec
Top of Ditch Bank
REFERENCE N0. SHEE7 Nn.
-3528 2-B
NWUlTU16
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USt POP CON9TPULTION
Boulders
'LAN VIEW
JOT TO SCALE

' //
/ I.0 f
'
~~~
~~
0
5 ft
--~ l
1 J _- 1~ _. .
NOTE:
--- --~}/ ~ _
1.5 ft BOULDERS SHOULD BE ANGULAR AND OBLONG WITH
I
~
J\----~ APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS OF 0.6m x O.45m x 0.45m
. - _
-
J, 12' x I.5' x I.5`). ROCK SHOULD FIT TIGHTLY TOGETHER
'/\ ~~ WITH MINIMAL VOIDS. STAGGER BOULDER JOINTS.
m f _-~`- ~'~ 5 ft
Boulders
ROCK CHECK SPACING IS DEPENDENT ON DITCH
m GRADES AT I'OROP INTERVALS OR SLOPE CONTROL.
~
GLI
r Filter Fabric DITCH WIDTHS VARY. WIDEN TO EXTENT PRACTICAL
° WITHIN R/W LIMITS. SEE X-SECTIONS.
Class I Rip Rap
Bottom of Ditch fEmbeddedl N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
m w/ PSRM DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROFILE
m WA%E/DURHAM COUNTY
° NOT TO SCALE
PR07ECT:33136.11 (B-3528)
. BRIDGE N0.,Y9
f OVER SYCAMORE CREEK
d ON SR 1839
_~
~
SHEET 6 OF 10 7/16/07
f'

,,
zl
i;
r
Q
GRASSED SNAL~EN~~fALSE CUf
:not ro sow,
A
I I ~~ ~
rwvd
•.,,.,a Wn. D = Ift.
r = 2' Wn.
FROM STA. 20+50 TO STA. 2N50 LT.
FROM STA. 22+50 TO STA 21+00 LT.
BEGIN PROJECT B~528
-L- POC STA 10+00
\\\
3\
~. `~
~:~ `
\\`\
~`
~\
" eke ~~
~.`~
V
IgSVL1E FOREST
ga
~~~
•~~
f •
a

Gass 1' RP RAP r/FF IS' THICK
_ (iYP.I
LO' KEY
rtrn~
B V BAS Y
0-T' -I '
EST DDE 160 CY COW FlBER MATTNG
EST 105 TONS CLASS 'Y AN' AAP EST 60 SY
EST ITO sY FF OUTLET CHANNH.
(LOOKWG DONNSTREAMI
NOTE:PoP RAP SHALL NOT BE PLACED W STREAM BED.
BENCH HEIGHT IS I FT NRH BENCH SRX: SLOPE OF 3:1.
WATER
P aASS B'RP RAP
\ PROTECTKIN
az,
~ ~'`
'~ SITE 1
~ ..~ ~ 1~,:.n
'~ 3 ..
~
`. \ v.
~
`.
LN G MALL
~_~ /U ~E
~
Y`~-
- - F ~ °?~ ~
1.
- ~ ~~
,
/ .
~„\

n, _~ ~.
_ _ c.--_ -_- ~_ i ~ .,
__ ----
_ o- ='

BETTY A. BIMI
e
.,
Ifs s~~/
~ - ,
~ /
r r ~:

1
°~ i 6
I I i, ~'
III ~~ IKi
III I 'IF
I I R
s ~~ ~; ;~
~_ o~
y20 SY OF
PSRM
_ ~ `a
/ __ ~~ _
_~
TIE ROAONAY DITCH
TO E%ISTNG SHALE lFE5N1E IIOLLOLI, U,C
SPECIALDL~'IFryXC-BASE DITCH
I x"t ro sowl
~ D d ~.
B Wn. G=IFt.
B: 2 Ft.
F<oM srA. 20+0o ro srA. m+so u
O /'~ \
~ k k
-~ ~ 3
~~ ~ k~
PERMANENT SURFACE -~
WATER IMPACT
LEESVElE NMJ.Ow, LLC
,,.,
~~
L 100 0
D
50 100
D SCALE:I"= 100' HORIZ.
~ i~
1~ _~
-~-=;;
SITE 3
MECHANIZED CLEARING
< 0.01 AC
LEGEND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
® SURFACE WATER IMPACT
DENOTES PERMANENT
® SURFACE WATER IMPACT
.... DENOTES MECHANIZED
•«' •~• CLEARING

IY~' GR~O SPECIAL~Ep SwuE ~ ~ Ft• Fmr1o
<Not to soAM T of lk:r+ Oae. B' Po
8 1 ,~ RIOM srA. n+IS To srA. le+ss Lr.
3 D
O
ZMA CNRISIIAN Lt1TIBt
60 lF ounET CHANNEL
IMPROVEMENTS
SEE DETML
r'
1f
% I3~ ~2
~.
~ * ~ ~
` * ~
~~_
~~~g~~A ~Y7y 6 ~y~L~vV~~y a7
~1LeC~11V ~S' ~lli YY
Wa~1Ft.
FIGM srA. m+SO ro STA. u+so u.
oFROM srA. 2~+0o ro SFA. ss+00 u.
W r uTERAI BASE DrtGX
N/ROCK aIEQ(S
O ~ EST 21 TONS HEADER/FOOTER ROCK 4
~ EST Q TONS CLASS IRP RAP
EST 318 SY PSRM ZIIA CIPoSTIAA CFNIER
EST 150 CY ODE
a A4 SEE OETAE SHEET 2-B
~ ~ M1 ~
y°j et n
~? ~* ki
~ n ~~ ~ ~
1 ~ 1F~ N m

- i
~. ,.rt . ~~,..
~- - 5~r~
BUILT 81YERT Y _ ~ ~'
% '
-~~ ~~~ rro
~~-____
I
E r ~'
,F 1 ~, 60'
~ A~`/ ~\\ ~ ~ `~
-~ ~ /~~ .
~~~~~ ~,
_~
a RO & ASSOCIATES, P,C.
Cousuldng Engineers
m ~u• n.un" aa.uaa,,,cnW,
EHGINEBt
ENGINES
T~E'PROTfLTKm
i xot fo sca,:
xahra\~)I_~1~y~~sao.
~•~"~ d
TEMPORARY Sl
~((-TER IMPAS•Y
EXIST. BPoDGE
TEMPORAR~;,SURFACE
WATER IMPACT
O('Ry \
4,y
'\ c~G
Cp, '~Ty
~\e
\\ \
\\~\
~, EST OOE 160 CY
I PRELIMINf~RY PLANS
0o xor us" "~ ca+sraurnav
END PROJECT B-3528
-L- POT STA 25+00
SSED ~ t ALMA ~~ GRASSED SMA
SEE OETAE E
~ GRASSED SHALE V/
A~ ~ '~ GRASSED SHALE FALSE CUT
SEE DETAB. E SEE OETAL A
~~ a ~ omr nn _
< ,: _--__r ro-___
J_~-~___-__- _-

' %.
", ~p£~.
,.- f
- ---rro--_-
KEMOYE .~ _ , - -, ISM _ - - - _~ _
' . ~~ ~~ V
TEi ROAOYAY GRASSED SHALE
TO EgSTMC DRC11
O v.-.. ~ O
ALMA G SOAREII ~ ~, _ ALMA C. SORRELL
~,,
LIc bl
,~_ r

~'..v ~
~n ~a
BENCH VARIES BAS VAPoES
COW FlBER MATTING COIR FRIER MATTNG
TO TOP OF BANK INLET CHANNEL aTTOS SY eANK
EST 120 ST O.OOKWG DONNSTREAIU
NOTE: PoP RAP SHALL NOT BE PLACED W STREAM BED.
BENCH HEIGHT IS I FT NITH BENCH SRE SLOPE Of 3:L
CHANNEL
M SEE OETAL .
N~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAgE/DURHAM COUNTY
PROTECT: 33136.L1 (8-3528)
BRIDGE N0.~29 OVER
SYCAMORE CREEg
ON SR 1839

",
r
GRASSED swu~E Iwi`i AFUSE cuT
L.~txot~m sow:
I I ~~ ~
Mahrd
p,~ Wn.O = IFt.
w•YMIn
FROM STA 20+50 TO STA 8+50 LT.
FROM STA 22+50 TO STA 24M0 LT.
BEGIN PROJECT B~528
-L- POC STA. 10+00
sPEau~ASE DrrcH
fN°t to Sort Fq}
6fwa D °~ 9°p~
B Nln Da I Ft.
~2Ft.
FAOM STA 20+00 TO SfA 20+50 LT
a RO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Consulting Engineers
ru rau na,am ar ~raancr>r„
Ir
C G~O SPECIAL~Ep SHALE
iAOt to s°dr
Nq0 ~ ~
T~ION
c x°r t° scaei
n~va~~~~~=~,~~Fl~~
°'"'° e
~ LS Ft. F~1o
n~oxcT
n701~FFA
PR~EN~MI~N~I~Y~P~ANS
8
3 ° END PROJECT 8528
~ Nr4 m I Ft.
~-- ~` \\ ~ ~ ~++~ m su ss+aSO° `i: -L- POT STA. 25+00
~ : oo m~ f
i-r ~ ~ ~ O W 2'LATERAL BASE DITCH
~,.' <~~, • , wrnoa aIEaLS
j• `'~ ~ 're ~ gitlSTWI CENTER p ~ EST 21 TONS HEADEA/FOOTER ROCK O - ~~ \r2~ `
\. / ~ . \ . EST a TONS CLASS I AIP RAP _ _
"~,~ ~-p0~ . ~ '~ ~ ~ Esr 34B sY PSRFI s au cl~u4.senat-- ~ ~ ~
~, \' Eo ~ ourLEr cxaNNEL ~ Esr Iso ~ DDE
:.~ ~~ ~ : ~ ~/ ~ ~ ~ ^ r. `.. A ~A~EIAENTS h ~E~ET~ SHEEI'~2-8 i- :"~ _ ~
,r ~
~ ~~ ~ , PO RY cuss rlaP RAP. ^m -.z~-- x i ,
\\i ~. \ 'I z.. \ SUR ~ ON BALKS UNNC ~„t2 ~ ~3 - ti ,.-- '\ ,.,, ~ ~'" ~~
~ _"~b` y ~-- `' ~ WATE IMt~ anss 'e' de RwP ,°, ,c- yoF- ze, ~ _ - --<z°- ~ ,, ~. _ .
`~' ~ ~ ~ee ~ ~~ :. ~ ~ `;: PRO1ECTwN ~ ~ ~ ~ T~ ~PROrECraH , ,~ ~ ~~ _.,~ ~~ ~~~,°~~y~ ~ ~
_.., ~ ~ al ~ ~.~ s ~'~ RAP- - ~ ~ ,~~ - / >< I~
: ~,
.:~" r ~ ., ~ `~ ' ~ SITE :~ ""+~9: _~;2 ~'~}_4,5----~r--~.~u,. ~m ,ry-~ ~--. ~,~,;" ~
_ / _
,
1 ;:. J
~ ~ ~.~ `_` _'"~,`;;~. ~ ~ e` e~+r 7n ~.` 418 ~~ ~ ~" ~ /. ~- ~
t. ~
;,
,,
~ ,,, ~ , , _
:
-see-.._ ~, I .
., ~. .. _.. `_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'Y~ X44 J'
\ ~ . ~ '/ 111 r Y / ~~b` k*/ \~ ~?' ~ ha{'... \ ~ °\ .. .
~.
~_
~' \ _ m r
~ ~ / . / .`.~€ ~ .LLD. `"'~Y.. ~ ~etb^ f ~ `~~y JtQ ~\ 41r,, ~
r
.
r
- ~~ 4 \ ~'
a , _
a
~,
~,.
t: ;~t'~ ~ :, _ ~ A y ~ -,
y~ _
-~
_,
J ,
., ~ ~ :~.
- ~ -+-_-- 4 , µ n
i ~ ,~
!/
-_ , _. ~utECF~ANIZED CLEI~RING
r ~ ~ ~ ;
~.~ ~y. ~ C~©bIAC ~ , ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~.,.-,,~
~~ \
m >`( ~y ~
TDE ~ 'v r ~ :'STA-r~Me ..SX fF TE RY'$UR CE ~ t4 "~:.
~ ~ . ' . ~r ~.. SELL ,, x,.511
. ~
~ '' ,
-
6.94 LT TER IMPA
._ _~ .'
~ °
,~
r. ~ ~
., /
~
B~ 5111~LE
w/
A
~
~
,..
,
A
, Ap. , .} ~ ~ Sw
LE
ALE ~~ A =
M
. ...
, /

n
_
..
f ~ e

~ ~ p/1I

~
...
~ ~

r
'

4
- ~~~ .- . - . ~f f0
..
~~ ..E.-

~ -.
~~

f --
-~
~

~
~
.w
ra> ~ .,; ~ -.~ ,-
. ~. ._.
,..~.

_ `'~
~~
g / ~ ~ ~ ,=~ r Ian ~o - _ - rv --~. -~ _ _~~Y c' - 4 ~'' _ Y'` "' _ _ _ ~ - _ -1 r$,r = -
(: ,
6 ~r "~, /, +,~ /r r r~ ~ / s .Z Fdl ~" y~ ~_~~ _ ,r~ .~-._ _ _ ~ _a--~ ~ REMOVE ~ l' .~-_ L."~ S! _
~. _
d .r- t FLT r
, .:
L ,,~ ' ~~'. ~ 5" /,~`~ . • .. j _ `~- _ \` ~ ~ L -~ _ _ ___ ~=p-N11ERr Y~r f /.C _ 'T._.~..r--- -~
..
~_. .
... _ _ i
'' S
1 ~iS ., ~ ,/ ~ ,1~~. _ a ~~. . ~~r_ ~~ 'K` _-._. ~ .:i' a ; ;
.. .
~ Y.
1 •.`. ~ ,:r i' .:: /~ ! ',.rhW r, :. -'_ g . \ ~... ~ SLL ^="~ :~~..;~t0".~_ y~'r''~lr°~ i .. '
~ ~~, ~ ~ / ; / (~ G ~ .) 2~ ~ TO E>OSrNO~SiYAL~I$SV1\iE Nxl .ttC~ Fusf ._ ~ - - -- ` ~
/ ,, ,.
,~
_ _
I
i J.h~ i~ ~ // ;. , ., • .. ~ '' ..t. , m ..~ ~ ' ~ r \ ~~ ROADMAI~ ~ SSED'SwAtEr
~~ti4 '~~ ~' .I~ ~,, ~'%: ~srb ~~~ ~ TDE 4~g,. s. ,~ ,a~ D~
. ,,, ,. ~.
~ , ,, ' ~ '" i.',, . ~o!~; ' ,~+ ') p I ~ . 1 3 ~`--` _ i * '•ElO~.BRIIIGE ~ ` \ .l _,
E . \ _ 4ATp BENTS' \ r
.' / 1
1
° ~ ~ ~ fi~ J ~i a. . ~ `' ~ - " 4L5-~' .f / ~ ~ h< kl ~ ~ , Q~ \ ~ -
5
i
y
J ,.
.
w
11 ry
{:.,~f ~ ~ ~ WA ER IMPS ALMA~sr~u .I~, wu asawet
! / ~~ , ;/~` ; : ;~~,' , ~~~ ~ ~'. ~ ~ PERFJANENT SURFACE ~ I < < ~ ~ ,~ ~ t~ ~.. ~-
-yi~~ ~~ ' ~'~ -~;~;~ ~ WATER IhiP C7 ~ ~~"` "` ;. ~ I ~~ x ~, :~~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ .~,
~, ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ N ` ~ ~ f ,,,°

/

~
~ l1x ,
~ - -

- ~. ~~

,,
c, ~. ~
~~
~ Lf
~
A

"¢ MAL~
_. -
.. ,. ~b.
_. .
OAES' T~
. ' ': ~ ~ ~ ~% a ~ ~' ~ L-
~ ,. _
/ . ,~: r N~ ;. ~ ~ _•
/
,.~
4
~- ~ f .
F Z .rte'
+T _.

0
I
~' ~~"/'; (~,~ ; ~~~IE~ ~9 ~ ANA ~ ~, , ~~,
4 r ~ ///
M / /
v /
,'
~, ; ,~~
i~ J.'. 0
_ .. ,
-,
m ,
v .
i
50 100
°~ SCALE: I"= 100' HORIZ.
Qx
CLASS 1'RP RAP v/FF LS'rIHCK
_ (TYP.1
I.0' KEY
ITYPJ
V I S VA
.i ,
EST DDE Ni0 CY CONt FIBER NATTNG
Esr las TONS aASS r RIP RAP Esr Go n
EST 170 SY FF O<ITLET CHANNH.
d00KMG DOMNSTREAMI
NOTE AIP RAP SHALL NOT EIE PLACED N STREAM BED.
BFNCH HEIGHT Is I FT NRH BENCH SIDE SLOPE OF 3:1.
]~]L~N V~]E~V ~
EST oDE 160 CY
~ --- ~ ~~
BENCH VA)1E5 9A5 VAPoES
COE2 FBER MATTNG COR FN3ER MATTING
TO TOP aF BAN( INLET CHANNEL ETSOrTOP SY BANK
EST 120 SY (LOOKING DOwNSTAEAW
NOTE RIP AAP SMALL NOT BE PLACED IN STREAM BED.
BENCH I~GHT IS I FT MRN BENCH SDE SLOPE OF 7d.
N~~®7C
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAgE/DURHAM COUNTY
PR07ECT:33136.1d (B-3548)
BRIDGE N0.~29 OVER
SYCAMORE CREE%
ON SR 1839

/a Ito & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Cenaulting Engineers
Lw aauie uL. uma vw Au+~cA. v.c nca
Nm eweae
GLI
ENGINEER ~ ENGINHR
PRELIMINARY PLANS
OD \OT l'SE FO [b\'SiAL'Cf10\
420 420
EXISTING LEFT PROPOSED ~---fE STA. 17+66 -L- EXIST. 100 YR. PROP. 50 YR.
TOP OF BANK ROADWAY PROPOSED 2 ~ II' x 9' RCBC ELEV. = 408.1 ELEV. = 407.6
EXISTING RIGHT SECTION I GP ELEV. = 412.76 EXIST. 50 YR.
PROP,100 YR.
TOP OF BANK MAX 2:1 I SKEW = 30 MAX 2:1 ELEV. = 407.8 ELEV. - 408.0
410 !NORMAL) I (NORMAL) 410
I
NWS = 400.2
400 ~`+~~_r~/-- ~. r_~ _______ ~____ _`-__-:+_ ___= __ -~~~~..._---~-~'-_~ -
1.12% 400
~~ \~~/ ~ ELEV. = 397.62
STA. - -33 PROPOSED INLET EXISTING
PROPOSED OUTLET 48' RCP ELEV. = 398.63 STREAM
390 ELEV. = 397.01 INV EL =398.0 (BURIED I FT.I BED 390
(BURIED I FT.)
!~~
300 250 200 150 100 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
SCALE:
1"= 50' HORIZONTAL
1 "= 10' VERTICAL
PR®FILE ,~L®NG STRUCTURE
SITE 1
NCB®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WA%E/DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT:33136.1.1 (B-3528)
BRIDGE N0.429 OVER
SYCAMORE CREE%
ON SR 1839
JO

M 1
B,N.'1 EL -40498'
RR SPIK£ SET IN 14'PINE
92'LT OF -BL- STA 4+84
lore' Lr of -L- sTA ro+Op
CULVERT HYDRAULIC DATA
450 DESIGN DVSCNARGE _ LIDO CFS
DESIGN FREaIEHGY - 50 YRS
DES~111 FM' ELEVATION =4076 fT
BASE L~SCHAAGE = rBOD cr:s
440 BASE fREDUL:WC,' = roo rRs
BASE IM+ ELEVATION = 4Q9D Ff
Pl = 12H5
00 OVERTOPPING LYSfx1ARGE = P8O0+ C1'S
.
~ ~ _ ~'
430 ~ $ OVERTOPPING FREOOENGY = 5OOf YRS
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = MI6 FT
~
~~ K=3P
x i~ ~ ~'~~
Y
420 ~ ~W ~ ~
~ flp,~188X 1-~73pp~
+»~x
410 ~
Pi= n~-oO110
K =~
t)S - 5O eld-
^~~
- - ~ •~ ~ f Jy,~ +x{,51
~
•~
400 ~~...._.,~...,~. ~
.. _ 2 0 R• x 7 RCBC x/
390 ~ ~~E ~ ~" ~ ' -
0
. o .
0
NWS = 400.2 = •'
M ~
380
10 11 12
_ 13
_ 14 15 16 17 18
B~l.'3 EL = 43413'
RR SPIKE SET IN TWIN POPLAR 17'& 8'
132'LT OF -BL- STA 21+04
146'LT OF -L- STA 26+03

PJ+50
O0
~ ~~
~~
450 ,
~ ~
,.....
. ~~ ° ~~
. W ~W
K=6J
PROPOSED GRADE ~ _ ~ ~ ,~.~'~'
..440... / ~
~ ~''
~+ 3X
~

.
'~~
-~
f+ ..~--~

= .430.
--
.-

s _
i ~t --
z ,.
9

- ~ i U

c ~
b
^
E 420 EXISTING GROUND `

a
t W
_
m
n
.410

s
E .400.

a.~
J' .340..
21
_LE~EN~
DENOTES PERMANENT
® SURFACE WATER IMPACT
22
430
420
410
400
390
380
450
440
430.
420
410.
~~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAKE/DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 33136.1.1 1B-35281
BRIDGE NO.A29 OVER
SYCAMORE CREEK
ON SR 1839
22 23 24 25 26
&u. •2 EL ~ 404.58'
RR SPIRE SET 1N !3'CHERRY
rr7•Lr of -ec- sra r2+n
84'LT Of -L- STA I7+p
~~
/a KO & ASSOCIATES, I.C. PAGIECI REFERBJCE N0. SHEET
8-3528
Consulting Engineers ROADWAY DESIGN HrDAAUUCs
nu wwn oc.sule nw xuncx.ncnea ENGINEER ENGINEER
IHW 65L60f6
PRELIMINA Y PLANS
~a smr ise ron coss7urcias
PERMANENT SURFACE
WATER IMPACT
r--PROPOSED GRADE
`~~,

EXISTING GROUND
19 20

r ~
GRASSED SWA~AALSE CUT
Ixar ro sm.l
r n
~g slot'.
~r Nln ° = IFt.
r.rwm.
fROM STA 20+50 TO STA 71+50 LT.
FROM STA 22+50 TO STA 24+00 LT.
CLASS 1'RP AAP v/FF LS'THM2(
_ RYP.I
I.a AEY
fTYP.I
YA A V
o- ' r- '
EST DDE Ni0 CY COR F~ER MATTBA;
EST 105 TONS CLASS 1' PoP AAP EST 60 SY
EST 170 SY FF OUTLET CHANNEL
aooKl+c oOWNSTHEAMI
NOTE: AP AAP SHALL NOT BE PLACED W STREAM BED.
BENCH HEIGMIi IS I FT MRH BENCH SIDE SLOPE OF 3:1.
/ ,~
\\~ ~ CLASS TRIP RAP
~ ~~ \ ~ M BANKS ONLY
~ ~ ~ ~ CLASS 'B' AP RAP
' ~ ~~ ''\ PAOTECTKWI
`\` \\\~ ~\ '~( K1
.~ w~
•' ~~ ~~
~ •
~~~ .~ 7
~DD7 ~ .8~6 ~ T
O ~~. tK: WAL
i ~.
~1eD15 ~, F -
LEFSMLLE FOR6T /~ ~ -
~ M~ 4TL
_ ~ __ _
~'1~..
~ 1C ~ =_ $ ~' IEEA'~ o
~F14 i ~ t4f1 sr vet _~rFO___~_ ~ ~.
/ / / ~ r' I Atli TOW s B'P(g5 _ ~ -
/ ' v~Hl -rte _~
~/// / ~ ~ _`_ / _ it
5 TE ROADWAY DITCH
~ /Qr ` ~ ~ i la I Sro~cal~ pau°Fw To E~51NG SHALE LffSYLLE HDLLOWFLLC
/~ D
/ ~ ~ S1gNE
. ~' II ICI
~ I ~I s
~ .I ~~
1 ~ .~
1ff54L1E Igl1AWFLLC I ~1 ~_
P _ __
G A.BDMI / A ~~~ tEaxrp Sfpq DT ~~ 7
~ END NDT 'PVC / ~ 70•C8C ~` ~ ~_
o LOGTED ~~- $
9 I ~ ~
E ~•9 p'P~ ~
a ENO Nor LocATFn
~ I IfI
~~
s + /~ GRASS SWALE
m J ~
ak, ~ : •• • 1 ~ BEGIN PROJECT 8528 n u ,~,°".
oO BA ah
~ ~ I, Ir. 5 SLOPES ~•OB ff / tt
i ~/9 r '
a
a 100 0 ~~~~~~ ~I~C1E ~
®' MILAN VI~~
° JO 100
°~ SCALE: I'= 100' HORIZ.
SPEqu GTEHACBASE ORCH
cxe9 to soael
aome D 9eA.
B MhO=IFt.
2 Ft.
ROM STA 20+00 TO STA 20+SD LT.
Mr tt/tt
O !
21111 4F6TIAN C]li1R
60 LF OUTLET CNANN•1
RPHOVEMEMS
SEE DETAL
TOE PROTEC710N
t rCLASS B'HP HAP
SEE DETAL D „ a~

f
CTHEA END ~ B'S .. .• ~~~
DNINOrN TFEL. -e- - _.__~_ ~~~
_ BLItY NVERT P / ~ C
'4 ~~
~--_~
i ~:.
,~
ly A M\`_ n
1
~-*~_ "
-~
~--~
A ~.
VI /
L)
-~ a EY6T B/M _ . -
_ ~~ -t F0~ ~ - - _ ~ -
u tfD---- ------ ~--- ABAMII
p1p ~ --" ---~- -- TO U57
- SR 1979 - lfEA'Alf A01D 27II'85T
_- -_ _~-_ Fo-_---
-~' 1 ~ ~ 1
_ r F =~ _ ~ ip{=N/el a ~ ~ o
\ d~ I I
~ ,.
TO RDAOrAr~CGRA~SSFD SHALE ~ ~~
MI\ P ~ ~ 5
4 1 `1S/fi
f ~ Gs~
DT ~ €~
,k 1 s4a ~ 60' CHANIEL
~~~~pp~~- sEE DETu
M e 'F P GOES 9AICHT THAU MANiOLE
YNEAiS
F A/ o
\ + `~H4
Yi ~;y,
~~ ~ c~HT`
9 llf ~
`~~ ss;r ~ 9E~jD \
~_` ~~ /~ \
~ f
~~~ \
-82,x- ~~ - z01E I
-~ z- RFARWI BIFFFA ~ ZOiE 2
MITiGABLE IMPACTS ZONE 1
® MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
P
IAT
S
C ~ A
N
.
,
.
a KO & ASSOC
E 8--3528
4
Caueulting Eugiueere
re crave m.eunr an u:notLNCSnoe ~, sxrtr ~
Oml i/eN ROADWAY OBSNeNI NYDAAWCS
ENGWB3 ENIGIN~
T~ION
l
51ow
~\\?I PRBEL~M eN Rc« s uc¢mNNS
=i~~~~
a
a Ls Ft. Fo>»
SPECIAL SHALE
Ixot to snow T of user= acre a'
1 ROM STA 17+15 TO SIA 11+35 LT.
° END PROJECT B-3528
Mn o: I Ft.
FROM SEA :1+sD ro aA n+sD Lr. -~- POT $TA. 25+00
ROM STA 31+00 TO AA 75+00 U.
2' LATERAL BASE DITCH
M/ROQC gfCKS
EST 21 TONS HEADEA/FOOTER ROCK 1I
EST 12 TONS CLASS I RP RAP
EST 318 SY PSAM 2NA dItlSTIA11 CENRA ~ ~`
EST I50 CY DDE \
SEE DETAL SHEET 2~ 12 7
~•~ /
~ \Q= `B `F
~a /
iB iB
\~' /~ 1B~J
TB
.(
LA7~ 5 .... . .
ALMA m sBRaEU. cHASS~m sr ~
~ / ~ sEE oETU E
W /tiQ CUT
LATERAL BASE SEE SPECJAL CUT GRASSm riALE W/
ALB GRASSED SHALE FALSE CUi
SEE DETAL E SEE DETAL A
_ F. 6 B C .. F f _~ C •.
QZ ~ Mr
~~ {a{ppee
LiW01N 2DD.0 tt
ACTIMI IFRCIR 1050 t
5 A~ 5 p79 11 / tt
EST DDE 160 CY
l vzsFD
6
o ~ ii 0
o'~
~0•, ~`
\ c
9 ~OO ~~ ~~
~~
~a 3)
BENCH YARIES BAS YARIES
6 COIA FIBFA MATTING
oR ~ eArr~ INLET CHANNEL TO TOP aF BAN(
EST 120 SY a00KY1G DOWNSTREAAO EST 15 SY
NOTE:RB' AAP SHALL NOT BE PLACED 1J STREAM BED.
BEtA:H HEIGHT IS I FT WITH BE11CH SU`_ SLOPE OF 3:L
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAgE/DURHAM COUNTY
PROJECT:3313G1.1 (B-3528)
BRIDGE N0.129
OVER SYCAMORE CREEg
ON SR 1839
SHEET b OF ~ • 10/4/07

i ~1
M
.~
V
W
0
ti
~0
M
.,
C•~
O
THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN THE
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY OF RALEIGH
;~~ ~rl~lse' 4~
~ ~1P ~~
~~
bur~A..~`n ,

cRAP~uc scArtss
50 25 50 100
PLANS
5 2 0 10
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
1P 4 4 1P ~
PROFILE VERTICAL)

I~I~VI~I®N ®~ ]~I~IHiVAA~Y~
8-3528 UCPN1
permit Drawir>~ I
Sheet ~ of '~
PERMIT DRAWI11tGS
WAKE A1VD DURHAM COU11lTlES "~ ~R,
B3
LOCATION: BRIDGE 429 OVER SYCAMORE CREEK OH S.R.1839 AND APPROACHES
TYPE OF WORIL UTILITY COIYSTRUCTIOX
INDEX OF SHEETS
Sl7JS8T N0. DESCRIPTION
UCP-I TITLE SIIEE7'
UCP-2 PLAN SHEET
UCP-3 PROFILE SHEET
UTILITY OWNERS ON PROJECT
{I) CTfY OF RALEIGR -SANITARY SEWER
(2) r?fRIZON -TELEPHONE
rweA~ ar r~ oPrms a~
DIYI510N DP XIGfIR'AYS
PROJECT SERVICES
uTrmr sECTrox
tmMAU tavtcat csvrne
iurama xc nett
~» u~
Ran wen~inxa,P.& u:uiTDZS Sscimx s'GnmsR
Sboi M P.8 U77LR7&S SQUAD LEADER PROJBCt' F1YG7,~8R
Doiwid Prow UIIL17IB3 PRQ/RCf D&SIf1Y8]t
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED
TO THE LIMIT5 ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III.

,.
NOTES TO CONTRACTOR;
ALL PROPOSED MANHOLES SHALL BE FLAT TOP AND
SHALL HAVE WATER-TIGHT RINGS AND BOLTED COVERS
BEGIN PROJECT 8-3528
-L- POC STA, 1o+aa
PROP. M.H. STA. 0+00.00
TOP ELEV. = 404. 0
INVERT IN (2) = 39~:2~
INVERT OUT = 395.27
~~
~'r9,py ~ ~ NB7'/7'I7'w
\ ~ \ 3\. 11.57\
\I~ ~ \ W
_ ~ /
13+49.85 69,85' LT..
A. 13+42.q~8.39' LT..
~ONNECTE~vvS~(~ST I NG
TELEPHO~'~G CABLES
-L- rs ro+7327
1 -L- SC 11+7327 .A
Yb~ / -
L~ / /
i
i
/ SfM
/~ ~
~~
-c- Por b+00.(XI
BETiY A. BUNK
DO 6167 PG 845
n
C 0
~ ~ ~ I
N O
m trk '\
a jN , ~~`/
E ' e~~IGPi ~~
a
~'
~I
o;
49 r '~
f ~ `~
4 N
O(+ fCOdO _
r~os e~E
i- r
~~. _ ^Nr~
' ' td~ ~ I I
-
1
il
Y" I
i rdlC
u
e
I
f 1
a, 4B 111 I 7QAO
I
~
m scu + uR9ux) II I
0 E.Y1FN! I ~
1 n
I
it `' d zoos k o1R{ 1I
4t 69 I II
3.t6~E I H
bl

CHOAO=N 16'19'S9'E zI
/D ~
ce CMORO LE"`/ ,11 5
L' Yf
~ I
~ 5R.4t
~

I
LEESVILLE H0
Ow, LLC
OB 10668 PG 1040 I I
BN 2005 PG PG 7049
D'g6Y.
n6,3y,
fEO rDr
LOdrtB
~a~.
Da Nor LocArEp
PROP. 187.00' 10" RESTRAINED
JOINT DUCTILE IRON SEWER MAIN
@ 0r28~ GRADE
-c- sra l7+42b~ 3
21NA RISTIAN C TEA
(2~ pAQp TED 2566 PG 8
H r LF WTLET
h 1I ROVENENT$
E DETAI
S 'B' R~ RAP
PRDTECiNMI
eL 1 i
d - OT A AI
-s -~ N Malt _ ' y ~ V d _ tIYTA~
`~c~sEw~ 4I / r00~
EY E005 Y4 q19 -
~?A~S7 OF TE ROADNAY OITCN FORM' r,q
Srp~r P31T~°sIw TO ExISTR4G SHALE LEESVILLE HOLLOW, LLC E
~ A<720.00 R°72000 D6 10668 PG 1040
G. L=96.26 L=97,52 ON 2005 PG PG 1049 9~5'
7 CnOAD=N 2Y19' 29 CHDflO:rJ 16.12' 22' x 1 r ]a nir a
~G1~AM CNOftO LENGT"= .19 CN0.gp LENG_ 7_~Q 9.a1~ 11 (1 ~ wR~arli
]P 23'E ~OP. 172 ~r-
`""'~" mISEWEG;MAIN~~ REP
0 PV INEWIN S~
~~-__Sf'CQYO Si4q CJ _~ ~~ JO'(!C ~~
~-~D~AG ~t-~,`6`~!j yy --~~
rsr~aw~1..~_-_ ~
rt
rt
x~ R P. M.H, STA. 1+87.00
TOP ELEV, = 404.70
"a INVEB,T I
~° INV RT 0 RAT~ERIE, O
4
INa HRISTIAN CEN7ER
""EL PR IZO T~~.~Q~ 260NDUI 2ASD PL 991
fox LvER I STAB D B DIRECTIONAL BORE f
h
'A ! 8870 p ~ ~ M1 " n
~oE recrx»T ~ m +98.28 '1 L
IL S 'B' RIP RAP ,y d STA. 19+98. ~0' ,~
l a DETAt. D Y 1~ Q -L- PT n ? N~
~ ~
V ~ ~
RAP
20 BANGS ON. 1
' TONS 2~y . d
0 $T 'j0 SY FF r`I Za
~... I~ ry,~II
CIR4fCREDrBr: JSM °'~//(~~w-r~`r~i'i
APPROVED Br: ~ M f ZEAL ~~
REVISED: tt lust
NORTX CAROLINA sti ~'+,lAiy~~tj' ~d
DEPARTLfNT a .,`,4~"''e' ~~`
TRANSPORTAT fON ,
E[T SERVICES UNI ,"
PHONEa91 9 12 5 0-11 2 8 UTILITr CONSTRUCTION
FAx:[phone] PLANS ONLY
UTILITY CONSTRUCTION
Permit Drawing
END PROJECT 8-3528 2 f
-L- POT STA. 25+aa ,~
N
az a
t7 } \\ /
A ~~~' / ~
~/~ ~..~J
/ ~ v
ry
_. /~ _ 7.
J ^ ' nIY N C.6eRRELiA ro I
LT D r"' A c ~ ~~ ! ~ /~A FR455ECUT ', ~ LEP~Nf2 C ' ^°
+«
781! SPE LATERAL BASE SEE SPECIA CUT WUSSED SHALE w/ 50.
x, SEE TAl B GtAS SHALE FALSE CUT ~ Sd APR
SEE TAt, E SEE DETAE A LT - rt
F 6 C~- F F C .r.
f ~ < _ E16T Rir H ~~ - - -
F ~ A'J350 ~~ --------- -rw--~-- - --
Sfl IB79 - I£ESVIUf HORO $ ~
3 REL40vE _- - - -
_r-== ~~ -
.a BURY MvERT r r2ul ~>•~ - - - - _ ~'
Er.R ~ ~ i
EcRM TE ROAOwAr GRASSED SHALE
n ~, _ ~~ ~ rS179 TO ExI5Tt9C DITCN / /1 I 60!10
P k - rr y rg,T, 716.78 ~~ f+.R/N' 1 v25Fp I I
Hn .V1 ~''yr. ; ~ Ea, Er.R/w y~i - \L'
27 92~ M 1 ?f 4j NSA7 aS,Otl,.'~ ~ O I'~I I O
LMA C. SORAELL a ` ALMA C. SORRELL
0 r D~RF~UILD OB 145 PC 12 ~ I OB 369 PC 593
A. ~ q 'q~ DR N~ H r ~0.1 wff ~
a ~ A t! 5
f^
7m '~~4 /~,~ f OP~ L~p~~t C
1=67.37 q~ ~`vro
CRDRO=N 16' S2' S0' MC~~ M, °E'. C B 5
CHORD LENGTH=87.14 G'FO~HT
G1, r ~~
\ 1 G if 3
~-_.~„~ }' ~~f \ 6 GRASS SHALE 2

~~~ \\"`"°L~~r,n~~
\\
//
\ w 2AO Ac
~i is ro:
ao ss e
h

\~/
`wi
~~
q si E~\
\
\
''~O
s ~ I
p
AEOIIN~ LENGTH 200A 1t
actuu LENGTH
0039 ft I ft
~
GRASS SHALE e
s
a
s
~
~ \
y
a e~. v nrn ,
SDE
04 L99 .e
02 6A Ne
v2 LR fpa
~, ,~ ~f~ P1

fa //+39.95 au i
ao
s
e
G
PI Sta 14 «35 PI Sla 18+56.32
YID u9 ro• B
AEDLw~EA LExGTx n9.2 ft =4'4'6' 287

' 0 •4207' 325' (Rrl
~ • 10' 43' 2dS 271
D • g3257S
'
AcrwL LENGrN s9o ft LS = lOOAO 49'8,0'
D , 3

SLDPE o.aa f t , ~
slx SLOPES 4
_ ~ ~, L = 28077
'
R - 6ooQa' r = 140n
R ' 4500A(7
SE • O.LGO
SE = OA50
OS • 43 mpn
DS = 50 np+n
,,, ..,.,....., ~vn~nTU1,1 OC/YIIOCn

.. .
'.
SITE 1 ~lAFACE WATER IYPACTB ITEIIIPDRARY): ®YITIOABLE IMPACT
IYPERVIOU9 DIKE • 0,019 AC. ZONE 2
(00.00 ~~ CHANNEL IYPACT9 • a,ao PT,
MITI ZONE 1YPACT
60.00` (00,00
`rT 60,00 IN9TALLEO BY DIRECTIONAL GRILL
'PF (NO IMPACTS)
~/9l/ 00.00 PROP 18T 10" SANITARY BENER LINE
O. ~O 9c~ ~ 00 (SURFACE WATER IYPACTB ONLY)
5 L F c ~~F
R INING° A ,, 6''~~F 80. ~

~q
0
a o
o
PROP. 10" aANITARr 9ENFp
mlt;w cROeatla oETAn
O+Op 0+50 1+00 1+50
DRAM) BY: .''`AtN~Qllp~'y
"'
'
~
CNECKED Br: JSY }~~
~,~
aa
~
APPROVED Br: JSM Y
aeAL
REVISED: f Mat
NDRTN CAROLINA 1+,
/,yp
~
ii
DEPARTNENT OF ~M1~
~
~
fit'
TRANSPORTATION a, y;,,u~"~
RCUECT SERVICES UNI
PNONE:19191250-4128 UTILITY CONSTRUCTIOA
FAxa9141250-4119 PLANS ONLY
UTILITY CONSTRUCTION
T'erm~ Drawirq
Sheet 3 d„~

a
s
+,
NL
u~r
rn.
~~
~~~
o'
p L"
r~
o''
o°
N3
a
ZO
~o
?L
N~

See Sleet I•A For Index of Sheets
~°~~'~°~, ®~` ~®~°~°~ (~~~®~,~~~ lrm em 1wMZ lnlma ro ear mru.
:m.r1
See Sheet 1•B For Conventfal Symbols J
.C. DwJZB 1
~~~(~),)~II(~(q/9 ~I'( ~qI ~I~(''~' '1~}~ y{/~~1~ ~1Ty
JLI' LL 1 ~ ~ LL ®1 9 ®~ 1L L ~ ~Y ~ 9 V ~ JL ~ R 1~ Ip.IR RUW.IR I~ReN
~ ~
' 33136.1.1 BRZ-1839 P.E,
`
{ ~ . ~ ~
1
~ 33136,2.2 BRL-1839 RiW 6 UTIL
/
~- ND P ACT -
~ ~ ~ •~ ~ :~ ~- ~ AKE
W A11 ~D DURHAM CQ U11 STIES
'w
M ,
,~ , ~
,,
Y'
~ h
I `°~' •~ ~
m LOCA170N: Bridge 429 over Sycamore Creek on SR 1839 and Approacke:
D
i~
~
u ~
e~ a
,~ .
BEGIN PROJECT

r ~
~

Drainage, Paving and R. C. Box Culvert
TYPE OP WORK: Grading,
U ~
_;
W ~ - 4
N
c
ORS END TIP PROJECT B-3528
~y
'~I vrcn~rr nsaP
THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN THE

\ ~
~~~~ ~ 83
-L- STA. 25+00
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY OF RALEIGH ~~, EAID BOX CULVERT , ~~
~ ~ sra I7+8d~o ~~~~
' `,~ r~\
~ r"~~

~ BEGI11i T7P PROJECT B-3528 ~-~~ ~ ; ~

~~ ~
~
STA.10+00 , ____ To us ro
~I
,u. ~ _
_ _______
=-
--
------_ _' _~ \ -
~
~ ------ ; r---- ~ ~ ---
,
i Vq,Lg
_~ - -
' 1 -% ,
~
y
Rq,ID
-----
y~q~~~i
M N
t
~ i C~~%;
i i^.__~~
~~ ~ i i
~~
1
4 ~~~~~~ '~ >- I 1
~
t~
1'• i
~ ; j I~ ~~ ~° ~-
4 `~ ~_
~~^~
a__
~
' % ~~---

~ `=~
~
~ ,<
r ~~
r
~
i
i
`~ ~
~
;
;
i ~ _ ~
_ ~ ~`~
~~ ~
`A i~
;i
V
i ~
i~
** DESIGN EXCEPTION RE6UIRED FOR HORIZONTAL

URVE
M AND HORIZONTAL SSD.
M~ CLEARING 4N THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED
NCDOT CONTACT; CATHY ROUSER P.E. TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III. PRELIMINARY PLANS
ROADWAY DESI~N -ENGINEERING COORDINATION °° ~' °~ ~ ~TM~ON
~• + GRAPffiC SCALES DESIGN DATA PRO CT LTsNGTH Preporeo In r~ ornce d:
({O ~ ASSOCIATES, P.C1 HYDRAULICS RNGAfSBR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STA28 OF NOR22T CAROLQIA
V 50 25 0 50 1 ADT 2007 - 11,600

LENGTH OF ROADWAY 77P PROJECT B,3S28 0.215 mi. a
, Coulultiu{ BnBineen
Ill 1017 0.QIl 9q YIi04RafMM
r»rrw

°
ADT 2030 = 28,500 _
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE 1IP PRO,/ECT &3528 0.009 ai ~ num~n ~,~ '
'1 PIANS DHY = 12 %
TOTAL LBNGTIt OF
T8 PROJECT &3528 ~ 0.284 nri,
rs ~ '
50 5 50 t 0 D = 70 % RIGHT OP WAY DA18: Brian A. Vrilsa, P.E.

"
~0°'~ _
ROAD
W
A
~
O T = 3 % l Ocrober 20, 2006 ~ ffi
Y
GIlI~BR +

1
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)

** V = 50 MPH ,
l*

n ~
10
10 0 LETTING ~~

h 18
2008
M
° ~
' • TTST 1% DUAL 2 % arc
. ra rs
- PROFILE (VERTICAL) j~f n7ABl SrAra 8IG91VA7 naSluv mkt
i

~ ~ Y
Note: Not m Scale
sua = svgs uantr ~ ~++~s ~°1Ct~1°E ~F N~Ib°lI°~% C.~R~ILIN.~
YDIVIS~~N ~F 1HI~]EdWA~S
CONVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
BDUNDARIBS AND PROPERTY.
-...'-.."_
State Une
County Une --
Towruhip Une - -
---
City Uns
Reservafion Une - - ~ -
Property Une
6cisting Iron Pin
Property ComK
Property Monumerrt
Parcel/Sequence Number
Existing Fenn Une -x-X-"-
Proposed Woven Win Fence e-
Proposed Chain Unk Fence &
Proposed Barbed Wirs Fence -~ -
6dsting Wetland Boundary ----"'----
Proposed Welland Baindary -"'
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary ~'-
Exiating Endangered Plairt Boundary -°°-
BtlILDINGS AND OTfIER CULTURE•
Ga Pump Vent or tYti Tonk Cap o
Sign
well °
Small Mine ~'
Foundation 0
Area Outline 0
Cemetery 0
Building
School
Church
Dam
XYDROLOGY.~
Stream or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir ~____~
JurisdictionalStream -e-- -
Buffer Zone t ~+-
Buffer Zone 2 -~:-
Flow Arrow ---
Disappearing Stream --
spring o~"'~--"
Swamp Marsh ~
Propaed Lateral, Tail, Head Dikh
False Sump m
RRILROADS.•
Standard Gauge -
RR Signal Milepost
Switch
RR Abandoned -
RR Dismantled -
RlGf1T op waY,•
~~
0
A
sma
Baseline Control Point
iodating Right of way Marker ~
Existing Right of Woy Une -
Propoad Right of Way Une -~-
Propaed Right of Woy Une with
Iron Pin and Cop Marker
Proposed Right of Way Une with
Concrete or Granite Marker
Existing Control of Access - ----
Proposed Control of Auea - -~--
Existing Easement Une - --E--
Propaed Temporary Coahuctian Easement- e
Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement- -me-
Proposed Permanent Drainage Eaement- -roe-
Propoaed Permanenrt Utility Easemenrt -rue--
ROADS AND RBLi1?ED FEATURES.
Existing Edge of Pavement -~
Existing Curb -'
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut - -- ~ - - -
Proposed Slope Stakes Fill - - - g - - -
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp
Curb Cut for Futuro Wheel Chair Ramp - cr
Existing Metal Guardrail
Proposed Guardrail T T
Existing Cable Guideroil " "
Proposed Cable Guideroil "
Equality Symbol
Pavement Removal
lBGETATION.~
Single Tree -
Single Shrub -
Hedge
Woods line -
Orchard
Wneyard
4
4 4 (f t?
YMeYQd
EXISTING STRIICTURB,S•
MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert ~~
Bridge Wing Well, Head Woll and End Wall - ~ ~~
MINOR:
Head and End Wall ~ ~.
Pipe Cuhrort
Footbridge }------~
Drainage Bax: Cakh Bain, DI or JB ^~
Paved Ditch Gunter -----
Storm Sewer Manhole
Storm Sewer
U77LIT78S•
POWER:
Existing Power Pole ~
Proposed Power Pols b
Existing Joint Use Pols -f~
Proposed Joint Use Pole
Power Manhok+
Power Une Tower
Power Transformer 8
l4G Power Coble Hand Hole
H-Froms Pole
Recorded USG Power Line
Designated lfG Power Une (S.U.E.•
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pole -+-
Proposed Telephone Pole -0~
Telephone Manhole 8
Telephone Booth ~
Telephone Pedestal ~
Telephone Cell Tower ~
USG Telephone Coble Hand Hole
Recorded USG Telephone Cable
Designated lYG Telephone Cable (S.U.E.•j- ----~----
Reeorded ltG Telephone Conduit n
Designated L4G Telephone Conduit(S.U.E.•j- ----n----
Recorded li~G Fiber Optic Cable ~ ~°-
Designated U~G Fiber Optic Coble (S.U.E.•j- - - - -~ ro- _ _ .
WATER:
Water Manhole
Water Meter a
Wafer Valve
wafer Hydrom ~
Recorded U~G Water Une
Designated U~G Water Una (S.U.E.')---- - - - -•- - - -
Abow Ground Water Une •~ .ate.
N:
N Satellite Dish ~
N Pedestal p
N Tower
Uti N Cable Hand Hole
Recorded U'G N Cable
Designated ldG N Cable (S.U.E.'J ----^----
Recorded USG fiber Optic Cable -~ ro-
Designated U-G Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.•}- - - - -~ ~- - -
GAS:
Ga Vobe 0
Gas McNr
Recorded LVG Ga Uns
Designated U~G Gas Une (S.U.E.•j - - - -"- - - -
Above Ground Ga Une "` `°°
SANRARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout p
LYG Sanitary Sewer Uns u
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer ~~~ ~~~~ ~.~
Rewrded SS Forced Main Une ~-
Designated SS Forced Main Line (S.U.E.y - - - - -~- - - -
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pole ~
Utility Pole with Bea p
Utility Located Obled o
Utility Traffic Signal Box m
Utility Unknown ~ Une wn-
lt>; Tank; Water, Ga, Oil 0
AEG Tank; Wafer, Ga, Oil 0
lt0 Test Hole (S.U.E.•) ~
Abandoned Acwrrfing io Utility Records - AATUR
End of Information E.0.1.

a
a
REVISIONS
R/W Ralston x/4/2007 Added PUE M Parcels P,3 & 9. Ravlstid TCE and TDE on sane Parotids.
oedway\Pro,j\83528_Rdy_psh_04.dgn
I r ~ -BL~I 5+00.00 POT ^ ~'L~ `••
t ~ n. -L ROT 10+05.3
t
„~. =.~
1~`,• ~~
~~ ~
3
SBB 5j2~ at
)O ~~
~ ~ ~
~\ ,,_~
,.
N
0
~M ~~~
;\ ~~
.. pia
r\ $ G
•a-
\4 .~ yp,•
4 \ ~ ~:~'
a ~ ~~
:i
1Zf B ~
s ~
VS M)I '~f~ r ~
o ~' ~~ i
$~ p p,~ See 3 ~~
~rti ~ r ~ z \
~mNB
slus~xa ~ -_"_ J
.h9':i .Pt ~....~.~ ._ _ ._..
,1.:?:%215 9N~IHNJ~ ~'
~_' "~ . ,
~._ ~r
rN~ ~C
N
v~o __~ R
~ I
~~~~; i
rrrr~ ~,
~~ ~ ~
W 3i
~~ !!it
I1
I 1 i
rrrrr !t
a r r ~~~~~ it ~ ..
'~.J' w ; '
b~ ; '~ I
~ ~ I
rn ~ ~ ( _
':'~
~ ~~ ~\
r r r r ~ ~. ,~
~~~~
~~ ~ ~~~
s~
ro R ,~~
I N
~o~
~~ o~~
~$ ~mZ ~
~ K
~~ ~~ s
~
cf m
rn =
~ o
~
~~ Z
~
=
m m $
~"'n z n
~T
L
'~E s -`~i
N~ ZZ
T
"' m
~ N
~j CCCCCCZ ~ 1
f~l !'1 ~
G
$-1 NOQ
m ~ A
H 18T1
N
TZ N~~
u
~~
~
~
,
a>
x
~
A
~~
N _
m
~F
N
0
r
m
m
o rn
x 0
C
r
0
s
~~ oil
-A
I I _.~ ICI
~,
~°
.
c~i°;NO ~ I'I
~ ~ I'I
1nNNO
N ~
I
f
~
~
°' i s~
m~
a I
I
I I
li
I li
~ ~g
~~ .~
I
I
'
s
i ~~ I r?l Nlt~ p
i

1e
€ ro:!a I Na ;r;,f
II N 'II
I I~ u 11~
~-
~ W ~~ ~ I
,m
fl " ~ ~ ~, ,
I~[S. 2.LLN ~ / n 6
II
/ ~
l~. ~ ~ ~~
I~ ~ ~
// /y~c ''~gv~aaa
£:
i ~r549 ~~~ ~ `,~ ~:Ni',
~..
.i s
1' ' II
1~ m I~~
~lu VIII
r K w, a
/~ =lit
II ~ II I
I I 11;1
I ~ II, I
I
~ I~ ~ I
II I`. rod,
~~1%
~1~ ~ 1~ f'
,.
i, ~,,.
1
,n
4 I~ ~
a O
9 ~~
~~ ~ Z ~~'
•S
li fig} ''!
~~ ~, /
Sees,,) i'! /
~~
~' , ~ `

\
I
(' ~ Eip
/ ', 1!: -1C
_ I v ~/ ~ ~
.f ./ ~~
~
~ ~~9)'
9~~BJJ'W
~I
IT ~
~
~
y ~
I
~ ~
~
l / % ~ ~...
~ /5
S
~ ~,~ ~i/
4' % ~ o '
;;
.r '~
' ~ Ri b
i
r' ; 5
n f
~
f'
I ~ ~
T=
~ ~~
~~

N
~`~ ~
~ ed Aid ~
s I
~~ ~~ ~ ~
.% ~~ ~ ~ ~
fJ N
w

'" r ~ ~
.6 g
1 I;r~ •~
fl J
~~' NI ~ 1
~ O I ~ ,a ~ , ~ Ny
RI ~ I ;; ~i o
°~ O
FF ~ i ' I ~:.,
~ S 11 II I A
~> I f I '8L-
K I ~~
I II c~5~~ ~'
-:~ ~ I I~ fs: I~' I ~~r
.:
;~
~,,
\ ti; % Iti i
I I~ I rn~ ~f! Cl
~ ...
S, ~ S . } ~ v
\ '^ I~l ~ 11 ~ I I ~ ~
H8 60) u, ~ ~I S
B5 ?g.W ., ............ ,'' I ~ ~ ~ / j.
-..... ~
~~ .... ,,, I ;~ I ~ H
's '' ~ I ~ ~
~~~'
n
,,, ~ I
., \ ~ >_~
N
+ I I T ~ RI>
~~4dJ ~ ~ OZ I I =
a .; ...
S ~ II I I I
I ,, ;
:.
O II
err;'"' $ t:% l e l l ~
,f co ~
,i ~ ~ I
I I.~ ~ zar
I
i' ~ I~jl~~ u> 117 A
`~. ~ I ~Ik:: I{~ i ~
i
/''~~
+~
/;
,,
,~
,.W
/ ~ /
r $
~~ N
8
1
r W
m ~~
t
t ^ ^
~_
t
~ ~
Z 5 =D
O .
~ 00 ~
T
~
N ~ tt
~ $
~ m
~ m ~ ~
~r
:~~ ^b
~~~
~ ~°
+ ~ ~ •n }~~
p
p ~ ~ i

~

~ 1 1 n
s
Ot
il~ N
m 2
° ! ~
~S
~~ ~
~ ~
v
~' T° f'f
rv~i tip
a
~ fin` I
~ N ' m
m
2 j
p "2 t
N =_t
F ~ ~
~
O <

~ ~ N
~~
O
~
n ~~ ~j
~~
~
"'
s m ..~
f] m
°
t~
Y
I
~ ~ m
T j
r
i
= =
1' i 1
~H s m
~ ~ s
m
~
~~
~,
-~ ~o
° 2
~o~ ~~ n
Z~~ ~
mrmn~1p ~ a~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
mNT ~ ~ N
""~~~ O
~~~ ~ L .a? 8 ~ ° ~
°~~ ~ F O ~
~~
~ w ~? s ~
\ O N T
S + 4
+_
a 8 ' +
s,e~,.
3 a* L03/,~y 52
S*'
•° ! ~O
S
16\?
~fs9~ P~ _
9r
RT
~
.

1{
1 NNIANN ~~`
~i1-i-I-~ ~~

tt ~
Q
_~
s
Q~ R. moY,RSi~~+
~ NN
++

°
^
p~~°o$~
K
m 815

~o r
~
I ~
=Q~~ Qm
((~~-'~~iii ~~ii tt =
~ ~
~' ~
8 ~
R 9~ _
~$ ~ ~
~~a ~G

i ti
r Z
v
~ 0
D m
N
+ w
0
P5
]UI R SQARF7
DR~pRR!
y Y~
M ~
f O
~ ~ ~~
a
b
~7r ~
C ^
Wz
~~
gz ~
m
tl ~ o
p
d
~ ^ I•~

is

f
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 Weflands
ac) an
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 See Drawin s Im .Dike w/ SB 0.013
1 Station 1+40.00 10" San Sewer 3

TOTALS: 0.013 3
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAKE COUNTY
WBS -33136.1.1 (B-3528)
SHEET Of 10 24 07
ATN Revised 3/31/05

Wake County
Bridge No. 429 on SR 1839 ~ ,; ~t ~
c.~ ~~~ °~~

over Sycamore Creek ~
,~_.
< ~,,~~- ~ ,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1839(1)
2406801
N
8 i~OV ~ ~`~~~'
`~ ~
"
~`
State Project
o.
.
3528
N
B ~ ,~~~
>~~~~, ~
_
~T~AN
-
T.I.P.
o. ~SpN~`vrnRM`t.H~~:
~-aT,~-
,h~ ~t,,~r1r~
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
0720u!
APPROVED:
DATE '~ William D. Gi1m~P.E., Manager
/ Project Development and Envu~onmental Analysis Branch,
NCDOT
DATE is olas L. Graf, P.E.
/Division Administrator, FH A

Wake County
Bridge No. 429 on SR 1839
over Sycamore Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1839(1)
State Project No. 8.2406801
T.LP. No. B-3528
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
October 2001
.Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
~ o a~ o~
Tommy 's I Date
Project anager
S D o8 0 /
W. S. ood, P Date
Principle-In-Charge
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
~'~~Z~~~
Stacy B. H ' , PE
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
~~~
14509
/y7 ~' ®~

} ~
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Wake County
SR 1839 (Leesville Road)
Bridge No. 429 Over Sycamore Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1839(1)
State Project No. 8.2406801
T.I.P. No. B-3528
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, General
Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special
commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Roadway Design, Hydraulics Unit,
Roadside Environmental, and Division Engineer
The following measures will be carried out for the replacement of Bridge No. 429.
In addition to NCDOT's Best Management practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs)
there will be strict adherence to the NCDENR Riparian Buffer Rules for the Neuse River (15A
NCAC 2B .0233).
Categorical Exclusion Green Sheet
October, 2001 Page I of I

Wake County
SR 1839 (Leesville Road)
Bridge No. 429 Over Sycamore Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1839(1)
State Project No. 8.2406801
T.I.P. No. B-3528
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 429 is included in the 2002-2008 North. Cazolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) and in the Federal-Aid
Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental
impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. PURPOSE AND NEED
The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of
23.2 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete
and structurally deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and
more efficient traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 429 is located on SR 1839 (Leesville Road) on the Wake and Durham County
Line. Leesville Road is classified as an Urban Local Route. Land use in the project area is
rural with low-density residential development. Leesville Road is a two-lane facility that
currently serves commuting and local traffic.
The existing bridge is a single-span structure with an overall length of 36 feet (10.8 meters)
and a clear roadway width of 23.3 feet (7.0 meters). It was constructed in 1950. The bridge
has timber rails and consists of timber flooring on I-beams with anasphalt-wearing surface,
and is supported by reinforced concrete abutments. The bridge has a posted weight limit of
20 tons (20.3 metric tons) for single vehicle (SV) and 25 tons (25.4 metric tons) for truck-
tractor semi trailer (TTST).
The approach roadway has two nine-foot (2.7 meter) travel lanes for a pavement width of 18
feet (5.4 meters), with five-foot (1.5 meter) grass shoulders. The approach roadway from the
northwest is a curve with a radius of approximately 470 feet (143 meters) and the southeast
approach, approximately 300 feet (90 meters) from the bridge, is on a curve with a radius of
approximately 450 feet (137 meters). The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour (mph) { 70
kilometers per hour (kmh)}.
Land use to the east (upstream) of the bridge is agricultural, while the majority of the western
stream reach is forested. There aze two wooden tobacco barns in the northwest quadrant of
the project. A power line right-of--way traverses the north side of SR 1839, and a sewer line
corridor traverses the eastern banks of Sycamore Creek, crossing beneath SR 1839. There
aze MCI fiber optics along both sides of SR 1839. It is anticipated that the utility impacts
will be low.

The 2001 estimated average daily traffic (ADT) volume is 8,200 vehicles per day (vpd). The
projected ADT is 15,000 vpd by the design year 2025. The percentages of truck traffic is 2%
DUALS and 1 % TTST.
Three accidents were reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 429 during the period from
January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1997.
Three school buses cross Bridge No. 429 twice per day.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Proiect Description
Based on the preliminary hydraulics report the proposed replacement structure for Bridge
No. 429 will be a reinforced concrete box culvert with three (3) barrels at eight feet (2.4
meters) by six feet (1.8 meters) and approximately 60 feet (18 meters) in length. The length
and opening size of the proposed structure may increase or decrease as necessary to
accommodate peak flows, as determined by a more detailed hydraulic analysis to be
performed during the final design phase of the project.
The proposed approach roadway will consist of two 12-foot (3.6-meter) travel lanes and
eight-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders, including four-foot (1.2-meter) paved shoulders. The
• proposed grade will be approximately the same as the existing roadway.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Altematives
One (1) reasonable and feasible alternative studied for replacing the existing bridge is
described below.
Alternative C (Preferred) replaces the bridge with a culvert on new alignment
approximately 60 feet (18 meters) downstream (west) of the existing bridge. There will be
approximately 470 feet (143 meters) of approach work to the north and approximately 360
feet (109 meters) of approach work to the south of the new structure. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing structure during construction. The 470 foot (143 meter) curve on
the northwest approach is replaced with 955 foot (291 meter) radius curve.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Studv
Alternative A replaces the bridge with a culvert at the existing location with a minimum of
approach work. During construction, traffic will be maintained by an off-site detour. The
detour is approximately 2.9 miles (4.7 kilometers) in length.
During the construction year 2002 the projected ADT for Leesville Road is 8,500 vpd.
Alternative A was dropped as a reasonable and feasible alternative due to the poor horizontal
alignment and high traffic volume. The off-site detour has a road user cost of approximately
2

$ 1,462,000. The road user cost is based on $0.325 per mile and asix-month construction
period.
Alternative B replaces the bridge with a culvert on new alignment approximately 50 feet (15
meters) downstream of the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the existing
structure during construction. The 470-foot (143 meter) radius curve on the northwest
approach is replaced with an 849-foot (259 meter) radius curve.
Alternative B was not selected as the preferred alternative due to concerns that the distance
between the existing and proposed alignment may not provide enough clearance to maintain
traffic on the existing bridge during construction. The lack of adequate clearance between
structures may require road closure and a temporazy off-site detour in order to complete
construction of the proposed structure.
The "do-nothing' alternative will eventually necessitate removal of the existing structure and
closure of SR 1839 (Leesville Road). This is not desirable due to the service provided by SR
1839 (Leesville Road).
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of the existing structure is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
Utilizing an on-site detour was also eliminated from further study because of the need to
improve the existing horizontal alignment. An on-site detour would not be cost effective.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative C was selected as the preferred alternative. Alternative C improves the existing
horizontal alignment and sight distance. Alternative C will also provide more clearance
from the existing structure during construction than Alternative B. This will make it easier to
maintain traffic on-site during construction
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternative C as the preferred Alternative.
3

IV. Estimated cost
The estimated costs, based on current prices are as follows:
Alternative C
(Preferred)
Structure Removal (Existin) $ 6,540
Structure Pro osed 78,700
Roadwa A roaches 234,960
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 149,800
En 'neerin Contin encies gp,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 42,750

TOTAL $592,750.00
The estimated cost of the project as shown in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program is $450,000, including $30,000 for right-of-way and $360,000 for construction.
V. Natural Resources
A. Methodology
Materials and reseazch data in support of this .investigation have been derived from a number
of sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (LJSGS) topographic mapping
(Bayleaf and Southeast Durham, NC 7.5 minute quadrangles), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWn mapping (Bayleaf and Southeast Durham, NC
7.5 minute quadrangles), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS; formerly the Soils
Conservation Service) soils mapping (USDA 1970, 1971), and recent aerial photography
(scale 1:1200).
Bridge No. 429 was visited on July 21, 2000. The study corridor was walked and visually
surveyed for significant features. For purposes of field surveys, the study corridor was
assumed to be approximately 850 feet (259.1 meters) in length and 300 feet (91.4 meters) in
width to ensure all proposed Alternatives received full and equal coverage. Impact
calculations are based on right-of--way width, which is 60 feet (18.3 meters). Actual impacts
will be limited to construction limits and aze expected to be less than those shown for right-
of-way. Special concerns evaluated in the field include: 1) protected species habitat, and 2)
wetlands and water quality in and adjacent to Sycamore Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North
Cazolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate,
community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vasculaz plant
names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were
evaluated using the three-pazameter approach following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according
to a classification scheme established by Cowazdin et al. (1979). Aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife habitat requirements and distributions were determined by supportive literature
4

(Martof et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Menhinick 1991; Hamel 1992; Palmer et al. 1995;
Rohde et al. 1994). Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived
from available sources, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality (DWQ 1997, 1998). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to
support existing data.
The most current USFWS listing of federal-protected species with ranges, which extend into
Wake and Durham Counties was obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation and
updated via the Internet, March 22, 2001. In addition, NHP records documenting presence of
federal- or state-listed species were consulted before conunencing the field investigation.
B. Physiogra~y and Soils
The study corridor is underlain by the Triassic Basins geologic formation within the
Piedmont Physiographic province of North Cazolina. Topography of the area is
characterized as rolling with some steep azeas along major streams. The study corridor is
located in, and adjacent to, the floodplain of Sycamore Creek. Terrain in the study corridor
is relatively level with elevations that average approximately 400 feet (121.9 meters)
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (USGS Southeast Durham and Bayleaf
quadrangles).
Soil mapping units within the study corridor are the Chewacla series (Fluvaquentic
Dystrocrepts), Creedmoor series (Aquic Hapludults) (USDA 1970), Chewacla and Wehadkee
(Fluvaquentic Dystrocrepts) series, and Mayodan sandy loam series (Typic Hapludults)
(USDA 1971). The Chewacla series consists of neazly level, somewhat poorly drained soils
with moderate to moderately-rapid permeability. These soils typically occur in floodplains
of streams and are mapped adjacent to Sycamore Creek on the Wake County side. The
Creedmoor series consists of gently sloping to moderately steep, moderately well-drained
soils with slow permeability. These soils typically occur on rounded divides where the
difference in elevation is about 50 feet (15.2 meters) between the highest and the lowest
points, and are mapped on the southern side of the Sycamore Creek floodplain in Wake
County. The Chewacla and Wehadkee series is dominated by Chewacla soils and has
inclusions of Wehadkee soils. Wehadkee soils consists of nearly level, poorly drained soils
with moderate permeability. The Chewacla and Wehadkee series is considered to be hydric
in Durham County (USDA 1996), and is mapped adjacent to Sycamore Creek on the Durham
County side. The Mayodan series consists of nearly level to moderately steep, well-drained
soils with moderate permeability. These soils typically occur in uplands and aze mapped on
the northern side of the Sycamore Creek floodplain in Durham County.
C. WATER RESOURCES
1. Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-04-02 of the Neuse River Basin (DWQ
1998). This area is part of USGS Hydrologic .Unit 03020201 of the Mid-Atlantic/Gulf
Region. The bridge tazgeted for replacement spans Sycamore Creek with no direct
5

involvement of additional streams or tributaries. This section of Sycamore Creek has been
assigned Stream Index Number 27-33-9, by the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ 1997).
2. Stream Characteristics
Sycamore Creek is awell-defined Piedmont stream with moderate flow and riffle-pool
morphology. The area of the drainage basin for the creek at the site is 1.02 square miles
(2.64 square kilometers). During recent field investigations, water clarity was good and
water depth (beneath the bridge) •was six inches (15 centimeters). Sycamore Creek differs in
morphology upstream than downstream of the bridge. Upstream of the bridge, Sycamore
Creek is six feet (1.8 meters) wide, straight, and has high three feet (0.9 meters), steep banks;
substrate is sand/gravel with some cobbles. The associated floodplain extends throughout
most of the study corridor and supports wetland conditions such as hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, and signs of occasional flooding and pooling. Downstream of the bridge,
Sycamore Creek widens 15 feet (4.6 meters) and is more sinuous. The banks vary from steep
to gradually sloping and the substrate is sand/gravel with some cobbles. The downstream
floodplain is forested and without wetland conditions.
3. Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best
usage classifications of B and Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) have been assigned to
Sycamore Creek (DWQ 1998). The designation B denotes that appropriate uses include
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, primary recreation, and agriculture.
Primary recreation refers to human body contact with waters on an organized or frequent
basis. The. supplemental classification NSW refers to waters needing additional nutrient
management because they are subject to excessive growth of microscopic and macroscopic
vegetation (DWQ 1998). No designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-I), or Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur
within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for the 17
river basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed study corridor is summarized in
the Neuse River basinwide water quality plan (DWQ 1998). Sycamore Creek has a
biological rating of Good-Fair. The biological rating is based on macro-invertebrate
sampling in Sycamore Creek below Turkey Creek in 1991.. Sycamore Creek is rated as
Supporting-threatened of designated uses because of sediment and nutrient loading from
point and non-point sources. This Neuse River sub-basin supports six major point-source
dischargers and 58 minor dischargers. Total permitted flow for the six major dischargers is
74.70 million gallons per day (MGD) (282.8 million liters per day [MLD]) while total
permitted flow for the minor dischargers is 3.95 MGD (15.0 MLD). One permitted site
discharging less than 1.0 MGD (3.8 Ml.D) is located adjacent to Sycamore Creek
approximately 1.4 miles (2.3 kilometers) from the bridge site. Five other minor dischargers
6

i
aze located within 5 miles (8.0 kilometers) of the bridge site along Sycamore Creek (DWQ
1998).
4. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
a. General Impacts
The current bridge will be replaced with a culvert. The culvert will be buried one-foot (0.3-
meter) below the streambed in order to maintain aquatic habitat and flow regime. Temporary
construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of best management
practices.. The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control
measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of
Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NC DOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These
measures include: the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to
control runoff; elimination of construction staging azeas in floodplains and adjacent to
waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals
(herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts on water
quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into streams by catch basins and roadside
vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flow in
Sycamore Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-term impacts to
adjacent reaches resulting from construction aze expected to be negligible. In order to
minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the
Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
b. Impacts related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the
NCDOT and all potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition
and removal. These guidelines aze presented in three NCDOT documents entitled "Pre-
Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal", "Policy: Bridge Demolition
and Removal in Waters of the United States", and "Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal" (all documents dated 9/20/99). Guidelines followed for bridge
demolition and removal aze in addition to those implemented for Best Management Practices
for the Protection of Surface Waters.
Dropping any portion of the structure into waters of the United States will be avoided unless
there is no other practical method of removal. In the event that no other practical method is
feasible, aworst-case scenario is assumed for calculations of fill entering waters of the
United States. The superstructure of Bridge No. 429 consists of a timber deck on steel I-
beams. The substructure consists of two reinforced concrete abutments. Since the
superstructure is composed completely of timber and steel, it will be removed without
dropping any component into waters of the United States.
7

Under the guidelines presented in the documents noted in the first paragraph of this section,
work done in the water for this project would fall under Case 3, where there are no special
restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters. NCDOT has coordinated with the various resource agencies during project planning
to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge demolition were resolved.
D. BIOTIC RESOURCES
1. Plant Communities
Two distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor: 1) Piedmont
bottomland forest, and 2) roadside/disturbed land. These plant communities are described
below.
Piedmont Bottomland Forest: Piedmont bottomland forest occurs on floodplains, side
slopes, and along stream margins of Sycamore Creek downstream of the subject bridge.
Canopy species include sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), river birch (Betula nigra), and red maple (Acer
rubrum). Understory trees and shrubs include sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), American
dogwood, (Cornus florida), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), American holly (Ilex opaca),
hickory (Carya sp.), arrowwood (Viburnum sp.) and red maple. Yellow root (Xanthorhiza
simplicissima), wild grape (Vitis sp.), poison ivy (Rhus radicans), blackberry (Rubus sp.),
microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), cane (Arundinaria gigantea), lady fern (Athyrium
asplenioides), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides) are common herbs.
Roadside/Disturbed Land: Roadside/disturbed land occurs along present roadside mazgins,
utility right-of--ways, and agricultural azeas north of the bridge. Chazacteristic species
include microstegium, goatsbeazd (Aruncus dioicus), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), lespedeza
(Lespedeza sp.), panic grass (Panicum sp.), fescue (Festuca sp.), paspalum (Paspalum sp.),
and horse nettle (Solanum carolinense). Areas along the stream banks north of the bridge are
vegetated by hydrophytic shrubs such as tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and black willow (Salix
nigra). Wet areas occurring in the floodplain north of the bridge include rushes (Juncus
spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), flatsedge (Cyperus sp.), spike. rush (Elocharis sp.), meadow
beauty (Rhexia sp.), ironweed (Vernonia sp.), smartweed (Poloygonum sp.), cardinal flower
(Lobelia cardinalis), and bishop-weed (Ptilimnium capillaceum).
2. Plant Communities within the Study Corridor
Plant community impact areas are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the projected 60-foot (18.2 meter) right-of--way (actual impacts within
construction limits will be less). A summary of potential plant community impacts is
presented below:
8

PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED AREA OF IMPACT
ACRES (HECTARES)
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
Piedmont Bottomland Forest 0.06 (0.02) 0.43 (0.17) 0.47 (0.19)
Roadside/Disturbed Land 0.32 (0.13) 0.50 (0.20) 0.38 (0.15)
TOTAL: 0.38 (0.15) 0.93 (0.38) 0.85 (0.34)
Permanent impacts to plant communities resulting from bridge replacements are generally
restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridges and roadway approach segments.
Very little area of natural plant community is anticipated to be impacted by the proposed
project.
The total right-of-way area for Alternative A is approximately one-half that of Alternatives B
and C, and much of the proposed right-of-way is currently bounded by maintained roadside,
utility lines, a sewer line, and hay fields. Therefore, Alternative A, will mostly impact
roadside/disturbed land (88 percent), and only narrow strips of adjacent natural communities.
Alternatives B and C, positioned west (downstream) of the facility, will result in a greater
loss of natural community area than will Alternative A, potentially impacting roughly equal
amounts of roadside/disturbed land and Piedmont bottomland forest.
From an ecological perspective, impacts of upgrading existing road facilities are minimal.
No new fragmentation of plant communities will be created, as the project will result only in
alteration of community boundaries. Roadside-forest edges typically serve as vectors for
invasive species encroachment into adjacent natural communities. An example of an
undesirable invasive species utilizing roadsides is kudzu (Pueraria lobata). The
establishment of a hardy groundcover on road shoulders as soon as practicable will limit the
availability of construction areas to invasive and undesirable plants.
Implementation of Alternatives B and C, resulting in a new alignment, will allow for removal
of fill and bridge structures associated with the existing facility. These areas will be restored
through planting with native vegetation.
3. Wildlife
a. Terrestrial
Signs of only one mammal, racoon (Procyon lotor), were observed within the study corridor.
Other mammal species expected to occur within the study corridor are white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), .muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), meadow vole (Microtus
.pennsylvanicus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), short-tailed shrew (Blaring
brevicauda), and little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus).
Birds observed within or adjacent to the corridor were green heron (Butorides striatus),
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), red-tailed hawk
9

(Buteo jamaicensis), American robin (Turdus migratorius), common yellowthroat
(Geothlypis trichas), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), northern cazdinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and bluejay (Cyanocitta
cristata). Additional avian species expected to occur within roadside/disturbed habitat of the
study corridor are eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis),
brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), and indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea). Avian
species expected to occur within bottomland forest habitat of the study corridor are red-eyed
vireo (Vireo olivaceous), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), northern parula (Parula
americans); Baltimore oriole (Icterus galbula), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens),
and bared owl (Strix varia).
There were two observations of terrestrial reptiles, rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus)
and black racer (Coluber constrictor), but no terrestrial amphibians within the study corridor.
Other herptile species expected to occur in ten estrial areas of the study corridor are eastern
box turtle (Terrapene Carolina), eastern fence lizazd (Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), brown
snake (Storeria dekayi), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), copperhead (Agkistrodon
contortrix), and American toad (Bufo americanus).
b. Aquatic
Limited surveys resulted in documentation of two amphibian species: the bullfrog (Rana
catesbeiana) and gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor). No aquatic reptile species were observed
within the study corridor. Sycamore Creek does, however, provide suitable habitat for the
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), queen snake
(Regina septemvittata), eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), northern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), two-lined salamander (Eurycea cirrigera), green frog
(Rana clamitans), southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), and pickerel frog (Rana
palustris).
No sampling was undertaken in Sycamore Creek to determine fishery potential. Visual
surveys of Sycamore Creek revealed presence of fish, crayfish, and aquatic snails. Fish
species which may be present in Sycamore Creek are rosefin shiner (Notropis ardens),
rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), tessellated
darter (Etheostoma olmstedi~, northern hog sucker (Hypentelium nigricans), and mazgined
madtom (Noturus insignis).
c. Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacements will not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal
populations. No significant habitat fragmentation is expected since most improvements will
be restricted to existing roadside margins. Construction noise and associated disturbances
will have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife movement patterns,
although long-term impacts aze expected to be negligible. Potential down-stream impacts to
aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging the systems to maintain regular flow and stream
10

t
integrity. Short-term impacts associated with turbidity and suspended sediments will affect
benthic populations.- Temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment
during construction will be minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control
measures.
E. SPECIAL TOPICS
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Sycamore Creek are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33
CFR section 328.3). Field investigations indicate that Sycamore Creek is primarily abank-
to-bank perennial stream (riverine) system with scattered adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands adjacent to Sycamore Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR section 328.3).
These azeas are defined by the presence of three primazy criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or neaz the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of
the growing season (DOA 1987). NWI mapping indicates that azeas adjacent to Sycamore
Creek exhibit chazacteristics of a palustrine, broad-leaved, deciduous forest system that is
temporarily flooded (PFOIA) (Cowazdin et al. 1979). Field investigations indicate wetlands
occur in the Sycamore Creek floodplain east (upstream) of the bridge and within the 300-foot
(91-meter) study corridor. No jurisdictional wetlands occur west (downstream) of the bridge.
The potentially affected areas (acres) and lengths (feet) of jurisdictional stream and riparian
buffer, and areas (acres) of jurisdictional wetlands located within the alternative 60-foot
(18.2-meter) right-of--ways are shown as follows:
JURISDICTIONAL AND BUFFER AREAS
Jurisdictional Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
Stream Area acres (hectares) 0.01 (0.004) 0.02 (0.008) 0.03 (0.012)
Stream Linear Distance feet (meters) 50 (15.2) 55 (16.8) 60 (18.3)
Wetland Area acres (hectazes) 0.01(0.004) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)
Riparian Buffer Area acres (hectares) 0.22 (0.09) 0.23 (0.09) 0.24 (0.10)
Riparian Buffer Lineaz Distance feet (meters) 65 (19.8) 88 (26.8) 100 (30.5)
All alternatives call for replacement of the existing bridge over Sycamore Creek with
concrete box culverts. Therefore, the proposed activity will result in permanent impacts to
the stream area and length stated in the previous table.
The following jurisdictional wetlands occur at the base of outer floodplain slopes on both
sides of Sycamore Creek, immediately east (upstream) of the existing bridge: 1) a narrow
11

wetland seep draining a larger floodplain wetland located outside of the study corridor, and
2) a narrow spring-fed seep on the outer floodplain slope. These wetlands satisfy the three-
parameter approach outlined by the COE (DOA 1987; see attached Routine Wetland
Determination data forms). Wetland vegetation is dominated by bishop-weed, smartweed,
meadow beauty, spike rush, rushes, and sedges. These plants are growing on Chewacla soils
which exhibit values, chromas, and mottles characteristic of hydric soils. Evidence of
wetland hydrology includes surface drainage patterns, oxidized root channels, and water-
stained leaves. Both wetlands aze in the Alternative A study corridor, on roadside/disturbed
land, and have a combined area coverage of approximately 0.01 acre (0.004 hectazes) within
the Alternative Aright-of-way. No wetlands occur within the Alternative Band Cright-of-
ways.
2. Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 (61 FR 65874, 65916;
December 13, 1996) has been issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for CEs due
to expected minimal impact. DWQ has issued a Genera1401 Water Quality Certification for
NWP #23. However, use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that
NWP #23 will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach
improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the
Wilmington COE District. Notification to the Wilmington COE office is required if this
general permit is utilized.
3. Riparian Buffer Protection Rules for the Neuse River Basin
The Neuse River Basin Rule applies to 50-foot (15.2-meter) wide riparian buffers directly
adjacent to surface waters in the Neuse River Basin. This rule does not apply to portions of
the riparian buffer where a use is existing and ongoing. Any change in land use within the
riparian buffer is characterized as an impact. The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers (15 A NCAC 2B .0233)
provides a designation for uses that cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Neuse Basin.
Expected activities involved with project development include a roadway crossing for
Alternatives B and C, and bridge replacement for all three Alternatives. Both of these uses
are designated Allowable within the riparian buffer, assuming project impacts are below 150
lineaz feet (45.7 lineaz meters) of buffer (measured parallel to the stream) and/or 0.33 acre
(0.13 hectare). The Allowable designation means that the intended uses may proceed within
the riparian buffer provided that there are no practical Alternatives, and that written
authorization from the Division of Water Quality is obtained prior to project development.
The size of riparian buffer located within the proposed right-of--ways is within Allowable
thresholds. For Alternative A, approximately 80 percent of the buffer azea occurs in
roadside/disturbed land areas, and 20 percent in bottomland forest areas. For Alternatives B
and C, approximately 25 percent of the buffer area occurs in roadside/disturbed land azeas,
and 75 percent in bottomland forest areas.
12

4. Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of project
impacts. However, utilization of •BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts.
Temporary impacts to floodplains associated with the construction activities could be
mitigated by replanting disturbed areas. with native wetland species and removing of
temporary fill material upon project completion. Fill or alteration of azea streams may
require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15 NCAC 2H .0506(h). A final
determination regarding mitigation rests with the COE.
F. Protected Species
1. Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, Threatened due to
Similarity of Appeazance, or officially Proposed for such listing, are protected under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term
"Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range", and the term "Threatened species" is defined as "any
species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term "Threatened
due to Similarity of Appearance" is defined as a species, which is not "Endangered", or
"Threatened", but "closely resembles an Endangered or Threatened species" (16 U.S.C.
1532). Species that are Threatened or Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance aze not
subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is not required.
The following federal-protected species aze recorded for Durham and Wake Counties
(February 26, 2001, updated via the Internet, Mazch 22, 2001, USFWS list):
Common Name Scientific Name County of Record Status
Red-cockaded
wood cker
Picoides borealis
Wake
Endangered
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Durham, Wake Threatened
Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Wake Endangered
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Durham Endangered
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Durham, Wake Endangered
Red-cockaded Woodpecker -This small woodpecker seven to 8.5 inches (17.7 to 21.6
centimeters) long has a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-white barred
back. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be
absent or difficult to see (Potter et al. 1980). Primary habitat consists of mature to over-
mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda), long-leaf (P. palustris),
slash (P. elliotii), and pond (P. serotina) pines (Thompson and Baker 1971). Nest cavities
13

are constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally older than 70 years, which have
been infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, which are
referred to as colonies (USFWS 1985). The woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the
cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup azound the entrance that allows for
easy detection of active nest trees. Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas, which have
been maintained by frequent natural fires, serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this
woodpecker. Development of a thick understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees.
Site plant conununities are 1) roadside/disturbed, and 2) Piedmont bottomland forest
dominated by 50-60 year old hazdwoods. Neither of these plant communities support red-
cockaded woodpecker nesting or foraging behavior. Furthermore, forested areas contain a
dense understory. Suitable nesting habitat does not occur within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of
the study corridor, and NHP records do not document the occurrence of red-cockaded
woodpeckers in the vicinity of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The study corridor contains no suitable habitat for
red-cockaded woodpecker foraging and nesting. There is no nesting habitat within one
mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor, and NHP records have no documentation of
red-cockaded woodpeckers in the vicinity of the study corridor. Based on a NHP record
search and surveys conducted during field investigations, this project will not affect red-
cockaded woodpecker. NO EFFECT
Bald Eagle -The bald eagle is a lazge raptor with a wingspan greater than six feet (1.8
meters). Adult bald eagles are dark brown with a white head and tail. Immature eagles are
brown with whitish mottling on the tail, belly, and wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed
on fish but may also take birds and small mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season extends
from December through May (Potter et al. 1980). Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living
trees in a conspicuous location near open water. Eagles forage over lazge bodies of water
and utilize adjacent trees for perching (Hamel 1992). Disturbance activities within a primary
zone extending 750 to 1500 feet (228.6 to 457.2 meters) from a nest tree are considered to
result in unacceptable conditions for eagles (USFWS 1987). The USFWS recommends
avoiding disturbance activities, including construction and tree-cutting within this primary
zone. Within a secondary zone, extending from the primary zone boundary out to a distance
of 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) from a nest tree, construction and land-clearing activities should
be restricted to the non-nesting period. The USFWS also recommends avoiding alteration of
natural shorelines where bald eagles forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing activities
within 1500 feet (457.2 meters) of known roosting sites.
Site plant communities are 1) roadside/disturbed, and 2) riparian hardwood forest dominated
by 50-60 year old hardwoods; no lazge, open water bodies exist within the study corridor.
Suitable nesting habitat does not occur in the vicinity of the study corridor, and NHP records
do not document the occurrence of bald eagles within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study
corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The study corridor contains no suitable habitat for
bald eagle foraging and nesting. There is no nesting habitat within one mile (1.6
14

s

kilometers) of the study corridor, and NHP records have no documentation of bald eagle
within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor. Based on a NHP record search
and surveys conducted during field investigations, this project will not affect bald eagle.
NO EFFECT
Dwarf Wedge Mussel -The dwarf wedge mussel is relatively small, averaging one to 1.5
inches (2.5 to 3.8 centimeters) long. The shells are olive-green to dazk brown in color and
aze sub-rhomboidally shaped. The shells of females aze swollen posteriorly, while males aze
generally flattened (TSCFTM 1990). The preferred habitats are streams with moderate flow
velocities and bottoms vazying in texture from gravel and coarse sand to mud, especially just
downstream of debris and on banks of accreting sediment. This species was previously
known only from a few, disjunct populations in the Neuse River basin (Johnston Co.) and
Taz River basin (Granville Co.). Statewide surveys conducted since 1992 have expanded this
species' range in North Carolina. This species is now known from the Neuse River Basin in
Orange, Wake, Johnston, and Nash Counties, and from Tar River Basin in Granville, Vance,
Warren, Franklin, Halifax, and Nash Counties.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Stream habitat within -the study corridor is
characterized by moderate flow over a sand/graveUmud substrate. Sycamore Creek south
of the subject bridge has well-established riffle-pool structure with occasional sand-mud
bars. Sycamore Creek also has a biological rating of Good-Fair; however, NHP files
have no documentation of this species within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study
corridor, and signs indicating the presence of freshwater mussels (i.e. shell fragments)
were not observed. However, mussel surveys were conducted on September 21, 2000 at
the bridge site for a distance of 300 feet (91 meters) upstream and downstream. The
dwarf wedge mussel was not found. (See Memo from NCDOT Environmental Specialist
dated August 24, 2001.)
NO EFFECT
Smooth coneflower -This species is a stiffly erect, rarely branched perennial that grows up
to five feet (1.5 meters) tall. Basal and stem leaves are large, glabrous, lanceolate to
narrowly ovate blades reaching three inches (7.6 centimeters) in length. This coneflower
blooms from late May to July, producing solitary, heads of small purplish disk flowers with
long drooping pink to purplish ray flowers (Kral 1983). This species occurs on calcareous,
basic, or circumneutral soils on roadsides, clear-cut, or power line right-of--ways where there
is abundant light and little herbaceous competition (Gaddy 1991). Fire-maintained
woodlands also appeaz to provide potential habitat for the coneflower.
The study corridor supports azeas of eazly successional roadsideJdisturbed land suitable for
smooth coneflower. Therefore, the site was revisited on September 6, 2000 to conduct
surveys for this species during the fruiting period. All roadsides, fields, meadows, and
woodland edges within the study corridor were surveyed for distances 500 feet (152.4
meters) north and 650 feet (198.1 meters) south of the bridge. In addition, a sewerline
corridor (traversing Sycamore Creek) was surveyed for a distance of 800 feet (243.8 meters)
to the southwest of the bridge. The search resulted in no observations of smooth coneflower
within the study corridor.
15

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Smooth coneflower occurs in cleared areas with
abundant light and little competition from herbaceous vegetation. Portions of this project
occur in azeas, which contain roadside/disturbed and eazly-successional vegetation along
road shoulders, a sewer line corridor, and hay fields. However, NHP files have no
documentation of this species within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor, and
the species was not identified during a plant survey conducted on September 6, 2000.
NO EFFECT
Michaux's sumac - Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous shrub,
usually less than two feet (0.6 meters) high. The alternate, compound leaves consist of nine
to 13 hairy, round-based, toothed leaflets borne on a hairy rachis that may be slightly winged
(Radford et al. 1968). Small male and female flowers are produced during June on separate
plants; female flowers are produced on terminal, erect clusters followed by small, hairy, red
fruits (drupes) in August and September. Michaux's sumac tends to grow in disturbed areas
where competition is reduced by periodic fire or other disturbances, and may grow along
roadside margins or utility right-of-ways. In the Piedmont, Michaux's sumac appears to
prefer clay soil derived from mafic rocks or sandy soil derived from granite; in the Sandhills,
it prefers loamy swales (Weakley 1993). Michaux's sumac ranges from south Virginia
through Georgia in the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont.
The study corridor supports azeas of early successional roadside/disturbed land suitable for
Michaux's sumac. Therefore, the site was revisited on September 6, 2000 to conduct surveys
for this species during the fruiting period. All roadsides, fields, meadows, and woodland
edges within the study corridor were surveyed for distances 500 feet (152.4 meters) north and
650 feet (198.1 meters) south of the bridge. In addition, a sewerline corridor (traversing
Sycamore Creek) was surveyed for a distance of 800 feet (243.8 meters) to the southwest of
the bridge. The search resulted in no observations of Michaux's sumac within the study
corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Portions of this study occur in areas, which support
roadside/disturbed and early-successional vegetation along road shoulders, hay fields,
and a sewer line corridor. However, NHP files have no documentation of this species
within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor, and the species was not identified
during a plant survey conducted on September 6, 2000. NO EFFECT
16

K s
Federal Species of Concern -The Februazy 26, 2001 USFWS list (updated via the Internet,
March 22, 2001) also includes a category of species designated as "Federal species of
concern" (FSC) for Durham and Wake Counties:

COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME COUNTY OF POTENTIAL STATE
STATUS
RECORD HABITAT
Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius Wake* yes SC
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis Wake* no SC
Southern hognose Heterodon simus Wake no SR (PSC)
Carolina darter Etheostoma Collis
le idinionisis Durham, Wake yes SC
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus Durham, Wake yes SR
Diana fritillary Speyeria diana Wake* yes SR
Septima's clubtail
dragonfly
Gomphus seprima
Durham*
no
SR
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Durham, Wake no T (PE)
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa Durham no T (PE)
Green floater Lasmigona subviridus Durham, Wake no E
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata Wake no T (PE)
Panhandle pebblesnail Somatogyrus virginicus W~~' no SR

Tall lazkspur Delphinium exaltatum Durham no E-SC
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var. Wake* no E
usillum
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata ~~' no C

Butternut Juglans cinerea Durham* no WS
A liverwort Plagiochila Columbiana Durham* no W2
*Counties with historic populations not seen in the past 20 years
**Based on listings by Amoroso (1999) and LeGrand and Hall (1999): E =Endangered; T =
threatened; SC =Special concern; SR =Significantly rare; C =Candidate; P =Species has
been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern; WS =
NC Plant Watch List rare because of severe decline; W2 =Rare, but taxonomically
questionable .
17

The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed.
NHP files have no documentation of listed FSC species within the study corridor or within
one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
2. State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Cazolina state list as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Special Concern (SC), Candidate (C), Significantly Raze (SR), or Proposed
(P) (Amoroso 1999, I,eGrand and Hall 1999) receive limited protection under the North
Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant
Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.). NHP records indicate that no terrestrial or
aquatic State-listed species have been documented within one mile of the study corridor.
VI. Cultural Resources
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, and with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires
that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties listed
in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on Mazch 1, 2000. All
structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by the North Cazolina State
Historic Preservation Office (HPO). In a concurrence form dated May 18, 2000 the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred that there aze no historic
architectural resources either listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places within the APE. A copy of the concurrence form is included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in a memorandum dated
June 28, 2000 stated, "We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no
properties of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as currently proposed." A
copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix.
VII. Environmental Effects
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
t
18

The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of
significant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will
be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to
determine whether 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 aze 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 fazmland soils are defined by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Since there are no prime or important farmlands in
the immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge the Fazmland Protection Policy does not apply.
The project is located in Wake County, which is within the Raleigh-Durham nonattainment
area for ozone (03) and carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these azeas as "moderate" nonattainment azea for 03
and CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as
"maintenance" for 03 on June 17, 1994, and "maintenance" for CO on September 18, 1995,
Section 176(c) of the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current
SIP does not contain any transportation control measures for Wake County. The Capital
Area 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the 2000-2006 Metropolitan
Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) has been determined to conform to the intent
of the SIP. The USDOT air conformity approval of the LRTP was August 20, 1999 and the
USDOT air quality conformity approval for the MTIP was October 1, 1999. The current
conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts
S 1 and 93. There have been no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope,
as used in the conformity analyses.
19

}
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project azea. The project's impact on noise and air
quality will not be significant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is
disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws
and regulations of the North Carolina S1P for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise
(23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are
required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no hazazdous
waste sites in the project azea
Wake County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The project
site on Sycamore Creek is not included in a detailed Federal Emergency Management
Agency (F.E.M.A.) flood study; however the approximate limits of the 100-year flood plain
in the vicinity of the project is shown on the F.E.M.A. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Figure 3.
The project site is located in a Zone A, Approximate F.E.M.A. flood study.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. Public Involvement
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve
them in the project development with scoping letters. A newsletter was also mailed to local
residents explaining the planning process and the selected Alternative.
20

» r
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
The following comments were received during the scoping process:
City of Raleigh:
Comment: "...request that the bridge be designed to allow for future widening and pedestrian
accommodation ".
Response: In order to accommodate the Capital Area Thoroughfare Plan and the Raleigh
Comprehensive Plan the proposed culvert will be constructed in a manner that will allow for future
widening.
City of Durham:
Comment: "Include bike lanes in the proposed cross section. "
Response: This section of SR 1839 (Leesville Road) is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it
listed in the TIP as needing incidental bicycle accommodations.
21

~R Y
i
~ 900
906 0~ ,
~
e r@ 903 ~. ~ ~
e
S ~ /
Lijl
A Car enter d
n
;
ndrews ~
~~ Ch
l 1901
' °
~
cpe
, ~
~ d 1981
~
I a
' ~

~, 1907 o~
,' 1905 ,° ~
, ~
tea, ~ ~
O
~ ~ ~
~r ~,
Andrews
~ - 3 5 2 g 906
`~~_ '; Cem. crews I
`~''
P~
'
,.
-~.
;
/ 2069
Y ~`~.L, D,rh ~ 2070 ~ 3265

,I
W~~ -~
`I ale `~
~
o
G 1981
o
t-~. Leesville R
424
~ ) -~ ~ d.
1839
~
,e .
__ ----•
~
3067 ~~
~ C I
~
r ~ ~m
3027 ~
,-
'
o
31 0
Y
,~
S ~ ~ ~
~ ~
OD U~ 't
v
~i a i
o ~
f ;

v ~,
Cates Rd. ~ qLa c ~
F I'
082

4213
1784 ~ 3102 ~¢i
3083
r
~ ~
----

t
~
`~--~ ' es*9ate ,--

~--~ ~
"
3099 02 1837
~ i , Rd
~ ~
°
~ ~, ~
~, - 1837
~
tis ,~a, _ _ ,,~
~ ---
~, ~t; =~ r
~ _
P' Q`~ ; iii;,
I,
~ _,' 645 i%
~'
AF rKl,'
t
~
,
"Y~
"'""'`
' ~'°~~ ~~
" ~ ;:. ~. LEGEND
'IW'a '' •A ' ~ E w...r. ,
F ~ f ~;.,,,
~-~-=~-STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
..m - ' ~ .. ~a1ei _
.,
~
rr~ ..
I
~~ . ~,,,,. ~.:
North Carolina Department Of
Tranaportat>,on
Project Ooveloprnent &
Environmental Anolya>s
WAKE COUNTY
BRIDGE N0. 429 ON SR 1839
OVER SYCAMORE CREEK
6-3528
0 k3lom~t~~a 0.8 ktlomrr4rs l.6
0 milraa 0S milts 1.0
FIGURE 1

FEMA Flood Map, March 3, 1992
Wake County Panel 120 of 810
And
FEMA Flood Map, February 2, 1996
Durham County Panel 195 of 280
Figure 3

• 11 ft. With Guardrail

10 ft
3.0 m .8 m

4:~
18 ft. 8ft. 12 ft.
5.4 m 2.4 m 3.6 m
4 ft. 1.2 m
FDPS
0.08 " O.OZ
6:1 - -
GRADE POINT -~
1
3.6 m
0~
8ft* 30 ft.
2.4 m 9 m
4 ft. 1.2 m
FDPS
0.08
~a~
VAR. 2:1 TO 6:l

TYPICAL APPROACH SECTION
(PROPOSED)
•• WHEN THESE DISTANCES INDICATE SLOPES OUTSIDE THE LIMITS 6:1
TO 2:1 THE DISTANCE BECOMES VARIABLE AND THE MAX. OR MIN.
SLOPE MAINTAINED
DESIGN DATA
(EXISTING) 2000 ADT = 7,960 LOS D DESIGN SPEED 50 MPH (80 KMH)
(CONST. YR.) 2002 ADT = 8,500 LOS D POSTED SPEED LIMIT 45 MPH (70 KMH)
(DESIGN YR.) 2025 ADT = 15,000 LOSE MAX. DEGREE OF CURVE 6 Degrees (Min Radius 250 m)
DUAL 2% MAX. GRADE 6%
TTST 1% MIN. DES. K FAC.: Ksag=90-110 Kcrest=110-160
METRIC: Ksag=252 Kcrest=32-49
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION :URBAN LOCAL
ON SITE DETOUR DESIGN DATA: DESIGN SPEED 40 MPH MAX. DEGREE 11°
i

APPENDIX

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, Nor[h Carolina 27636-726
h _~
O
June 30, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
. ~Ut •`~ 20?0
~•- ` t': `.fit i
Thank you for your June 2, 2000 request for information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of proposed bridge replacements in Wake and
Durham Counties, North Carolina. This report provides scoping information and is provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies
for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the following
bridge structures:
1. B-3375 Bridge No. 301 over Swift Creek and Bridge No 471 over Lake Wheeler Spillway
on SR 1375 (Lake Wheeler Road), Wake County;
2. B-3450 Bridge No. 217 over New Hope Creek and Bridge No. 122 over Sandy Creek on
SR 1116 (Garrett Road), Durham County;
3. B-3451 Bridge No. 119 over Prong of Mud Creek on SR 1306 (Lemur Lane), Durham
County;
4. B-3522 Bridge No. 215 over Buffalo Creek on SR 1007 (Poole Road), Wake County; and,
5. B-3528 Bridge No. 429 over Sycamore Creek on SR 1839 (Leesville Road), Wake and
Durham Counties.

The following recommendations are provided~to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project:

._
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and
wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced
through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Lake Wheeler, Knightdale, Southeast
Durham, and Southwest Durham 7.5 Minute Quadrangles show wetland resources in the specific
work areas. However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area,
they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel
using an acceptable wetland classification methodology. Therefore, in addition to the above
guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this project include the
following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action.
1. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset. ~ ~ .
The enclosed lists identify the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Durham and Wake Counties. The Service
recommends that habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the available
habitats at the respective project sites. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the
project, biological surveys for the listed species should be performed. Environmental
documentation that includes survey methodologies, results, and NCDOT's recommendations
based on those results, should be provided to this office for review and comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we encourage the NCDOT to be.

alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if found.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on species
under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on these projects. Please continue to advise
us during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of these projects. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact
Tom McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sin rely,
~- / I ~
~d~
r. Garland ardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
NCDNR, Northside, NC (David Cox)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas Graf)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:06/28/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\bdgswake.dur

~ ~' ~
~ - ~
COivI`ION NAIbIE SCIENTIFIC NA1tiIE STATUS
DAME COUNTY
Vascular Plants
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC*
Michaur's sumac Rhus lnichauxii Endangered
DUPLIN COUNTY
Vertebrates
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)*
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus ~ FSC*
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Invertebrates
Croatan crayfish Procambarus plumimans~s FSC
Vascular Plants
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula FSC
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata FSC
DURHAIYI COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephah~s Threatened
Invertebrates
Atlantic pigtoe Fi~sconaia masoni FSC
Septima's clubtail dragonfly Gomphus septima FSC
Yellow lampmussei Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Green floater Lasmigona subviridus FSC
Panhandle pebblesnail Somotogyrus virginicus FSC
Vascular Plants
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Nonvascular Plants
A liverwort Plagiochila Columbiana FSC
/nnvnnr ! S 1000 D....e l7 ,.lAO

r
COi1•ItiION NAlY1E SCIENTIFIC NAiVIE STATUS
WAKE COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
Bald eagle ~ Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC*
Southeastern myotis tLfyotis austroriparius FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata FSC
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Green floater Lasmigona subviridus FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria Jana FSC*
Vascular Plants
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusilkrm FSC
WARREN COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata FSC
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Vascular Plants
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Red wolf Canis rujus EXP
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesgrtii FSC
Waccamaw killifish Fundulus waccamawensis FSC
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
January !S. 1999 Page 4S oj49

,_
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOIL&WATER
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
COHSE
~ DIVISION OF' SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
~o~~~~
~~~~~~
JAMES E3. riUNT JR. ~~
GOVERNOR MEMORANDUM: July'6, 2000: .-
TO: Melba McGee
- r ~~~L
$ILL HOLMAN FROM: David Harrison ~'~ ~'l- t;'r" ~ ~ .
SECRETARY //
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects B-3375, B-3450, B-3451,
B-3522 and B-3528.
owvlo s. vocEL ;:
.`o1REaTCR - The detour routes included in the bridge replacement plans should
- eliminate any farmland impacts.
- ~ ~ - If additional land is needed beyond the existing right-of--way the
_ environmental assessment should include information on adverse impacts to
. Prime or Statewide Important Farmland. The definition of Prime or Statewide
' Important Farmland is based on the soil series and not on its current land use.
- _ Areas that are developed or are within municipal boundaries are exempt from
- consideration as Prinie or Important Farmland.
For additional information, contact the soils specialists with the Natural
~. _ Resources Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh, NC at [phone].
- ~ Cc: Stacy Hams
.r
` ;"
1614 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGM~ NORTH CAROLINA 27689-1 6 1 8
PHONE [phone] FAX 919-7 / 5-3559.

•.\ ~, •.
.. surF„
.~,, :...
Z~''s
< ~`..
~ ~,. ~-
. sr '

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
June 28, 2000
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
NCDOT
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Re: Replacement ofBridge No. 429 over Sycamore Creek on SR 1839 (Leesville Road),
B-3528, Wake and Durham Counties, ER 00-10114
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letter of June 2, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural, historic, or
archaeological significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment
on the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified
at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
~.~' ~:= fem. - 5
~~David Brook
Deputy State I~istoric Preservation Officer
.<OAi1NISTRATIUN
ARCHAEULUGY
Rt: crna ertn~
Location
307 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC
421 N. Blount St.. Ralaigh NC
S I i N Rlnunt Cr Ral.•~o6 Nf
~lriling Address
3617 Mai! Sen•ice Center
3619 Mail Service Canter.
1hl ; Nail Scrvicr C•.•nrrr
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
Raleigh NC 27699-3619
Ralri¢h Nt 27h99-3h1~
Telephone/Fa>c
[phone] 733-3653
[phone] 71~-2671
r9191 Z~~.A;37 715-3801

r ~
~!~ .~
C O NCL'R.RE:YCE FO R.tii
FOR
PROPERTIES YOT ELIGIBLE FOR T3E ~aTIO~raI. REGISTER OF ffiSTORIC PLaCFwS
lrief projec: Jes~i
aq 6N ~l~ (g3°I__OVE+2 ~Ycf+
hz 1 ~ M AK aDOC~ , represearatives of the
/ ~ North Carolina Depanment of Transporrddon (NCDOT)
Federal I~hway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Pttsavadoa Office (SHPO)
Other
:viewed the subject project a•
A ~P~ means
Historic architet~ral resources photograph review sessioni cortsuitation
Other
-ll parties present agite~
there are no properties over fifry years old within the project's area of potential effe`:.
:. there are tm properties Less than fifty years oId which are considered to meet Critcrior.
Consideration G cvlthin the project's area of potential ene ::.
/ there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the pmject's area of potential effc:;,
but based on the historical information available and the photosraphs of each property, properties
identified as ~ 1.. CA-~ - So RRE LL F~hRN~ are
considered not eligible rot cne ~'ational lZe;aster ana no runner evaluation of them is necessar. .
/ there are no vacotlal Resister-tasted properties within the project's area of potential effect.
i;:~ed:
g moo
:epr..sent~dve, YCDOT Dace
~iw:~, rot the Division ~daiaistl-ator, or offier ederal a;eZC i Date
~'
~;
~ % /'~ ,~-lam/- ` ~~' Zvdi'
rep eacacive, SKPO / " Dace

V ~ ~~ L./f
J;~OYt3i
August 11, 2000
Stacy Harris, PE
NCDOT Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Ce_*~ter
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
~~ al~ib~~t
`~2; Oli;Zw
Subject: Request for comments for B-3375 and B-3528
Dear Ms. Harris_
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on TII' Bridge Replacement
Projects B-3375 and B-3528.
B-3375, which will replace Bridge No. 301 and Bridge No. 471 on Lake Wheeler
Road, is outside of the City of Raleigh's current planning jurisdiction. However, these
projects aze extremely relevant to the City as Lake Wheeler is one of the City's water
supply reservoir. These two bridges lie at the base of the Lake Wheeler .dam and
spillway, and the need to ensure the structural integrity of this dam during the
demolition and construction process is pazamount You may wish to refer to the
Phase II Evaluation of the Lake Wheeler Dam available from our Public Utilities
Department You may also wish to obtain a copy of the Lake Wheeler Park Master Plan
from our Pazks and Recreation Department Additionally, Lake Wheeler Road is
classified as a major. thoroughfaze in the Capital Area MPO Thoroughfaze Plan and in
the Raleigh Comprehensive Plan. City standards indicate Lake Wheeler Road should
provide a 65-foot back-to-back curb and gutter section on 90 feet of right-of-way with
5-foot sidewalks along both sides. While this project may not provide the ultimate
future cross-section of Leesville Road, we request that the bridge be designed to allow
for future widening and pedestrian accommodation
B-3528, which will replace Bridge 429 carrying Leesville Road over Sycamore
Creek, is in a rapidly growing azea of the City. This portion of Leesville Road is
classified as a aunor Toroughfaze in the Capital Area Thoroughfare Plan and in the
Raleigh Comprehensive Plan. The City's development standards require Leesville Road
to provide a 53-foot back-to-back curb and gutter section on 80 feet of right-of-way with
5-foot sidewalks on both sides. While the immediate bridge replacement may not
provide the ultimate future cross-section of Leesville Road, we request that the bridge be
designed to allow for future widening and pedestrian accommodation.
OFFIC,GS •222 VVCST HAR~.3ET7 STREEI' • ~C3T OFD=tG'E 8uX 590 • RP.i_c'i~~::~ ryaRTH :;tR~~i i~d:, ~~c0

I
Ms. Stacey Harris, PE - B-3375 and B-3528 Comments
Page 2
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input on these projects. If we
can provide you with any assistance or if you need any additional information, please
contact Ed Johnson or Eric Lamb at 890-3430.
Sincerely,
.G.-.-
Dempsey E. Benton
City Manager
DEB/ejl
Cc Jimmie Beckom, PE -Transportation Director
Stewart Sykes, PE -City Engineer
George Chapman, AICP -Planning Director
Dale Crisp, PE -Public Utilities Director

,.
i~URHAM
1 8 6 9
CITY OF MEDICINE
July 11, 2000
Ms. Stacy Harris, P.E.
Project Development do Irnvironmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center -
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
SUBJECT: Comments for Bridge Replacement Projects B-3450, B-3451, and B-3528 in
Durham, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Harris:
,.
"I'ransport21t1011 D~vis~~;~~a
Dr}~artmcnt of Public 1\'r•il.. ,
101 City E~afl E'E.;:•.:
Ut:rh:un, Iv`orth Carolina r,+.~
Phone: (919) X60-fin:,
Fax: {919) i6ti_,~:; !
~~•wu~.ci.ilurhatr :. r..:..:.
In response to Mr. William Gilmore's letters of June 2, 2000 to Mayor Tennyson and P. Lamont Ewell,
.: City Manager, the City of Durham offers the following comments concerning the subject bridge
. - replacement projects. Please note that the Erwin Road (B-3451) and-the Leesville Road (B-3528) projects
are located outside the City limits. However, the proposed Erwin Road bridge detour route partially
occurs within the City limits.
Project Comments
. B-3459 L~ 3 Ysf7 1. The project design, scope, and schedule must be coordinated with projects
e No. 217 - U~009 (US IS-501 Service Road relocation) and U-401? (US 15-501
• -over New Hope widening project). Avoid coinciding the respective project detour routes
Creek and Bridge and schedules. -
No. 122 over
Sandy Creek on 2. The proposed bridge should provide afive-lane-curb and gutter cross
Garrett Road) section, with wide outside lanes for bicycles, consistent with U-4009.
•• _1
3. Provide sidewalks for the extent of the curb and gutter section of the project
limits, and/or extend to match proposed sidewalk construction requested as
by the City as part of U-4009.
4. Due to existing traffic volumes on Garrett Road and severe congestion on
the proposed detour route, a detour bridge or staged construction of a multi-
lane swcture should be incorporated into the project scope. The proposed
detour route will adversely affect emergency vehicle response times, City
bus service, and area traffic congestion. A detour route is not acceptable to
the City. If NCDOT does not concur with this recommendation, please
advise the City Manager and plan to hold a public workshop and/or hearing
to advise the City Council and the public of the department's decision.
i-:,;,:+n~~ ;;ng - Storrs i~'lter -'t'ransixarr:~tic+n - W'atcr/S~uer'~dasntennnce - :i.rcct Alaimc:nance -Roadway ?;p}x:arance

~ i r
•. ~
_ Ms. Stacy Harris
' July 1 1, 20(10
Page 2 of 2
Proiect
'B-3459 3 ~v
B-3451
(Bridge No. 119
over Prong of Mud
Creek on NC 751)
B-328
Bridge No. 429
over Sycamore
~~ Creek on Leesville
Road
Comments
j. Consider alternative bridge design concepts for aesthetic enhancement.
1. Provide bike lanes in the proposed cross section.
2. The proposed detour schedule must not coincide with the detours of other
area NCDOT projects, including U-4009, U-4012, and B-3459.
3. The proposed detour route will increase congestion at Cornwallis Road and
US 15-501 ramp irtersectiors. P.ppropriate traffic control measures should
be studied and constructed as part of the project (such as traffic signals and
turn lanes at Cornwallis Road and US 15-501 ramps).
4. Consider alternative bridge design concepts for aesthetic enhancement.
I. Include bike lanes in the proposed cross section.
The City of Durham requests that these comments be included in the project record and addressed in the
respective project environmental documents and project designs. Please keep the City advised of each
projects' progress. If you need any additional information, please feel free to contact me at 560-4366.
The N. C. Department of Transportation's coordination with the City. of Durham is greatly appreciated.
Sincer ly,
H. Wes ey Pazh .E.
Senior Transp rtation Engineer
cc: Mayor Nicholas J. Tennyson
P. Lamont Ewell, City Manager
Mark D. Ahrendsen, Transportation Manager
Stuart Carson, P.E., Civil Engineer III

„ .,
DURHAM
Department of Public Works
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, North Carolina 27701
1 8 6 9
CITY OF MEDICINE
June 23, ?000
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Maii Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Attention: Stacy Hams, P.E.
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Re: Request for comments on NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects B-3450, B-3451 and B-3528
Dear Ms. Harris:
This response is from the City of Durham Public Works Deparanent, Engineering Division. Our primary
interests in these projects are potential conflicts with Ciry of Durham potable water and sanitary sewer
infrastructure. We have reviewed the locations of the projects and have not identified any Ciry potable
water or sanitary sewer facilities in the vicinity of Projects B-3451 and B X528.
Project B-3450 (replacement of Bridge No. 217 over New Hope Creek and Bridge No. 122 over Sandy
Creek on SR 1116 (Garrett Road) is in the vicinity of an existing 16" diameter ductile iron potable water
main (see attachments). According to Ciry plans, the main is located outside of the pavement oa the east
side of Garrett Road and deflects away from both bridges and crosses beneath the channel beds upstream of _ .
the bridges. You will need to field locate the water main to confirm its actual location. Additionally, there •-
is a 6" diameter sanitary sewer force main to the north of the project and a 42" diameter sanitary sewer
gravity outfall to the south of the project (see attachments). Both the force main and outfall appear to be
outside of the limits of impact by the project, but you will also need to field confirm their locations.
Please contact Don Greeley or me at [phone] if you have any questions.
Verv~uly ours.
TT`~.
\ Carson, P.E.
Civil Ensineer ili
Attachmenu
Cc: file

.:
R E L O C A T I O N R E P O R T
~~
~~
^X E.I.S. ~ CORRIDOR ~ DESIGN

North Carolina Departmer;t of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.2406801 couNTY Wake Alternate A of Alternate
LD. NO.: B-3528 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 429 on SR 1839 over Sycamore Creek at existing
-~~ `~~~- ~ =mix ~~~~
~~; .,~ :. .: ~~ ; location with a Reinforced Concrete Box Culbert (3 C 8' x 6'). During
construction, traffic will be maintained b an off-site detour.
ESTIMATED DtSPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-SOM
50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BUSIneSS2S 0 0 0 0 •VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For-R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-~a WA S also WA a2oM N/A s also WA
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M WA 1~-~ WA 20~t)a WA 15-250 WA
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 4a70M WA 250.400 WA 4a70M WA 250-400 WA
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 7a1ooM WA 4oa~soo WA ~aloow WA 4oasoo WA
2 . Will schools or churches be affect by 100 ua WA 600 ua WA 100 uP WA 600 uP WA
displacement? TOTAL WA WA WA °'• WA
3 . Will business services still be available after REMARK S ReS nd b N umber
project?
4 . Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, eta THIS IS A NEGATIVE REPORT.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
- families?
10 . Will public housing be needed for project?
11 . Is public housing available?
12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
-housing available during relocation period?
13 . Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list

` source).
15. Number months estimated to complete

q -off . ~ 2
Division RNV A ent, L. G. Scarborou h Date A roved b Date
Form 15.4 F{evi5ed 0?J95 d
Original 8~ 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office

• ~' '
FIB ,k-~i
Wetland Rating Woricsfieet
Project name ~ ~d ~ Nearest road ~! $-3q
County ~A ~ ~ ~//tii~• Name of Evacuator ~~1 C%wS/~~k D~ $ -ao- 00
Wetland location
_ on pond or Iake
on perennial stream
~on intermittent sutatn
_ within interstream divide
_ other
Soil Series
_ predominantly organic-humus,
much or peat
predominantly mineral- non-wady
_ predominantly sandy
Hydraulic- Factors
_ steep topography
_ ditched or cbanaeiized
/wetlaad width >/= 50 feet
Adjacent iatnd use (within UZ mile upstream)
forestedlnaniraI vegetation ~
agricttitu>:t, urbanlsuburban 5° °%
impervious stuface t 0
Dominant Vegetation
(~ ~x~~u~ ~s~ LUAh: ~.
C3) hi~',y~io~m6nr s~+.1/Aci iZ~icGt•
Flooding and Wetness
_ semipermaneatly to permanently flooded
or inundated
_/seasonally flooded or inundated
_ iniQmitteatiy $ooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding ~or surface water
Wetland Type {s ed one)
oaaatiaad hardwood forest _ pine savuma
..Headwater forest _ Fieshwata malt
_ Swamp forest _ g~~
_ Pocosin , ~Jttter
•The raaag system caaaot 6e applied to salt or btaclcish taatsha
water storage t * 4 _ ~.
Baak/Shorecine stabilisation ~_ * ~ 4 = `~ Total score
Pollutant removal * 5 = ~ s ~~-
Wildlife habitat * 2 = ~
Aquatic life value ~- * 4 = 8
RecreadonlEducation 2 * 1 =
Add 1 point if is seasiuve watershed aad > 10'/. nonpoiat disate tvithia IR mile upsasa:a
,~~~ .

~. i F ~ .
p~p . •
f
Fly s9-~
Wetland Rating Wori{sheet
Project name ~" 3~ ag Neatzsiroad S(~ ~~39
County wa-k~r" ay~~kaw~ Name of Evaluator ~`'~+) CuS~~ Daze S'.~a-oo~
Wetland location
_ on pond or lake
/on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
other
Soil Series
_ predominantly organic-humus,
muck. or peat
_/predominantly mineral- non-sandv
_ predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
_ steep topography
'l~flitched or channelized
_ wetland width >/= 50 feet
Adjacent land nse {within I/Z mfle upstream]
fotrstedJnaturai.vegetation 5`a
agricultur,c, urban/suburban ~~
impervious Surfar~ /0
Dominant Vegetation
(I~ ~ ~ ~ ni~j r9~.

Flooding and Wetness
_ semipetmaaentiy to permanently flooded
or intmdated
'!seasatlally flooded or intmdated
_ intetmittetuly flooded ar temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
y8oaomiattd hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
_ Headwater forest _ Ftzshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bog/fat
_ Wa fiat . Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosia. -Other
•'I~ rating system cannot be applied to salt or btadcish marshes
Water storage I_, * 4
Bank/Shotzline stabilization = * 4 ~ = 1 a
Pollutant trsaoval ~_ * S ~ ~'
Wildlife habitat ~ * Z = 2~
Aquatic life value a * 4 8'
RecreationlEducation ~_ * 1 = ~~
Total score
S'--
Add. l point if in sensitive watetshed and > l tl`/. ttonpoint disauhattee within IR mile upsnssm

s +

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phasel: /1~ an Ac ~ ~ <
C h c u)a % I c. S e,) S Drainage Class: J ~ m ~ ~.J ~o '~' ~oof j•,

Taxonomy (Subgroupl: ~~ a ya ~ u ~ v++;
:~ Field Observations ~
L i~. ~ ~ {'%~c_v+ ~ ~_7` Cortfum Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Deseriotion•
Depth Mattix Cdor Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
nches o ' on fMunsell Moist) 1Munsdl Moistl Abundance/Contrast Strut•ture. etc.

Hydrie Soo Indeators: '
_ Histoscl ~ _ Concretions
Histio Epipedon _ FGgh Organic Contertt. in Surface layer in Sandy SoOs
_ Sulfidie Odor _ Orgardc Sneaking in Sandy SoAs
_ Aerie Moisture Regime Listed on Loess Hydrie Sods List
educing Conditions _
Listed on National Hydrie Sons List
_~`alayed or Low-Chrome Colors ~sr (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: po 5~ ? b ~c r~I C ~;~~ s i .~"Y} ~ W l ~n a:"•i l: c.C S o i;
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytie Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (C;rele)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No '
Hydrie Sogs Presertt7 Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetiand7 Ye No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
S/93 ••

'^ . v
~ ~
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
~• ~~ t~ ~~
Project/Site: ~ -3 S Z g Du,rin a v,n 1 ~ kc Go Date: ~-~z/ ~o:~
~ ,
Applicant/Owner: ~' - r b a ~~ Ma~~ ::.: County: -~~, ~;, : ,.~
.Investigator: Y.<, L ~ State: .yC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~~lo Community ID: a < u c
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID: ~~_
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Ye o Plot ID: 3 c~-t-
(if needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Oaminarrt Plant Soeeies Stratum ndi or Dominant Plant Soeeies Stratum. Indeator
1. ~~a ~~, ~' 9.
--t
3. ~ ~L~ S _~ 11.
4. ~ ar c/Y ~A. ~ 12
5. {'^~vc mil? uM <,~• F•~ O / t3.
6.'1/.~~1on~a novc~,rac?S15i5 1~ ~ac. t 14.
7. ~:h.._xi ~ Sp ~, 15.
8. 16.
Pereem of Dominant Speeiea that are OBI. FACW or
FAC
di
FAC
~J~~
(exclu
•)
ng
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Oata (Dssen'ba in Remarks!: Wetland Hydrology Inductors:
-Stream. Lake or rde Gauge ~Y Indtcaton:
-Aerial Photographs _ktaatdated

Other ,~Saturatad in Upper 121nehss

No Recorded Data Avadabla Watsr Marks
G
eist Linos
Se~maret Deposits
vlfrainage Pattams• in. Wetlands
Fidd 06servatians: Saeon indicators (2 or more reguiredl:
' ~
h
D
f S
f
W
/
' Oxidized Roat Channels in Upper 121nches
ept
o
ur
ace
ater.
v _(
m.) ~yater.g~ned Leaves
,t
Depth to Free Water in Pit: /f~ !~
((n.) -Local Sod Surrey Oata
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Sod: r,~ pn,l _
-Other (Explain in Remarks!
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name r 6 ~ ~ `~ ~ ~'~'~ S
(Series and Phasel:l~/~A}?:Pa ~4i ~f4~'~n'o{~ Andy L..Ifa1M _ Dnbnage Class: (~'. n~n~:i'+~,,Iy WP {~
Taxono (Sub J~ f
my groupl: ~'fG1 iA ~ C ~~ O I L - Faid Observations
G ~ ~,t:l'f5 Confirm Mapped Type: Yes

profile Deseriotion•
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Cdors Matda Texture, Concretions,
hes on on (Munsell Moistl IMunsdl Moistl Abundance/Contrast Stnreture. etc.
¢_Z 1~ 10 ~ ~ San d
Z-12 ~ ~ ~ San.d 1 o¢cw~
Hydric Sort Indicators:
_ Histosoi _ Cancestiorrs•
_ Histie Epipedon _ High Orgartie Carrtent in Surfsea layer in Sandy Sals
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in,Sandy Sods
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Usted an Local Hydrie Sails Lisa
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Sails List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Ettplairr in Ratrrarksl
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytie Vegetation Present? •,Yes No (Cirdei (Cuclel
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Saris Present? Yes No !s this Sampling Paiert Within a Wetland? Yea
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2/92
HJL
.8/93 ~ ~ ~•

n v .~.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(198.7 COE Wetlands Delineation Manua!)
~. .. `11
ProjectlSite: ~ ~2 R ~1a rho ~~~.. r ~ ~•~~= '~ -Date: r' lZ 1 ! 0 O -
Applicant/Owner: ~,a fa~Q f~ '~•~ ,a 1 ~,,~ County: ~ ri, ~.
Investigator ~ S ~ State: ~'_
Do Norma! Circumstances exist on the site? ~o Community ID: ~3 ~-~-u f e
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Ye Transect ID: Ct3
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Y N Plat ID: ~ L1 P
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Soeeies aSir to Ind~eator Dominant Plant Soeciea a ndcator
1.~=~r';~~ wl Caoii~~-~oli,er~~: ~ N RCV ' 9.
2. Ku~.As s,~, 1= f~G to.
3. ~a m ~X s p, ---~-L- FAC t t.
a. ~S~ec~ezQ. 51r'o~'-~ I~ ~P~CU tz
5. ~a.~ rcera ~a oon ~rQ _~
-~---- FpiC- 13.
6. ~i;~aa~ulti~ Urvi1~2L ~I~ ~14G 14.
7. 1 b.
8- 16.
Pereem of Dominantt Spsaes that-ars DBL. FACW or
FAC T
d
di
FAC ^
~ ~
e:
u
ng
-) V
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Dasenbe in Remarks!: Wetland Hydrologyr Indicators:
-Stream. Lake ar Tida Gauge Primary Inductors:
Aerial Phattogrnphs _4rundated
ther ~ Saturated in Upper iZ Inches
~
R Water Marks
o
ecorded Data Available Drift Linos
_Sedimertt Deposits
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field 06servations: Secondary Indicators 12 ar more required):

Depth of Surface Water. ~
[in
) Oxidu:ed Root Channels in U er 12 Inches
Pp
_
, Water.Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: ~
pn,J -Local Sod Survey Data
_ _FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Sod: VGA _rn,l -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

a ,*
~' ~ e~
. ~+..
'>a..s'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTI~~NT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-ISOI LYNDD TIPPETI'
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 24, 2001
Memorandum To: Brian Yamamoto, P.E.
Unit Head, Consultant Unit
~4J
From:. Logan Williams, Environmental Specialist
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Subject: Protected species survey for dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon) for replacement of bridge no. 429 on SR 1839 over
Sycamore Creek, Wake County; B-3528.
Attention: Staci Harris, Project Planning and Environmental Analysis
Consultant Unit
' The following memo addresses the dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon),
a federally protected species listed by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service for~Wake
County. A mussel survey was conducted for the proposed bridge replacement on
September 21, 2000 by NCDOT biologists Logan Williams and Sue Brady.
P~tussel surveys were conducted at the bridge site and for a distance of
approximately 300 feet upstream and downstream using tactile methods and view
buckets. Water depth at the bridge site averaged azound 2 feet and visibility was fair.
There were no mussels found during approximately two man-hours of survey time. The
dwarf wedge mussel was not found.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Given the survey results it is apparent that dwarf wedge mussel does not occur in
the project footprint. Therefore, it can be concluded that project construction-will not
impact this species.
~ ~ ~ ~
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] SO